Posted on 06/25/2004 7:32:18 AM PDT by scripter
If homosexuality were genetic, wouldn't it have died out thousands of years ago? How would true genetically-based homosexuals have procreated over the years?
I very much encourage you to read the linked article in post 14.
And homosexuality was considered a mental illness until 1973. That's when homosexual activism was able to have it removed as a mental illness. It certainly wasn't science that lead to the change. The article mentions Dr. Spitzer - he was involved in that decision and now he believes homosexuals can leave the lifestyle.
But the basic thrust of this article seems to be that there is no "nature" aspect to homosexuality, which is pure crap. (If there were no "nature" aspect, homosexuality would not occur in nature -- but it does.)
Homosexuality doesn't have to be "genetic" for somebody to be "born that way." Just as various other personality traits seem to be innate, a tendency to same-sex attraction can be innate. This doesn't make it "genetic," any more than your or my personality traits are "genetic."
That doesn't change the fact that homosexuality is disordered, nor does it alter the fact that environment can be and often is a major factor in causing people to act on an existing pre-disposition.
Indeed, and many are.
I agree.
Interesting...and it does seem to provide some answers.
I'll bookmark it to go over in more detail at a later time.
Thanks,
dave
More like..(Thousands have escaped the homosexual lifestyle)
I agree with you. I was responding to the person who couldn't believe that children "choose" homosexuality, suggesting there must be a natural component to it. In responding I implied that it is a mental illness like any other that needs to be treated.
The article summarizes many of the latest findings, and those findings are very interesting because they clash with the poltical agenda of homosexuals and their sympathizers.
The homosexuality in nature argument has been debunked many times. Animals resort to it briefly when females aren't around but animals are quick to return to normal sexual activity when females are around. Besides that, should man imitate animals?
Anybody who uses your argument is not very well informed on the subject.
I suggest you start reading with the link in post 14 and then move on to the link in post 6.
The problem with this argument, on both sides, is that they want to lump ALL gay people into the same category. Gays want it seen that they are ALL born that way, those opposed want to say that it is a choice for all of them. I think there are varying degrees. The partner of this woman is someone who I think became gay from her life experience, and thus it was something more of a choice, but by some strong anti-male experiences she had from her past.
Here is another problem with these arguments, this idea that if it is a "born" thing, that it is Genetic. This doesn't have to be true, I really doubt there exists a "gay" gene. _IF_ some are born this way, I think its probably an error in the expression of the genes, a birth defect.
Irrelevent.
The "gay gene" has approached the status of legend and will believed regardless of the research that refutes it.
Just like the bogus 10% figure.
The Left couldn't care less about anything so inconvenient as facts.
"Who of the straights among us believe that we could learn to be gay and like it? "
I think that at one time, I probably could have. For a variety of reasons, I used to have a tremendous anger at men. Had I had just a few more bad experiences with men, and had a kind, loving lesbian comforted me, a change in my "sexual orientation" would not have been outside the realm of possibility.
I know, EGD - sorry my post came across in a way it wasn't intended.
You know, since my morning laziness IS BIOLOGICALLY programmed, and I can't help it, maybe I should start an "awareness" and "rights" movement. I can see it now:
The Benefits & Education Defense for Heterosexuals Enduring Aversion to Daylight Savings (BED-HEADS).
For arguments sake - What about the people born with 2 organs and the parents have to decide at birth which organ should go. And years later they realize they made a mistake ?
It's complicated, but I think you would change your mind if you read more on the subject.
They aren't going to worry about that. Logical extensions of reasoning have no place in liberal politics. The goal is to attack the character and motives of your opponents until they go away, and others are intimidated away from taking their place.
I promise you the assault on Spitzer's character and mental faculties will soon begin. They will call him senile, they will say he has become a tool of the religious right, that he's been brainwashed, or financially corrupted, or whatever. I have seen it more times than I care to remember.
I agree that it isn't entirely a choice.
I equate homosexuality with fetishes. Some have an irresistable compunction to be sexually aroused by shoes, leather, etc., as well as those who are sexually aroused by being abused, dominated, humiliated, etc.
That isn't always a choice, per say, but it is almost certainly learned behavior.
Indeed. I just hope it's not too late to educate those who are still teachable.
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.