Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No One is Born Gay (or Straight): Here Are 5 Reasons Why
Social In Qeery ^ | 03/2013 | Jane Ward

Posted on 02/15/2014 6:22:16 PM PST by SeekAndFind

This post has been elaborated here.

1. Just because an argument is politically strategic, does not make it true: A couple of years ago, the Human Rights Campaign, arguably the country’s most powerful lesbian and gay organization, responded to politician Herman Cain’s assertion that being gay is a choice. They asked their members to “Tell Herman Cain to get with the times! Being gay is not a choice!” They reasoned that Cain’s remarks were “dangerous.” Why? “Because implying that homosexuality is a choice gives unwarranted credence to roundly disproven practices such as ‘conversion’ or ‘reparative’ therapy. The risks associated with attempts to consciously change one’s sexual orientation include depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior.”

Image

Cynthia Nixon (right) and wife Christine Marinoni (left)

The problem with such statements is that they infuse biological accounts with an obligatory and nearly coercive force, suggesting that anyone who describes homosexual desire as a choice or social construction is playing into the hands of the enemy. In 2012, the extent to which gay biology had become a moral and political imperative came into full view when actress Cynthia Nixon, after commenting to a New York Times Magazine reporter that she “chose” to pursue a lesbian relationship after many years as a content heterosexual, was met with outrage by lesbian and gay activists. As one horrified gay male writer proclaimed, “[Nixon] just fell into a right-wing trap, willingly. …Every religious right hatemonger is now going to quote this woman every single time they want to deny us our civil rights.” Under considerable pressure from lesbian and gay advocacy groups, Nixon recanted her statement a few weeks later, stating instead that she must have been born with bisexual potential.

Yes, it’s true that straight people are more tolerant when they believe that lesbian and gay people have no choice in the matter. If homosexual desire is hardwired, then we cannot change it; we must live with this condition, and it would be unfair to judge us for that which we cannot change. By implication, if we could choose, of course we would choose to be heterosexual. Any sane person would choose heterosexuality (not so. see here). And when homophobic people come to the opposite conclusion—that homosexual desire is something we can choose—then they want to help us make the right choice, the heterosexual choice. And they are willing to offer this help in the form of violent shock therapy and other “conversion” techniques. So I can absolutely understand why it feels much, much safer to believe that we are born this way, and then to circulate this idea like our lives depend on it (because, for some people, this really is a matter of life and death). Indeed, most progressive straight people and most gay and bi people–including Lady Gaga herself–hold the conviction that our sexual orientation is innate. They have taken their lead from the mainstream gay and lesbian movement, which has powerfully advocated for this view.

But the fact that the “born this way” hypothesis has resulted in greater political returns for gay and lesbian people doesn’t have anything to do with whether it is true. Maybe, as gay people, we want to get together and pretend it is true because it is politically strategic. That would be interesting. But still, it wouldn’t make the idea true.

Unknown2. The science is wrong (Part 1): People like to cite “the overwhelming scientific evidence” that sexual orientation is biological in nature. But show me a study that claims to have proven this, and I will show you a flawed research design. Let’s take one example: In 2000, a team of researchers at UC Berkeley conducted a study in which they found that lesbians were more likely than heterosexual women to have a “masculine” hand structure. Presumably, most men have a longer ring finger than index finger, whereas most women have the opposite (or they have index and ring fingers of the same length). Lesbians, according to this study, are more likely than straight women to have what we might call male pattern hands. The researchers concluded that this finding supports their theory that lesbianism might be caused by a “fetal androgyn wash” in the womb—that is, when female fetuses are exposed to greater levels of a masculinizing hormone, it shows up later in the form of female masculinity: male-pattern hands and… attraction to women. But this study makes the same error that countless others have made: it does not properly distinguish between gender (whether one is masculine or feminine) and sexual orientation (heterosexuality or homosexuality). Simply put, the fact that a woman is “masculine” (itself a social construction) or has been introduced to greater levels of a male hormone need not have anything to do with whether she is attracted to women. We would only assume this if we had already accepted the heteronormative premise that masculine people (or men) are naturally attracted to femaleness and that normal (i.e., feminine) women are naturally attracted to men. Herein lies the bias. Many “masculine” women who are heterosexual (have you been to the rural South?) would like you to know that their gender does not line up with their sexual desire in any predictable way. And many very feminine lesbians would like you to know this too. The bottom line is that ideas about sexual desire are so bound up with misconceptions about gender and with the presumption that heterosexuality is nature’s default, that science has yet to approach this subject in an objective way. For a comprehensive examination of the flaws in the most widely cited research on sexual orientation, see Rebecca Jordan-Young’s brilliant book Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences (Harvard University Press, 2011).

3. The science is wrong (Part II): An even greater problem with the science of sexual orientation is that it seeks to find the genetic causes of gayness, as if we all agree about what gayness is. To say that “being gay” is genetic is to engage in science that hinges on a very historically recent and specifically European-American understanding of what being gay means. In Ancient Greece, sex between men was normative and widespread; it was considered the most praise-worthy, substantive and Godly form of love (whereas sex between a man and a woman was, for all intents and purposes, sex between a man and his slave). If men having frequent and sincere sex with one another is what we mean by “gay,” then do we really believe that something so fundamentally different was happening in the Ancient Athenian gene pool? Wow! How did Plato’s ancestors later develop all of those heterosexual genes? And what about native cultures in which all boys engage in homosexual rites of passage? Do we imagine that we could identify some genetic evidence of propensity to ingest sperm as part of a cultural initiation into manhood? What about all of the cultures around the globe in which male homosexual sex does not signal gayness except for under certain specific circumstances (e.g., you are only gay if you are the receptive sexual partner, or if you are feminine)? And while I am on this subject, what about the fact the United States is precisely one of those cultures? When young college women lick each other’s boobs at frat parties, or when young college men stick their fingers in each other’s butts while being hazed by their frat brothers, we don’t call this gay—we call this “girls (and boys) gone wild.” My point here is that a lot of people engage in homosexual behavior, but somehow we talk about the genetic origins of homosexuality as if we are clear about who is gay and who is not, and as if it’s also clear that “gay genes” are possessed only by people who are culturally and politically gay (you know, the people who are seriously gay). This is a bit arbitrary, don’t you think?

Just 150 years ago, scientists went searching for the physiological evidence that women were hysterical. Hysteria, by Victorian medical definition, meant that a woman’s uteruses had become dislodged from its proper location and was floating around her body causing all sorts of trouble—like feminism and other matters of grave concern. And guess what, they found the evidence, and they published books and articles to prove it. They also looked for and found the evidence that all people of African and Asian ancestry were intellectually and morally inferior to people of European Ancestry. Many books were published dedicated to establishing these obviously absurd and violent beliefs as legitimate and indisputable scientific facts. Similarly, the science of sexual orientation has a long and disturbing history. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, it was believed that homosexuals had beady eyes, particularly angular facial structures, and “bad blood.” Today, we apparently have gender variant fingers and gay brains.

Is it possible that people who identify themselves as “gay” in the United States (again, keep in mind that “gay” is a culturally and historically specific concept), share some common physiology? Perhaps. But even if this is so, do we really know why? Indeed, we may find (as Simon LeVay did) that men who identify as gay share a certain trait—a larger VIP SCN nucleus of the hypothalamus, for instance. But how do we know that this “enlargement” is a symptom or cause of their homosexuality, and not, say, a symptom or cause of their general propensity for bravery, creativity, or rebellion? In a homophobic culture, you need some bravery (and other awesome traits) to be queer. Perhaps these personality traits are what are actually being observed under the microscope.

And, of course, there is the time-eternal question: why aren’t scientists looking for the genetic causes of heterosexuality? Or masturbation? Or interest in oral sex? The reason is that none of these sex acts currently violate social norms, at least not strongly enough to be perceived as sexual aberrations. But this was not always true. In the 19th century, scientists were interested in the biological origins of the “masturbation perversion.” They were interested because they believed it was pathological, and because they wanted to know whether it could be repaired.

At the end of the day, what we can count on is that the science of sexual orientation will produce data that simply mirror the most crass and sexist gender binarisms circulating in the popular imagination. This research will report that women are innately more sexually fluid than men, capable of being turned-on by almost anything and everything (hmmm…. other than in Lisa Diamond’s research, where have I seen that idea before? Ah yes, heterosexual pornography.) It will report that men are sexually rigid, their desires impermeable. It will tell us that straight men simply cannot be aroused by men and that gay men are virtually hardwired to be repulsed by the thought of sex with women. Regardless of what else we might say about the soundness of these studies, what is evident to me is that they have been used to authorize many a straight man’s homophobia, and many a gay man’s misogyny.

4. Just because you have had homosexual or heterosexual feelings for as long as you can remember, does not mean you were born a homosexual or heterosexual. There are many things I have felt or done for as long as I can remember. I have always liked to argue. I have always loved drawing feet and shoes. I have always craved cheddar cheese. I have always felt a strong connection with happy, trashy pop music. These have been aspects of myself for as long as I can remember, and each represents a very strong impulse in me. But was I born with a desire to eat cheddar cheese or make drawings of feet? Are these desires that can be identified somewhere in my body, like on one of my genes? It would be hard to make these claims, because I could have been born and raised in China, let’s say, where cheddar cheese is basically non-existent and would not have been part of my life. And while I may have been born with some general artistic potential, surely our genetic material is not so specific as to determine that I would love to draw platform shoes. The point here is that what we desire in childhood is far more complex and multifaceted than the biological sciences can account for, and this goes for our sexual desires as well. Some basic raw material is in place (like a general potential for creativity), but the details—well, those are ours to discover.

5. Secretly, you already know that people’s sexual desires are shaped by their social and cultural context. Lots of adults worry that if we allow little boys to wear princess dresses and paint their nails with polish, they might later be more inclined to be gay. Even some liberal parents (including gay and lesbian parents) worry that if they introduce their child to “too much” in the way of queer material, this could be a way of “pushing” homosexuality on them. Similarly, many people worry that if young women are introduced to feminism in college, and if they become too angry or independent, they may just decide to be lesbians. But if we all really believed that sexual orientation was congenital—or present at birth—then no one would ever worry that social influences could have an effect on our sexual orientation. But I think that in reality, we all know that sexual desire is deeply subject to social, cultural, and historical forces. We know that if the world today were a different place, a place where homosexuality was culturally normative (like, say, Ancient Greece), we would see far more people embracing their homosexual desires. And if this were the case, it would have nothing to do with genetics.

The concept of “sexual orientation” is itself less than 150 years old, and almost equally recent is the notion that people should partner based on romantic attraction. Most of what feels so natural and unchangeable about our desires—including the bodies and personalities we are attracted to—is conditioned by our respective cultures. The majority of straight American men, for instance, will tell you that they have a strong, visceral aversion to women with bushy armpit hair. But this aversion, no matter how deep it may now run in men’s psyches and no matter how nonnegotiable it may feel, is hardly genetic. Up until the last century, the entire world’s female population had armpit hair, and somehow, heterosexual sex survived.

People like to use the failure of “gay conversion” therapies as evidence that homosexuality is innate. First of all, these conversions do not always fail; if you make someone feel disgusted enough by their desires, you can change their desires. Call it a tragedy of repression, or call it a religious awakening—regardless, the point is that we can and do change. For instance, in high school and early in college, my sexual desires were deeply bound up with sexism. I wanted to be a hot girl, and I wanted powerful men to desire me. I was as authentically heterosexual as any woman I knew. But later, several years into my exploration of feminist politics, what I once found desirable (heterosexuality and sexism) became utterly unappealing. I became critical of homophobia and sexism in ways that allowed these forces far less power to determine the shape of my desires. If this had not happened, no doubt I’d be married to a man. And if he wasn’t a complete asshole, I’d probably be happy enough. But instead, I was drawn to queerness for various political and emotional reasons, and from my vantage point today, I believe it to be one of the best desires I ever cultivated. [Does this mean that your daughter may decide to be a lesbian if she takes some women's studies courses? Yes. Whatcha gonna do now?!]

Perhaps most importantly, the fact that we might cultivate or “choose” something doesn’t mean that it is a trivial, temporary, or less a vital part of who we are. For instance, is religion a choice? Certainly it is if we define “choice” as anything that isn’t an immutable part of our physiology. But many religious people would feel profoundly misunderstood and offended if I suggested that their religious beliefs were a phase, an experiment, or a less significant part of who they are then, say, their hair color. Choices are complex. Choices run deep. And yes, choices are both constrained and fluid–just like our bodies.

Post script: Ultimately, the terms set forward in the public debate about this subject–biology versus “choice”–are quite limited, mainly because “choice” is not the most useful term for describing all of the possibilities that sit apart from biology. Several social, cultural, and structural factors can shape our embodied desires and erotic possibilities. The fact that these factors are not physiological in origin does not mean that they aren’t coercive or subjectifying, resulting in a real or perceived condition of fixity or “no choice.” We know that social factors also become embodied over time. And yet, I remain somewhat committed to the concept of “choice”–or something like it–to describe the possibility of a critical and reflexive relationship to our sexual desires. Personally, the idea that I don’t have control over who or what I desire is a big turn-off to me, so I am constantly pushing back on what feel like the limits of my own desires. For instance, I went through a period of pushing myself to date femmes because I had some good reasons for being suspicious about why I had ruled them out from my dating pool. When it felt like I could never be nonmonogamous, I made it a goal to at least try. Then when I realized I only really felt attracted to alcoholic rebels, I nipped that in the bud too. Just when I thought I’d never think hairy men were hot, I allowed myself to face my attraction to Javier Bardem. When my tastes and proclivities start to feel like they are solidifying, I get suspicious and disappointed. So, in the interests of full disclosure, I am writing from the perspective of someone who finds sexual fixity pretty uninteresting, and who believes that there are really good feminist and queer reasons to take regular, critical inventory of the parts of our sexuality that we believe we cannot or will not change.



TOPICS: Science; Society
KEYWORDS: gay; genetics; homosexuality
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

1 posted on 02/15/2014 6:22:17 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

all i know is my four year old grandson told my wife she had to wear makeup or people would think she was a man


2 posted on 02/15/2014 6:30:20 PM PST by bigheadfred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigheadfred

“Grandson ..she?” Are you being facetious?


3 posted on 02/15/2014 6:34:12 PM PST by Fungi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fungi

The grandson was telling his grandmama that she (the grandma) needs markup. Lol


4 posted on 02/15/2014 6:36:23 PM PST by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Fungi

I read that as him saying his wife is a “she”.


5 posted on 02/15/2014 6:36:45 PM PST by Defiant (Let the Tea Party win, and we will declare peace on the American people and go home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I didn't agree with Gore Vidal on very much, but he was very clear on this: No one can BE homosexual. Also, no one can BE heterosexual. These are adjectives which describe your behavior.

If a man has sex with a man, he is engaging in homosexual acts, and he is acting in a homosexual manner. Men in prison do this. Men in San Francisco do this.

Most men get married and engage in heterosexual acts with their wife: they act in a heterosexual manner. Rock Hudson was capable of this, but he preferred not to.

And this leads to the notion that people can change their lives, we have free will, we can make choices, and we can repent and reform, if we wish.

But the activists don't want to hear about it.

6 posted on 02/15/2014 6:38:31 PM PST by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Puppage; Fungi

point of fact i managed to love my wife into the belief she was more than fine to me just the way she is

but my wife does use some makeup to cover the five o clock shadow other than that...


7 posted on 02/15/2014 6:41:16 PM PST by bigheadfred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Fungi

read it again but slower this time and think.


8 posted on 02/15/2014 6:44:10 PM PST by fish hawk (no tyrant can remain in power without the consent and cooperation of his victims.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

RE: Gore Vidal

He was openly gay when it was not popular to out oneself in the 1960’s.

In fact, his NPR protagonist, William F. Buckley Jr. called him Queer on TV (and got away with it without any of the “outrage” and demand for him to be canned that we would expect today ).

Anyway, In the September 1969 edition of Esquire, for example, Gore Vidal wrote:

“We are all bisexual to begin with. That is a fact of our condition. And we are all responsive to sexual stimuli from our own as well as from the opposite sex. Certain societies at certain times, usually in the interest of maintaining the baby supply, have discouraged homosexuality. Other societies, particularly militaristic ones, have exalted it. But regardless of tribal taboos, homosexuality is a constant fact of the human condition and it is not a sickness, not a sin, not a crime ... despite the best efforts of our puritan tribe to make it all three. Homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. Notice I use the word ‘natural,’ not normal”


9 posted on 02/15/2014 6:45:35 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Men are pigs, we have the ability to sexualize anything. God told us to leave other men and the livestock alone.

I’m not sure what’s going on with the women.


10 posted on 02/15/2014 6:46:51 PM PST by dangerdoc (I don't think you should be forced to make the same decision I did even if I know I'm right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
“Actually, there is no such thing as a homosexual person, any more than there is such a thing as a heterosexual person. The words are adjectives describing sexual acts, not people. The sexual acts are entirely normal; if they were not, no one would perform them.” ― Gore Vidal, Sexually Speaking: Collected Sex Writings
11 posted on 02/15/2014 6:48:36 PM PST by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

thanks for stating something a lot of us have known for years. I just got off of Face Book and a hour long argument with a youg girl about homosexuality and Christianity. Interesting but I got tired of pointing out that almost every statement she made about it and what the Bible does and does not say about it was immature and false. The same old Cliché, Jesus didn’t say a word about Homosexuality in the Bible. This is bogus and untrue. No, not in your “red Letters” Bible but through the Holy Spirit, the Old Testament and the apostles, he said plenty .


12 posted on 02/15/2014 6:50:27 PM PST by fish hawk (no tyrant can remain in power without the consent and cooperation of his victims.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

MMmm. Perhaps. But, are you not confusing action (which is a choice) with attraction (which, even if not in-born,is hardly a choice)?


13 posted on 02/15/2014 6:50:56 PM PST by MrChips (Ad sapientiam pertinet aeternarum rerum cognitio intellectualis - St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I suppose incest falls into the same category. Watch for the push on that next. Or pedophilia.


14 posted on 02/15/2014 6:56:47 PM PST by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MrChips
Well, there is the notion that a man commits adultery when he looks upon a woman with lust in his heart. We have a sin nature, and we sin constantly. It cannot be avoided.

A man looks at a beautiful woman, and perhaps he sins. Perhaps he cannot help it. He is attracted to her. What can one do?

Now, some men look upon other men in the same way. There is an attraction. Again, it is a sin. What can one do?

But where we err is when we walk across the bar and strike up the conversation with the person whom we know we should not have an attraction for. And then we go back to the hotel with them. This is completely in the realm of choice.

People should choose wisely.

15 posted on 02/15/2014 6:58:37 PM PST by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bigheadfred

Haha, and our son crawled all over the stuffed animals and dollies to get to the trucks. One of my first aha moments!!


16 posted on 02/15/2014 7:08:03 PM PST by bboop (does not suffer fools gladly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc

Dangerdoc, you are right. Women are not so, I believe, because we are biologically the childbearers.

When we were first married and looking for a place to rent, I pulled up to a house, opened the car door, and a cat jumped in, took a brief look at the Border Collie in the back seat, and settled in as if he just belonged there. He was a stray, so I took him to the vet. The vet told me the males were like that - friendly and easy-going, but the females were not at all. They were more skittish, due to their strong instinct to protect their young. I think it works like this across the board.


17 posted on 02/15/2014 7:12:21 PM PST by bboop (does not suffer fools gladly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

If “being homosexual” is NOT a choice but inborn, then explain bi-sexual ..... Is THAT a choice?


18 posted on 02/15/2014 7:15:59 PM PST by Optimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
No matter what Vidal said, it is not normal, even for a man to even desire men over women. Same gender sexual relations are sin whether without gay or not, and cannot be justified even if there is a genetic predisposition (and DNA can change thru generations due to experience). But we all have sinned to varying degrees, and there is room at the cross for all who will repent and believe on the Son sent by the Father to be the Savior of the world. Thank God.
19 posted on 02/15/2014 7:20:32 PM PST by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
So alot of people are born a particular way..people are born with out arms or legs or blind. ...the question is then is it a birth defect?.....if so its valid to try and correct...but the current position seem is not valid to correct...to the point that with so called trans gender..the birth defect is the gender they were born ...so it valid to try to correct body to mind..but not valid to correct mind to body
20 posted on 02/15/2014 7:20:49 PM PST by tophat9000 (Are we headed to a Cracker Slacker War?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrChips
Perhaps. But, are you not confusing action (which is a choice) with attraction (which, even if not in-born,is hardly a choice)?

Virtually every case of women I’ve met who called themselves ‘lesbian’ had the same story to tell… their mother and father were split and the mother decided to shack up with another guy who sexually abused her at around the age of 12. It seems to me that the case isn’t one of ‘attraction’ for the same sex but ‘repulsion’ of the opposite sex (which then defaults to attraction for the same sex since we are hardwired to want love). For males, it seems to be more complex but in many cases of men who eventually called themselves ‘gay’, it seems that a stunning number of them were quite voyeuristic at young ages and ended up in the sack as part of experimental threesomes… it’s a much smaller leap to a same sex relationship when a threesome is already putting one part way down that path. For both the male and female cases, it has far less to do with ‘attraction’ than it has to do with confusion about their sexuality at a young age and heading down the wrong road…. and once down a particular road, they assume that they are hardwired to be on that road. No scientific study here…. just observations.

21 posted on 02/15/2014 7:25:23 PM PST by hecticskeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

KHAFOK!

Keep Homosexuals Away From Our Kids!

22 posted on 02/15/2014 7:26:04 PM PST by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Well, even the Vatican has acknowledged the condition, not just the behavior. And, they make the same argument you do. Do not sin. But, I have heard gay people make a very logical argument in saying that the Vatican wants you to be who you are, and values who you are, but you just can’t act upon who you are (as a straight person can). It does seem a little hypocritical.

Now, it is true that a great deal of gay sexual activity is promiscuous, but not all, although I suppose more than is true of heterosexual activity. As for that, however, all you have to do is to watch TV for a few hours to realize the prevalence of promiscuous behavior, straight or gay, so that is no help.

But, I do have a lifelong friend who disappeared from my life after high school for several years. It troubled me greatly when I heard that he was living with a man in CA, and that they had adopted a child. Well, some years later, now, I look at their lives, successful and stable and loving, having given an abandoned child a good home (and he has turned out just fine), and I find it very difficult to be critical. I just take the attitude that God will judge us all. It’s not up to me.


23 posted on 02/15/2014 7:27:30 PM PST by MrChips (Ad sapientiam pertinet aeternarum rerum cognitio intellectualis - St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I have to disagree.

To say that they are not born as homosexuals does away with the doctrine of original sin. We are all born sinful and that sin manifests itself in different ways in each of us.


24 posted on 02/15/2014 7:28:11 PM PST by Gamecock (Grace is not opposed to human activity. It's opposed to human merit. MSH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I’ve always been surprised that gay activists would want there to be a “gay gene”. If there were such a thing, it could be screened for early in a pregnancy. And while most people would say in public that they’d never abort their gay baby, in private, where the paperwork is signed and the insurance coverage is verified, they most certainly would. If there were really were a gay gene, it would be purged from the human genome in a generation.


25 posted on 02/15/2014 7:29:43 PM PST by Redcloak (Was that the primary buffer panel?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Whenever the “homosexuality isn’t a choice!” argument rears it’s head, I just respond with “Ann Heche” and watch the meltdown.


26 posted on 02/15/2014 7:30:00 PM PST by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bboop

we are traditionalists

and while there is much sharing of CHORES my g kids know that i am the one who makes the pizzas and my wife is the one who burns the toast

Just kidding.

My mom explained it early and well into my fatherhood. The first time she heard me say ah bah goo wah to our first born.

You speak and act around your children the same way you were raised.


27 posted on 02/15/2014 7:33:34 PM PST by bigheadfred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

What really troubles me is that the lie that sexual orientation is hardwired has hooked so many people into the lifestyle, with little chance of escaping (and actually making it illegal to escape in some cases.....hmmmm, what does that sound like?).

This is purely a position of politics, not of biology, and those who have perpetuated the myth will be held accountable for it. Meanwhile, the victims face a short unhappy life of being sexual meat for their abductors.


28 posted on 02/15/2014 7:40:30 PM PST by Some Fat Guy in L.A. (Still bitterly clinging to rational thought despite it's unfashionability)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
If Cynthia Nixon is a lesbian, how come she married Jonah Hill?


29 posted on 02/15/2014 7:41:12 PM PST by RichInOC (No! BAD Rich! (What'd I say?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
A man looks at a beautiful woman, and perhaps he sins. Perhaps he cannot help it. He is attracted to her. What can one do?

Don't look twice is a good rule, but one i have too often broken (and trying to look straight on web pages which increasingly place seductive ads on the sides, and on below can be very trying), but we do have a choice.

Looking and admiring God-given beauty (they did not just evolve!) - and glorify God for it - (yet it is the heart that matters most) is not a sin, but to look in order to lust, to obtain craved sexual satisfaction - which usually is that second time - is sin.

Yet even looking at your wife something to be valued for her anatomy or to simply a body to gratify sexual desire is sin.

Man is also a sexual creature in general, and it is not abnormal that a heterosexual man could be somewhat aroused by any visual sexual activity, esp. insomuch as something resembles the female body. Thus those studies alleging heterosexuals are homo due to having them watch homoporn...

But if a man is attracted to men over women, then that is a disorder, and any sexual lust or relationship is sin, as it is never sanctified by marriage.

30 posted on 02/15/2014 7:47:38 PM PST by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: bigheadfred

We are very traditional too. Works so well. We call it ‘division of labor.’ (duh)


31 posted on 02/15/2014 7:49:18 PM PST by bboop (does not suffer fools gladly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: bigheadfred; metmom; Elsie; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter
and while there is much sharing of CHORES my g kids know that i am the one who makes the pizzas and my wife is the one who burns the toast

And men and women go together like butter and toast. We are the toast, and sometimes it is burnt, and women are the butter, but sometimes it is frigid.

32 posted on 02/15/2014 7:50:38 PM PST by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

apparently this writer has NEVER watched a little boy make a gun or a car or a tank out of ANY toy given to him. And like wise that little girls make babies out of ANY toy given to them


33 posted on 02/15/2014 7:51:22 PM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
We are all born sinful and that sin manifests itself in different ways in each of us.

Speak for yourself.

34 posted on 02/15/2014 7:54:34 PM PST by Misterioso (Narcissism is the belief in nothing, masquerading as tolerance of everything. - Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]


No surrender, no retreat!!

Do not sign away your freedom!!

Do not submit to the godless leftist wannabe dictators!!

Free Republic
PO Box 9771
FResno, CA 93794

Keep freedom ALIVE!!

Thank you all very much!!

God bless.

35 posted on 02/15/2014 7:59:29 PM PST by RedMDer (Happy with this, America? Make your voices heard. 2014 is just around the corner. ~ Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

All those who end up in hell choose it. How you live your life is a choice and choosing to live righteously requires denying the flesh, and sometimes that can be so difficult, unless God is your guide and present help, it would be impossible for you to succeed.

Those who say they have a natural proclivity toward homosexuality, if they are to be saved, must fight against their addiction the same as one addicted to sexual promiscuity with the opposite sex, or the one addicted to porn and self sex, adultery, polygamy or bestiality... all are perversions of the natural order of man and wife. But all start by being introduced to “it”.

And the fondling of “it” develops into a lifestyle habit and as with all habits, they are damnable. Those who think little of hell or even of heaven are those who persist in holding onto their habits and draw comfort by enticing others to adopt those same habits. As God’s word says, “sin is pleasurable for a season, but in the end it brings forth death”. Those who promote their sexually deviant habits promote death and hell. God is patient with us all, but when society as a whole turns against God, He will turn society over to their own chosen destruction... America has little time left before the Holy carp hits the fan.


36 posted on 02/15/2014 8:03:01 PM PST by dps.inspect (rage against the Obama machine...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Misterioso

Glad to hear you don’t have need for a savior.


37 posted on 02/15/2014 8:04:04 PM PST by Gamecock (Grace is not opposed to human activity. It's opposed to human merit. MSH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

One of my son’s first five words was *vroom*.

Our oldest is a girl. He came next, so I had some basis for comparison. I was playing with him showing him a toy car that was actually hers and she ignored completely. I drove it on the floor and said *vroom* and his eyes just lit right up and he immediately repeated it and grabbed for the car.

When he did that, I knew that EVERYTHING those brain dead liberals and psychologists said about boys and girls not being different except what they are taught, was outright hogwash.


38 posted on 02/15/2014 8:14:09 PM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Misterioso; Gamecock

You, Mary, and Jesus, eh?


39 posted on 02/15/2014 8:15:02 PM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

frigidty only occurs when there is a lack of global warming


40 posted on 02/15/2014 8:20:33 PM PST by bigheadfred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: metmom

precisely. Now there are occasionally the one who doesn’t fit the usual but that is so much rarer.


41 posted on 02/15/2014 8:23:01 PM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

From Kirk and Madsen, the homosexual architects of the nationwide propaganda campaign to normalize homosexuality -

http://www.amazon.com/After-Ball-America-Conquer-Hatred/dp/0452264987

The public should be persuaded that gays are victims of circumstance, that they no more chose their sexual orientation than they did, say, their height, skin color, talents, or limitations. (We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been ‘born gay’—even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence.)

http://library.gayhomeland.org/0018/EN/EN_Overhauling_Straight.htm

The mainstream should be told that gays are victims of fate, in the sense that most never had a choice to accept or reject their sexual preference. The message must read: “As far as gays can tell, they were born gay, just as you were born heterosexual or white or black or bright or athletic. They never made a choice, and are not morally blameworthy. What they do isn’t willfully contrary – it’s only natural for them. This twist of fate could as easily have happened to you!” Straight viewers must be able to identify with gays as victims. To this end, the persons featured in the public campaign should be decent and upright, appealing and admirable by straight standards, completely unexceptionable in appearance.


42 posted on 02/15/2014 8:42:39 PM PST by angryoldfatman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
"The sexual acts are entirely normal; if they were not, no one would perform them.” ― Gore Vidal

By Vidal's standard of normal the following statement would also be true...

Suicide is entirely normal; if it was not, no one would commit it.

If Vidal wants to define normal in those terms so be it, we can dispense with the word in regard to the subject. Instead the topic can be analyzed with words like 'positive, negative, beneficial, harmful, safe, dangerous, healthy and unhealthy.' Which of those can be substituted for 'normal' in his statement and hold true?

43 posted on 02/15/2014 9:02:39 PM PST by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The homos want to make the case that their sexual orientation is biological because they want to cover up the fact that their method of recruiting is through social influence. Those who do the recruiting use deviant methods and that is why we call them deviants.


44 posted on 02/15/2014 10:41:03 PM PST by jonrick46 (The opium of Communists: other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The biggest reason is to sexualize children (give them an innate sexuality) and then declare the pedophiles privy to it.


45 posted on 02/15/2014 11:07:48 PM PST by struggle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Sexual identity is a function of the human soul. Even gender is a function of the soul.

This topic is a lot simpler than most people make it. Consciousness drives biology. While there is a feedback loop, the main thrust is consciousness and perception influencing biology, not vice versa.

That’s why the matters of the soul are a lot more important than the matters of the flesh.

Masculine and feminine are attributes of the soul or consciousness. Attraction is merely the soul trying to become “whole” by attracting its compliment. That’s why even gay & lesbian relationships have one partner dominant masculine & one dominant feminine.

It’s frustrating to be able to see and experience people’s consciousness and perceive this first hand, while others cannot do the same. I do quite a bit of therapy with gays and lesbians to heal the wounds in their souls. I do not judge them, but help them to heal. Usually these are the same wounds in the soul that create the obstacles to Love in straight people. Love, or lack of it really is what creates most of our problems in society as Love is the glue that holds the soul together and stabilizes it. That’s why Jesus taught us what He did.


46 posted on 02/16/2014 1:47:28 AM PST by tired&retired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster

“Whenever the “homosexuality isn’t a choice!” argument rears it’s head .......”

It’s not my fault that I’m..... (fill in the blank)!

poor

hungry

an alcoholic

a drug addict

pregnant

homeless

fat

(I just realized that I am describing an Obama supporter)


47 posted on 02/16/2014 1:53:12 AM PST by tired&retired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Optimist

Many years ago, my OB/GYN told me that bi-sexuals are nature’s hitmen. They carry and transmit the largest amount of STD and other diseases, indiscriminately inflicting them on the population.

I think they were not done “baking” in the womb, their wiring never was connected... And so on. The idea to be willing to have sex with anything, besides being repugnant to me, puts that person at a feral level. What else would behave so animalisticaly?

Add: Ew! Icky!

Debbi


48 posted on 02/16/2014 3:34:02 AM PST by hearthwench (Mom, NaNa, always ornery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Some boys are sure born leaning sissy acting

I see traits in some soon as they quit crawling


49 posted on 02/16/2014 3:40:37 AM PST by wardaddy (Bus to Shreveport... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYF682WYRtw&feature=youtube_gdata_)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigheadfred
frigidty only occurs when there is a lack of global warming

That is an important find! They may add that to the list: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

50 posted on 02/16/2014 4:17:48 AM PST by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson