Son needs article on research about gay lifestyle - please help

12-13-01

[wyopa]

I know that I read here on Free Republic (awhile ago -- perhaps 3-4 months?) an article about research done on the gay lifestyle. The gist of the article was that an independent, non-Christian researcher had determined there is no proof that there is such a thing as a gene that "makes" someone a homosexual. The researcher seemed to be, in fact, surprised at the results of his research.

I have searched here on Free Republic but couldn't find the article. Can anyone point me in the right direction? My son, a freshman in high school, is preparing to argue this out with his entire biology class (all students plus the teacher vs. him). He needs some ammunition.

And one thing Freepers are good at is ammunition!

Any other resources, succinctly written, would also be greatly appreciated.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Might also try the Gay bump list

[Colofornian]

Several articles:

* NARTH fact sheet, "Is There a 'Gay Gene'?" (4-pager); * "The Gay Gene: Going, Going...Gone" by Yvette C. Schneider (ex-Lesbian) 4/20/00...can be found @ www.frc.org (don't have exact full URL address);* "Homosexuality Not Innate, Expert Says" 9/12/00, CNS {expert is Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, author of book, HOMOSEXUALITY & THE POLITICS OF TRUTH) url is www.cnsnews.com/Vie...ulture/archive/200009/CUL20000912a.html but not sure if still archived there; * "Sorry, no gay gene" by columnist Linda Bowles www.worldnetdaily.com/blues...es/a9990810_xclbo_sorry_no_g.shtml

[OldFriend]

And he has no idea how to use the computer?

[freemind2]

What difference does it make whether there is evidence, let alone proof, of a gay gene? The issue for religious-right zealots is whether or not gayness is a choice. You insist that it is. It is self-evident that you are wrong for anyone with a mind willing to think. Would 10% or even 5% of the population choose to be a hated, despised, and feared minority? Would they make this *choice* at an age where most of their peers are seeking to conform to some accepted clique or image?

Biologists are not needed to prove that gayness is not a choice. You are qualified. Just ask any gay person, then ask another and another. Oh let me guess. Each and every one of the perverse, perverted heathens will LIE.

You people really need to get over it. Some people are gay. Always have been. Always will be. Since the fall of communism, the far-right elevated gay people to public enemy number one.

[Colofornian]

Roy Masters is a pseudo cultist. I've got the two-tape audio set of cult expert (now deceased) Walter Martin debating Masters. This tape set would likely either be available via www.waltermartin.org (run by Walter Martin's daughter) or thru CRI Intl (the organization Martin founded)...www.equip.org Martin is masterful in its theological critiques of Masters.

[good_ash]

Last night's southpark had a take on the gay lifestyle. Maybe he could watch it as research.

[pcl]

I do not think you will find any source that is not biased one way or the other.

While the entire human genome has been mapped, something less than 5% of the genes have been linked to anything specific. The absence of positive proof of a gay gene does not mean such a gene does not exist. We will only be able to say for sure when the other 95% of the genes have been linked to specific functions.

[Colofornian]

Would 10% of even 5% of the population choose to be a hated, despised & feared minority

I'm not Mormon, but I'm the descendent of a polygamous (3 wives, 19 kids) Mormon bishop...especially @ that time, Mormons were looked down upon & certainly the govt. frowned upon polygamy, refusing to give the Utah Territory statehood until it dealt w/that issue. So am I thereby to conclude that these men "chose" to have a multiple partnership orientation? Or do you argue on their behalf that it was innate/genetic? (Why would they "choose" to have multiple wives w/different sex partners every night when they were a hated, despised & feared minority in part because of that?). Dumb question, eh? (Yes, Lust ruled the day among that religious group then just as it rules the day in homosexual & heterosexual circles alike!).

[Colofornian]

Another article (online): "The Gay Gene?" (www.family.org/fofmag/pp/a0010620.html) by Dr. Jeffrey Satinover...Satinover is a former Fellow in Psychiatry & Child Psychiatry @ Yale...holds degrees from MIT, the Univ. of Texas, & Harvard.

[Alabama_Wild_Man]

That's an easy one.....

Send him to most any 'Public School' in Massachusetts for a couple of semesters.....
He'll more than likely learn more than one could ever imagine....

[Colofornian]

Would 10%

Oh, stop using this lame, unsubstantiated stat. Even the University of Chicago 8-9 yrs. ago--even Planned Parenthood--concedes that the homosexual population is only 1-2%...though it has been true for a number of years that the number of teens who claim to be homosexual has been rising.

[sit-rep]

Here you go...you may want to change the wording, but the message is clear:

There is no clitoris in the anus/colon.
There is no clitoris in the mouth/throat.
There are no reproductive organs in the stomach.
There are no reproductive organs in the anus/colon.

The acts of homosexuality are NOT normal. Now, the other side will say..."...You dont have oral or anal sex with your girl friend?"

The proper response to this is...

Wether I do or not is irrelevant. My subject is on the abnormality of gay/homosexual/transgendered...whatever, relations. Just because it "Feels Good", does not make it good, nor healthy. Spermatazoon is a reproductive "liquid" not a condiment.

End of story.

[Colofornian]

%of the population choose to be a hated, despised, & feared minority?

So, based upon this argument, I'm also to conclude that hated, despited & feared sexual orientation minority folks like pedophiles are also born that way (sexually attracted to children)? Since according to your logic, no one would "choose" to be hated & despised of their own innate character choices (which is what all sexual activity is)?

So, when UC Berkeley kicked out Mr. A. Martinez in the 92-93 schoolyear because he attended classes in the nude (& no one wanted to sit in "the seat" because he had sat there in the previous class) I am to conclude that he was born that way? Bingo. I guess he was! Mr. Martinez, the dude with the exhibitionist sexual orientation, really WAS born that way (as we all were)! Besides the obvious birthday suit, your logic proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mr. Martinez wouldn't have endured such scorn even from the most liberal of college campuses had he really had a "choice."

Why doesn't the gay community become advocates for these kinds of persecuted folk? Why don't they advocate that ALL students on EVERY campus be allowed to not hide their sexual orientation in the closet...they should be allowed to attend classes in the nude! And we know, as I said, that God made 100% of us exhibitionists! (We all have that repressed urge to let it all hang out...most of us tend to wait until we step into our vaporized closet, otherwise known as the shower!)

[freemind2]

So am I thereby to conclude that these men "chose" to have a multiple partnership orientation?

An interesting analogy. I will stick to my guns and argue that yes, in the case of Mormon polygomists, this is a choice, where in the case of gay people it is not a choice.

Those Mormon's becoming polygomists did so in the context of numerous examples and a geographic community that included some support. The typical gay teenager assumes that he/she is the only gay kid in their entire school and has no examples to follow, yet they know that they are gay. Their only choice is to accept themselves or not.

I doubt there is much evidence that the overwhelming majority of polygomists report knowing that they were polygamists when they were very young. Almost all gay people can report memories of non-sexual, yet homosexual thoughts and feelings often at pre-pubescent ages.

[let freedom sing]

don we now our gay apparel

[Colofornian]

Is there anything in his article that you can dispute specifically?

Haven't read the article. Even giving Masters the benefit of the doubt re: content of that article, somebody like him who is so far off base theologically discernment-wise, gets a short leash of trust from me overall. There are certainly a lot of things I may agree with philosophically w/the Washington Times & the Moonies behind them (include a pro-life perspective); but both the Moonies & Masters need a short leash trust-wise.