Posted on 06/28/2013 12:26:39 PM PDT by lbryce
Full Title: Born This Way? Scientists may have found a biological basis for homosexuality. That could be bad news for gay rights.
“Baby, you were born this way.” As soon as Lady Gaga sang these words on her smash hit "Born This Way," they became a rallying cry for gay people around the world, an anthem for sexual minorities facing discrimination. The shiny, catchy song carries an empowering (if simple) message: Don’t be ashamed about being gay, or bi, or trans, or anything—that’s just how you were born. Gaga later named her anti-bullying charity after the same truism, and two filmmakers borrowed it for their documentary exposing homophobia in Africa. A popular "Born This Way" blog encourages users to submit reflections on “their innate LGBTQ selves.” Need a quick, pithy riposte against anti-gay bigotry? Baby, we were born this way.
But were we? That’s the foundational question behind the gay rights movement—and its opponents. If gay people were truly born that way, the old canard of homosexuality as a “lifestyle choice” (or “sexual preference”) is immediately disproven. But if gay people weren’t born that way, if scientists were unable to find any biological basis for sexual orientation, then the Family Research Council crowd could claim vindication in its fight to label homosexuality unnatural, harmful, and against nature.
In recent years, scientists have proposed various speculative biological bases for homosexuality but never settled on an answer. As researchers draw closer to uncovering an explanation, however, a new question has arisen: What if in some cases sexuality is caused by an identifiable chemical process in the womb?SNIP
That is one implication of one of the most widely accepted hypotheses thus far proposed. And if it’s true, it could turn out to be a blow for the gay rights movement.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Correction: replace "gay gene" with "gay marker." My point is the same. People abort babies because they're the "wrong" gender, I can envision similar decisions being made by those who don't want a homosexual child.
Yes, so could I.
“There is no biological or birth basis, the root cause is found in Romans chapter 1,3.”
Glad we didn’t take this tack with respect to leprosy. Leprosy was also looked at as a disease brought upon by immorality.
The Bible is a Good Book, but it isn’t a science book.
Yes, and the fraternal effect could just be due to older brother showing off his self-abuse skill.
“it could turn out to be a blow for the gay rights movement”
mmmmBAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Ahem (snort)...sorry...
[[Would mothers be monitored to see if they doing whatever contributed to the causation, or would they be monitored to make sure they didn’t avoid it?]]
If mothers ‘steer’ their kids towards normal sexuality, they will be charged with a hate crime
Same sex attraction disorder. It’s a disorder, no matter how much lipstick is put on the pig. And can be treated and cured.
Now THAT is interesting.
Conservatives want homosexuals to enjoy the richness and fullness of life that can only be found in marriage to a person of the opposite sex. What do the Democrats want? Well, the first thing they did after this week’s Supreme Court decision was to send a letter to the homosexuals begging them for money. The Democrats are scared to death of having too many people on this planet. The homosexuals are the Democrats dream come true. They, the homosexuals, don’t have kids but have lots of money and they have a big chip on their shoulders and they die young. I don’t want homosexuals dying in hospitals. I want them to have a rich, full life in a marriage to a person of the opposite sex.
All civilized societies have taboos: Homosexuality, polygamy, incest, being some of the more prominent ones.
The majority of Americans share the belief that homosexual marriage should remain a taboo. That’s why the majority of Californians voted for Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage and the majority of Congressional representatives voted for the Defense of Marriage Act.
The Supreme Court’s decisions allowing same-sex marriage do not mean that America’s Judeo-Christian values are in decline; they mean that five of America’s Supreme Court justices have been able to deny the will of the people and turn the country into a totalitarian dictatorship.
The problem isn’t homosexuality, its possible causes and cures. All the homosexuals in America could not do as much damage to our country as Anthony Kennedy alone did this week.
A coworker asked me about my opinion on the matter just this week. We were talking about the SCOTUS decision, and picking up on my attitude about it, she asked “So, you think it’s a choice?”
To which I replied, “Of course it’s a choice. Nobody accidentally winds up with their **** in another man’s ***”
Amazing the “fear” of a righteous couple possibly aborting a child if it was found that the child was defective in a culture that champions aborting 50,000,000 children just because it is inconvenient to raise a child.
The evil bend over backwards to press standards on the righteous that they would not even THINK of following themselves. That is why its called evil.
1. It could be treated before birth, correcting the condition and reducing the incidence of homosexuality.
2. Liberals would fight the right to do so, just as some deaf people decry cochlear implants for eroding deaf “culture”.
Doesnt matter whether its a defect or not. They will say we should accept them since they were born that way. Changes nothing. It does raise the matter of preventing it from happening in first place. Thht will get interesting.
“Studies by Johns Hopkins University, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a pro homosexual scientist, Evelyn Hooker, and Masters and Johnson all deny that there’s any genetic link. They agree that the connection between genetics and homosexuality is a myth.” Spelled ***MYTH***
Another reason to advise my daughters that “old maid with cats” is a viable life choice.
“Or so Blanchard speculates. Although the hypothesis sounds reasonable enough, it’s premised on a number of assumptions that haven’t been proved. For instance, no one has shown that there is a particular antigen that controls sexual orientation, let alone one designed to make men straight. And if that antigen does exist, does it control orientation only? Blanchard refers to its antibody attackers as “anti-male,” implying that the antigen controls for various aspects of masculinity. But when I asked him about this, he was noncommittal. Moreover, the hypothesis proposes a loose, two-way flow of antigens and antibodies between the fetus (whose antigens spread to the mother) and the mother (whose antibodies spread to the fetus). But this exchange has never been observed—and the antibodies and antigens in question are hypothetical, anyway. If they do exist, there’s no assurance that they perform this placental pirouette.”
I hypothesize that moonbeams turn little boys gay. I think there are certain reflected rays of radiation that are absorbed by the testicles of boys. I suspect that antigens jump back and forth from one testicle to the other and if, when the music stops, the antigens are in the right testicle, you are straight. If they are in the left testicle, then 2% of those boys become homos. Why can't my hypothesis be printed in that magazine? I made it up, just like that other guy did.
>>The final word on homosexuality has been spoken by God. <<
Perhaps you have an answer to this question. Why is it that God chose not to create gay animals?
What if? Then what?
And “what if” it isn’t?
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.