Posted on 04/20/2015 5:01:58 PM PDT by 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.)
He conducted an extensive study of identical twins, ( spanning the globe from Great Britain, Denmark & other European countries to the U.S.) when research was very limited in those days (the late 60’s) and he determined that a significant number of MALE identical twins, did indeed both reach adulthood as homosexuals, even when raised in separate homes.
He found no such evidence among female “lesbians.”
This is NOT to say that all or even a majority of homosexuals are “born that way;” it merely supports a fact that there exists a mutated gene or predisposition ‘somewhere,’ that isn't all that strong.
You must remember that before their massive campaign, homosexuals were in the closet and the majority married and reproducing, while secretly engaging in homosexuality on the side.
Calling themselves GAY, is such a stupid term, because most are not happy at all, unless they're the ones who have elected to “be gay.”
The majority of the ones ‘born homosexual’ would much rather be heterosexual.
I’ll say this and then drop out of this discussion. This is something I don’t think anyone has an answer to, so I don’t want to carry this on across the thread.
You talk of God giving them over to their desires, and I have no problem with that description.
Where do the homosexual desires come from in the first place?
Three kids grow up gender appropriate, and the fourth winds up with “desires”. I don’t grasp why.
You can respond if you want. I will drop out now. Not trying to be a negative force here. This has come to mind over the years.
Take care.
I can imagine that it would be fairly easy for a weird uncle or cousin or whoever to isolate one twin and take advantage of them for a short time at a family gathering(s).
The short answer is Yes.
And 68% is LOW.
It’s just difficult to get accurate data from surveys.
You can google all kinds of studies and most since 1990 will range between 25% and 50%, but there’s good reason to believe those have been politically sanitized.
Keep in mind that molesters aren’t usually hit and run. They persist over time. So the victims are being shaped.
I appreciate the mention. I don’t want to characterize the homosexuals I’ve met as being sorry. I have known one that was and I believe others to be.
You do touch on something I’ve noticed, and I use it as evidence that they are not happy. The ones that act out in public and make big demands on heterosexuals in the community, don’t seem happy.
They seem quite unhappy and desirous of taking it out on those they can. They are sometimes openly hostile to straight people. This isn’t normal. There’s a conflict going on in them.
I don’t grasp why.
That is possible. I agree.
Thanks G Larry.
Well you try to squash it. You can try that with this too. Good luck with that now a days.
It explains it for me, and was an honest attempt to answer the question you directed to me. I do not think they have the same experiences. I don’t think that’s even possible.
Must be a choice, “Mayoral candidate Bill de Blasio’s wife Chirlane McCray, a former lesbian, opens up about falling in love with a man”
For the same reason that some nights I want a coffee and other nights I want a Coke. I’ve learned I can drink either.
In general terms I agree, but there seems to be a need for something a little more meaningful than the small differences they may encounter, as least to my way of thinking.
Look, I don’t want to continue this on your thread. I appreciate you explaining your take on it. It’s a decent a suggestion as anything I have up to now.
Take care.
You’re exactly right.
The hostility is a cover for some deep inner-conflict, envy of the straight and guilt.
Thanks Onyx. Take care...
I know two people personally, one who claims to be gay, and the other lesbian. They are the only ones that I know personally in my life. Funny thing though, is that they have both confided in me at some point. The guy confided to me as an adolescent that his baseball coach masturbated with him as a 12 year old, and showed him porn to do it. The lesbian told me that her uncle raped her when she was four years old. So, of the two that I know personally, both of them were “molested” in my view.
You, too, Sweetie Pie.
= ;^)
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.