I have seen some plausible studies that have shown that through successive depletion of hormones in the womb after multiple male births, the successive male children, robbed of the same hormones as the first few become more likely to grow up homosexual. Is this the case? Possibly. But if it were at least a contributing factor then one could not say definitively that all homosexuality is nurture nor that all homosexuality is choice.
The Catholic Church could shed light on this. With generations of records on their priests, if the younger male children in largely male families become priests, that would be consistent with the vocation as sanctuary argument throughout western civilization. My hypothesis would be that there would be a preponderance of younger male children from large families who joined the priesthood. That would provide some anthropological evidence to support the new biological studies, perhaps going back centuries.
Your comments are crafted to fit your opinion. They are indeed well written but totally self serving. Even the exceptions you point out are only there to further support your foregone conclusion...not a hint of variance. Bravo on your commitment but honestly, it doesn't develop the discourse much. I mean really, what is “Natural Law”? Is it so different than “Divine Right”? Both are man made constructs who's very definitions are dreamed up to serve either Straight man or crown to the exclusion of others.
Those same founders that we ensconce in a pantheon of righteousness were vilified in their own time as going against the natural order and the divine right of kings. Did they somehow know more or were they obstinate traitors who happened to prevail? Are blacks 3/5 human or was that just the natural order of things during the first half of the 19th century.
These things you see as concrete may just be sands that slide away as you do, forgotten curious arguments lost to the history of the 21st century and as quaint as the idea of a large turtle holding up the globe.
All behaviors are not learned. We have ample evidence of that. Twins separated at birth who grow up thousands of miles apart come together after many years only to find that certain character traits are identical even though they have never been in each others conscious presence. We know this to have been documented. How can you present a table as argument when the legs which support it can be kicked out so easily? Suggested as theory I find totally acceptable but cast in stone as your words attempt, does a disservice to the truth. And if one truth is not served, how can we believe that others are justly represented through your prose?
Finally, and of course, is your Horatio Alger reference, the exception that virtue against insurmountable odds is always present in the heroic as if to say that all who do not surmount the insurmountable are either weak of discipline, mind or character. There is always that exception...”if you just tried harder, it's your own fault.”
In the end homosexuality is not vampirism. It does not get passed on exclusively through the bite of another homosexual in an abusive act as you would have us believe. Some homosexuals are from perfectly “normal” loving, two parent households, raised in propriety and civil decency, well educated, active in sports, the boy scouts, altar boys, military, business school etc etc. and yet still without a sliver of abuse, they find they are homosexual. Was this behavior learned? Are these people vile and debased? Or are they the younger sons in a large predominantly male family growing up in an age when becoming a priest is no longer the only place to hide?
We should at least open our eyes to the 1% or more possibility that alternate paths to the present do exist. Surely you can see that.
Can't believe you would ask such a question. Read St. Thomas Aquinas to understand the decades of intense thought that developed the principles of Natural Law which evolved through centuries.
Every aspect of Natural Law is based on reason. "Divine Rights" defy reason. Progressive, post-modern German thought reeks with distortion, atheism and moral relativism. Progressives have tried to undo all Classical thinking connected to Natural Law and God's Laws--the basis of our legal system.
Progressive, illogical thought is promoted by the Andrew Sullivans whose idea of philosophical thought probably took him less than a month of reflection. I find his thinking very shallow from what I've read and full of misinformation and lies and statistics that are as flawed as climategate.
I find the Pope's encyclicals on Love/Lust, Selfish vs. Selfless Love to be much more profound, well thought out, and a reflection on Truth and morality and all founded in Natural Law.
To think that man has no control over behavior means that there could be no moral code. It defies even having a civil society. Think of the Fall of Rome and all the orgies as to what happens when there is no sexual morality--incest, homosexuality, pederasty, polygamy, child sacrifice, adultery etc.
Homosexual behavior destroys the dignity of the human body and demeans women/men relationships. It separates men and women instead of uniting them. No equality existed in predominate homosexual societies and all appointments, advances in army, etc., was based on sexual favors. There is also physical destruction of the body by the unnatural acts also--that is another matter, but it is obvious proof that it can not be classified as natural.
Twin studies have proven homosexuality is not genetic or hormonal or whatever insipid logic tries to refute basic biology. It should not be possible to have identical twins be straight and homosexual which has been found in numerous studies. Science only needs one example, btw, to prove a theory false.
That some children suffer physical deformities is a fact, but it is abnormal. The problem comes when homosexuals try to say that behavior is equal to race, a civil right to sodomy (a costly, destructive, act to societies) or some such idiocy. Totally a lie and based on "feelings" and progressive thought.
Who was that married politician that just got caught soliciting a boy--who cried on national tv and said that he was molested at six by a 12 year old neighbor and since that time had this powerful unnatural desire for boys??? Just ONE example of learned behavior. It abounds.
What are the statistics of male homosexuality....over 70% are molested and even that is probably a low figure. Every culture (Greeks, Nazis, pre-WWII Japan, Afghans, tribes, etc.) who have endorsed and celebrated homosexuality have an initiation for boys into the lifestyle. That alone proves that it is learned and should make all civilized society reject all promotion of it.
Study Aristotle on the "habituation of virtues". His wisdom is obvious and habits are explained, and, yes, they are learned as is all behavior that is habituated. Sexuality has always had tremendous power over mankind, no denying that, and culture has always defined the preferred "object" of that desire. It is learned, but natural instinct can not be obliterated. It is so obvious that sex has been designed for procreation--natural law.
All behaviors and fetishes are caused by their external environment. (Unnatural environment that created Tango had left his "partner" for a female when one was available). The formative years--the first seven--determine the type of person you become. Things become intrinsic at around seven as does the age of reason. I'm not saying that all influence ends at 7, just that a lot of hard-wiring is in place.
Instincts do exist at birth but how we deal with them and all aspects of life are learned. Behaviors that are not reinforced in children, die. Taboos are either taught or not. Instincts do exist but how they deal with them is learned. Morality is learned. People can be defined to a culture by how they sound, customs, acts, etc....all learned.
All the collective experiences in the early years of a child will determine their worldview, their behavior, their ideas--only a major trauma will be able to jar that perspective--but then even that is learned. I have studied in depth serial killers. These people as young children were all severely abused by the adult/s caring for them.
When mothers do not mother, severe emotional problems do occur...children learn they are either worthy of love or not, it is as simple of that. They have high self esteem, or no self esteem, all determined by the behavior of their caretaker in the first few years of life. They learn to trust people, or not, or sometimes. They learn they are powerful or are useless. Damaged children can not be "reprogramed" as been proven by orphanage studies, and a myriad other. That is why, some inmates can never be reformed because they are hard wired--behaviors are habituated in formative years.
Children denied a loving father, will fixate on men--they have an emotional void that nature will require they fill. This may not result in homosexuality, although it could, and certainly determines or undermines relationships with males. Girls could end up marrying men looking for father figures. This has been proven.
Yes, homosexuality is passed on, not necessarily by another homosexual, I am not saying that. But if a child's first sexual experience is homosexual (and homosexuals abuse children at a 120 to 8 ratio ), than there is a greater chance for that male to be homosexual. Also, if they are confused about their sexual identity in the formative years, by parents that emasculate the boys, or promote and define them in feminine ways, or lacking a positive male role model or a loving maternal one, abnormality will occur. How could it not?
Parents, by the way, promote behaviors unintentionally all the time. They lack training in Child Development and have poor parenting techniques. Plus the lies put out by progressives that strangers are just as good as mothers for caring for an infant. Or that there is no difference between women and men caring for young.
Parenting techniques create defiant kids, loving kids, obedient kids, respectful kids, etc. It is never an accident to how a child acts or thinks, I guarantee it. You promote their thinking by how you treat them. When you allow others power over your children they help define who your children are and how they think. Are they depressive? Happy? Shy? It is all learned, taught or modeled.
http://www.freerepublic.com/^http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n4/brain
The above article basically proves that experience changes the architecture of the brain and habituation as Aristotle talked about, can be scientifically documented.