No, Senator Rubio, Homosexuals Aren't Born that Way

AFA ^ | Monday, April 20, 2015 | Bryan Fischer

[xzins]

“I don’t believe that your sexual preferences are a choice for a vast and enormous majority of the people. The bottom line is I believe that sexual preference is something people are born with.” ~ Sen. Marco Rubio, April 19, 2015

Marco Rubio has become the latest GOP presidential candidate to stumble badly over the issue of homosexuality. Sen. Rand Paul hurt himself by saying that gay “marriage” is okay, as long as it’s a matter of private contract, a view which will satisfy no one.

Dr. Ben Carson hurt himself by asserting that people do change their sexual orientation (correctly using prison as an example) and then retreating under fire and promising never to talk about homosexuality again.

Sen. Rubio is now the victim of a self-inflicted wound, by saying something that is politically correct but scientifically, medically and genetically wrong. Our public policy on homosexuality should be based on the best in scientific research, and Sen. Rubio’s position isn’t.

As I have written before, it’s time to send the “born that way” myth to the graveyard of misbegotten ideas, buried in the plot next to the myth that the sun revolves around the earth.

Psychiatrists William Byne and Bruce Parsons wrote in Archives of General Psychiatry (March 1993) that, “Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking … In fact, the current trend may be to underrate the explanatory power of extant psychosocial models.” In other words, nurture plays a greater role in sexual preference than homosexual activists want you to believe.

As Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council points out, rigorous studies of identical twins have now made it impossible to argue seriously for the theory of genetic determination. If homosexuality were fixed at birth, as the misguided thinking of homosexual activists goes, then if one twin is homosexual, the other should be as well. The “concordance rate” should be 100%.

But it’s not. One early proponent of the “born that way” thesis, Michael Bailey, conducted a study on a large sample of Australian twins and discovered to his chagrin that the concordance rate was just 11%.

Peter Bearman and Hannah Bruckner, researchers from Columbia and Yale respectively, looked at data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health and found concordance rates of just 6.7% for male and 5.3% for female identical twins.

They determined that social environment was of far greater significance, and their research led them to reject “genetic influence independent of social context” as an explanation for homosexuality. They concluded, “..[O]ur results support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences.” In other words, post-birth experiences shape sexual orientation, not genes.

Bearman’s and Bruckner’s research is born out by no less than eight major studies of identical twins in the U.S., Scandinavia and Australia over the last two decades. They all arrive at the same conclusion: gays aren’t born that way.

As Sprigg observes, “If it was not clear in the 1990’s, it certainly is now -- no one is ‘born gay.’”

Strikingly, honest homosexuals agree. In an astonishing column published in the winger-left publication, “The Atlantic,” openly “queer woman” (her words) Lindsay Miller says flatly, “In direct opposition to both the mainstream gay movement and Lady Gaga, I would like to state for the record that I was not born this way.”

Tellingly, she argues that saying people are “born this way” is a form of condescension, and she resents it mightily. “I get frustrated with the veiled condescension of straight people who believe that queers ‘can’t help it,’ and thus should be treated with tolerance and pity.”

Ms. Miller concludes her piece by saying, “The life I have now is not something I ended up with because I had no other options. Make no mistake -- it’s a life I chose.”

The implications, of course, of this simple truth are far-reaching. If homosexual behavior is a choice, then our public policy can freely be shaped by an honest look at whether this behavioral choice is healthy and should be encouraged or unhealthy and dangerous and consequently discouraged.

The elevated health risks associated with homosexuality are by now so well established that not even homosexuals pretend otherwise. The Gay and Lesbian Medical Association warns that active homosexuals are at elevated risks of HIV/AIDS, substance and alcohol abuse, depression and anxiety, hepatitis, a whole range of STDs such as syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, pubic lice, Human Papilloma Virus, and anal papilloma, and prostate, testicular and colon cancer.

Bottom line: this is not behavior that any rational society should condone, endorse, subsidize, reward, promote or sanction in domestic policy or in the marketplace. It’s a choice, and a bad one at that. It’s long past time for our culture - and our presidential candidates - to say a simple and direct “No” to homosexuality and the homosexual agenda.

Social conservatives need and deserve a candidate who will base his social policy agenda on genetics, science, biology, the best in health research, and on biblical morality. Sen. Rubio has failed that test.

(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)

[moehoward]

"I don't believe in the genetic factor either. The hormonal malfunction theory is the most logical to me. "

It's not genetic, it's hormonal ?

The registry testing of identical twins listed in post #3 indicate that it's highly unlikely sexual preference is determined in utero.

"Most stories about homosexuals I've read have them saying that at a very young age they felt different from people of their own sex."

It's probably fair to say that in those formative years ALL kids have moments of feeling "different" or not belonging. What seems to be lacking is parental involvement and particularly from the fathers.

[ek_hornbeck]

If it’s genetic, shouldn’t we be looking for the cure?

If it's genetic, the only cure would be through genetically engineering, i.e. replacing the genes that predispose people to homosexuality with normal genes in a fertilized human egg. If we could do that reliably, we'd also be able to prevent cystic fibrosis, Huntington's disease, hemophilia, and dozens of other genetic diseases.

[ek_hornbeck]

I think that the scientific jury (as opposed to media hype) is still out on the issue of whether there's a genetic predisposition to homosexuality. The condordance among twins could also be explained by what hormones the developing fetus is exposed to while in the uterus, for example. My best guess is that it's a combination of genetics, maternal hormone, and early socializing.

The real question isn't whether it's genetic or not, but whether it's so hard-wired in people's brains from an early age that it can't be changed. Given how many homosexuals have fought their urges and tried (and failed) to go straight with marriages and therapy, it seems to me that homosexual desire isn't something that's a choice or can be made to go away. The only "choice" is whether people act on those desires or not.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” If it were me I would turn the whole argument around and ask why we must grant civil rights to a new victim class who is/are defined solely by their claimed feelings, which is equivalent to civil rights for certain behaviors, ones that were always unacceptable. “

This is the way, and should have been from day one, but cowards prevailed, and here we are.

[driftless2]

Explain to me effeminate male homos and mannish female homos.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks Help!

You folks must be right, because something sure doesn’t make sense if you’re not.

[DoughtyOne]

I don’t have much to say regarding your post. I think we all grasp for answers to understand this. I would probably be less supportive of the hard-wired concept. Hey, that’s just MO.

[moehoward]

"Explain to me effeminate male homos and mannish female homes."

No different than any other physical or emotional trait. Parental involvement is key in either nurturing or eliminating it. But even if it is present it does not guarantee a homosexual individual.

From post #3…
"75% of a sample of extremely “sissy” boys became homosexual when followed through to adulthood (10). But we must remember they were so sissy that parents were extremely concerned and referred them to the research clinic for help. Only a small percentage of sissy boys from the general population become homosexual as adults (11). This is even more true of other factors which have been researched and publicized in the media, and leads to a another important rule of thumb: “Only a small minority of those exposed to any predisposing factor become homosexual.”"

[driftless2]

Not a satisfactory explanation. I've seen no refutation of hormonal imbalances. In the study of identical twins, why on some occasions is one twin hetero and one homo? Why would one twin choose homosexuality over heterosexuality?

Just saying one decided to get into weird sex doesn't explain it. Hormonal imbalance sounds best. Good day to you sir.

[moehoward]

Keep in mind that if it’s hormonal -and the studies on that angle are far more contradictory- both fetuses would be exposed in twins.

Good day to you too.

[fr_freak]

Having someone claim that “they have always felt different” can mean anything. Plenty of kids go through some sort of turmoil or doubt or other issue which they imagine is unique to them. Someone who is living the homosexual lifesfyle could easily look back to such turmoil and say “that was what told me I was gay”, when it really had nothing to do with it.

As for the effeminate nature of gay men or the butch nature of lesbians, it has been my observation that, in most cases, those characteristics are forced and exaggerated, as if the person in question were trying to maintain an identity to justify his orientation. Additionally, I have seen far too many young men these days who are hetero and effeminate, suggesting that it is not necessarily associated with being gay.

[Captain Peter Blood]

Here is the question, Why is Rubio continuing to Put His Foot In His Mouth on this topic????????????

[bjorn14]

Our sin gene mutates in so many ways.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Back in the ‘80’s it was understood that more than 80% of homosexuals were victims of homosexual rape as children.

Half of all child rapes in the US are committed by homosexuals.

This is why it’s important that everyone believe that homosexuals are “born that way.” And why we can’t talk about it.

[Brown Deer]

For instance, why would a great looking guy like Rock Hudson choose an ugly guy like Jim Nabors to sodomize...

Or why would a successful young actor and singer like Jim Nabors choose an old man like Rock Hudson? That is, if you believe the story from well over 40 years ago that Rock Hudson was going to marry Gomer Pyle and his new name would be "Rock Pyle".



Why would a successful actor like Tom Arnold choose to marry a fat ugly repulsive woman like Roseanne Barr, when he could have sex with just about any Playmate that he wants?



If it was me back in the early 70s, and I was at a dinner party, given the choice of sitting at a table with Roseanne or Jim Nabors, I would have sat down with Gomer. I wouldn't have been able to eat, if I had to look at Roseanne across from me because it would have turned my stomach.

So why would Roy be attracted to Gomer?

His father, an auto mechanic, abandoned him as a child and he remembered his stepfather Wally as a marine. Roy was beaten on a regular basis by Wally and was usually "covered with bruises". His mother divorced Wally after Roy got two black eyes, but later remarried him. During WWII, Roy joined the Navy. Maybe that's where it began.

Gomer Pyle worked at Wally's Filling Station in Mayberry and later joined the marines. Maybe that was the attraction. ;-)

The more important question, is why would any man, choose another man's filthy ass over a woman? Do his looks even matter, when he's looking at his backside?

[driftless2]

I don't think Gomer made the choice. I think he felt he was lucky to latch on to Hudson who in his later years was still a lot better looking than hound dog-looking Gomer.

And apparently Arnold, after he became well known, wanted to have a threesome. Sounds like he used Roseann and then got tired of her.

As to your last point, why would any good looking man choose to bugger some guy's filthy backside over a woman? He'd have to be really weird. Which is what homosexuals are.

[Brown Deer]

I think he felt he was lucky to latch on to Hudson who in his later years was still a lot better looking...

Really? You seem to be a bit jealous of Nabors. ;-)

[butterdezillion]

Freepmail on the way.

[xzins]

Here is the question, Why is Rubio continuing to Put His Foot In His Mouth on this topic????????????

Because he's running to the middle.

[xzins]

Half of all child rapes in the US are committed by homosexuals.

I need that link for my files. Do you still have it?