Skip to comments.Science Shows That Homosexuals Are Not "Born That Way."
Posted on 12/13/2004 9:51:59 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
click here to read article
Oh my, bet you saw more than you'd ever want to see. Oy.
Maybe... but how does that explain Bawney Fwank?
Exactly - and by using the word 'gay', it means falling right into the lobbyists trap of first changing the language to 1. mean something than it originally meant and 2. the creation of a term which looks like it has some type of group status associated with it and therefore legitimacy.
It's for this reason that I absolutely refuse to use the word 'gay' - at least in any kind of sexuality context.
I left after Easter when I witnessed the Egg Hunt and how they hunted for the eggs, by where they put the eggs!
Guess they thought they were Chickens!
I miss the point.
LOL...It's mind boggling, isn't it?
Reading comprehension ain't your long suit, I see.
I believe that a girl born after a older brother has a higher chance of being a tom boy because of the antibodies left in the mother's body. The same thing might affect men born after an older sister. But I think a lot of homosexuality is born of lack of success with the opposite sex and a familiarity with the same sex. Clearly more is involved including earlier experiences. I go with the continuum thing, everyone is on a line from hetero to homo and where you are sometimes gives one side or the other a chance to pull you in. Not genetic, but nevertheless inherent.
This does not mean I want homosexuality to be normalized, on the contrary, I would like to see it totally underground and given as many chances to disappear as possible.
I believe Ann Heche used to be Ellen DeGeneres' "girlfriend," but then married a man.
So she seems to have changed her mind . . .
When I was a Kid my dad called them Queers and Fruits...
They ruined the true meaning of Gay...
Damn it! and all this time I thought the sun was out at 3 a.m.... Damn it!
At least the fence-post knot-holers should agree with you.
Of course they, else they wouldn't.
There are those who propose that it is population-pressure driven.
I guess you have to know who these icons from pop culture are in order to "get it". I didn't recognize her because I've never seen her. Thankfully.
So she seems to have changed her mind . . .
I think that there are many people don't care a whit what sex person they are cavorting with. It it gets ya off, go for it.
I hear that many married women are going "bi" in order to get turned on without having affairs with men other than their husbands. Often with the moronic husbands going along so they can view other women having sex with their wives. It takes all kinds....
"Homophilia" does exist. The term was invented to describe patients who found themselves far more turned on by members of their own sex; Even though they were trying to be heterosexual, they just couldn't find members of their own sex attractive.
Homosexuality is a behavior. It was conflated with homophilia by the MSM so as to confuse terms; it is much easier to denounce homsexuality than homophilia. The Catholic church, for instance, finds homosexuality to be emphatically and categorically denounced in the bible, but has significantly more difficulties on the issue as to whether homophiles should be excluded from the priesthood. (Rome has said they should be, but has failed to discipline anyone from the American Church which nearly unanimously permits homophiles into the priesthood. Rome opposes the ordination of homophiles because it finds that the tremendous sacrifice of priestly celibacy (which is fantastically greater of a burden than simple abstinence) requires sexually and emotionally healthy persons.
I'm not sure that it is all that helpful to toss out what would likely be interpreted as derogatory names but the strangest thing about it to me is the way the term 'queer' has been almost marketed and foisted on the public - at least it sure appears that this term is trumpeted from the 'inside' as opposed to something that comes from the 'outside'. Oh right, I forgot - 'they' are celebrating their diversity, difference, uniqueness etc.
At some levels, the whole thing gets very basic. For example, what is a homosexual? The word gets tossed about as if everyone knows what it means.... but what does it really mean?
Love your tag line - so very true.
Ok for the science.
Now what about those teenagers who in puberty form strong attachments to the same sex? What about those teenagers who do not even realize that they are different in their attachments?
Do people really believe teenagers go out on a Saturday and say - "Gee, what can I do to make my peers hate me, bring utter scorn on me?"
I don't. I believe that something goes amiss somewhere along the line in puberty where they do not progress to the "discovering women" stage. I believe they live years of confusion as their friends form attachments to the other sex and they begin to realize they are somehow different from their friends as girlfriend situations are somehow forced to them.
They then drift into associations with other males not hooked up with girlfriends and trouble ensues.
I don't know what causes this - whether an early attack, a missing step in the sexual development stage or what.
But - ask any parent of a young gay person what they saw in the development of that child. I doubt you will find that that child decided willfully to be turned on by males and form strong attachments to males rather than females.
Ask any teenage girl why she is not attracted to her male gay friends sexually. I think you will find that there is just missing chemistry and it just does not take.
Who can explain chemistry among the sexes?
I agree there are choices. I agree that some "experiment" or seek gross diversions. But, in addition, there are the teenagers caught in this mess and we don't need to condemn them - we need answers to help them live in this world.
Homophilia (attraction to memners of one's own gender) may not be a choice; homosexuality (sexual relations with members of one's own gender) is. That said, even homosexuals culpability for their own sins may be somewhat lessened (but by no means eliminated!) by compulsive or addictive disorders.
Yeah, that's where the whole arguement falls apart. Are people born with leather-fetish or rubber-fetish or fill in the blank fetish? There are all sorts of odd things that turns on certain people, and the only real explaination for those is it is a learned behavior. Sexuality is a powerful positive reinforcement mechnism, and to discount its ability to shape ones sexuality is just plain ignorant.
We know rats get agressive it the population of the cage is too large. I think people do this too. I don't see how having lots of people (like in big cities) leads to homosexuality, birth control is available and lots of sex can be had. Homosexual men have lots of sex, because each has a partner with the sex drive of a male. Thus they are both males. but attracted not to females. I am not referring here to prison homosexuality, (where women are not available, that is another thing, and is not the kind of homosexuality we are talking about here.) But I would not propose that population pressure has anything to do with it other than high population will allow a larger base number of homosexuals (at the same percentage).
It brings more problems than it solves for young girls, I believe.
I disagree. What about all the years before society made it acceptable?
A study needs to be done of parents of gays and see what they noticed over the years of development.
Again - how many teenagers do you know that seek to choose options that bring scorn on them their entire lives? They just want to be accepted by their peers. They are not accepted - no matter what society attempts to do.
How could you get a young normal teenager to avoid girls and instead only be interested in relationships of the same sex. It could not be done.
I have not noticed young men sitting down and deciding they would like girls - not men. I have seen young men totally enamored of a young girl and you could not make them be able to ignore them.
Now why is this? Did you make a choice sexually? I seem to remember having boyfriends in the first grade - and I did not make a "choice".
Thanks for posting this.
I have long contended, based on my personal observations of the messed-up lives of people who come from abusive families, that the people who end of going off the reservation on this issue do so because of emotional, physical, and/or sexual abuse in their childhoods. It's not always the parents doing the abusing, sometimes it's Uncle Joe or the neighbor or another adult, oh, say, a parish priest or a camp counselor, etc. But if a child is smashed up and pressed out of measure, he's not going to grow up strong and sturdy like children who are well-loved, properly nurtured, and have good role models.
Oh, I forgot - I am a female - not a male. Don't want to add confusion to our discussion.
I would also throw in the pedophiles. Are they born with a lust for little girls and boys? Is there a gene we can isolate for that? It all falls under the same heading. I do not think it is natural in any of these cases, but of course that is just my opiniion.
No, that is a debilitating mental illness that **can** be cured...
Often times it's simply cured as time passes by (age). Sometimes it's cured by things such as being the victim of an armed robbery. Or, the government taking away your home. There are So many cures it makes one wonder how there are still people in existence with Liberal Disease.
Did you chose to date girls in high school instead of boys?
Did you only chose girls because that was what was expected OR BECAUSE YOU HAD NO CHOICE - YOU JUST HAD TO HAVE A DATE WITH THAT CUTE GIRL IN THE NEXT AISLE?
I suggest people remember their own teenage years and when they made their choice.
Frankly - it never came up with me - it was just natural because of the many crushes I was surrounded with in my teenage years. (Note-I am female).
>> I mean you can find tons of animals that exhibit in same-sex behavior.<<
Yes, because most animals engage in sexual behavior simply as a result of environmental stimuli. For instance, most animals simply go into periodic "heat," where they are sexually aroused by what time it is in a sexual cycle, and not by the characteristics of another animal present. Such animals often mate with members of the opposite sex only because they find members of their own sex unreceptive. A cat in heat will becom esexually active with whatever fits its anatomy the best. A same-sex relation is better to a cat than a carpet, but a carpet will do, also. But that same cat will, AFAIK, always prefer another cat of the opposite gender.
Humans are very unique among animals in that our sexuality is not cyclical. Human female's breasts are perpetually enlarged for sexuality, and both genders are capable of sexual relations at any time. Rather, human sexuality is mostly triggered by psychological, rather than physiological conditions. (There are some vestigal physiological causes; Men tend to be visually stimulated while women tend to show a circilunar greater ease of arousal.) The complex psychological elements of sexuality are altogether absent in most animals, and therefore comparisons to human sexuality are just silly.
I would have a couple conditions before I would consider relating animal homosexuality to human homosexuality:
1. The animal would have monogamous in nature. This is not because I am asserting that humans are monogamous in nature, but because it establishes sexual psychology, not simply indiscriminate humping; In corollary, the animal would have to be exclusively homosexual; bisexuality in animals would only demonstrate a lack of cognitive discrimination.
2. The animal would have to have heterosexual opportunity. In other words, I wouldn't classify as homosexual animals which are striving for heterosexual matings, but which are physiologically compelled to sexually climax in spite of the ability to find an appropriate mate.
That opinion is so gay...
Send me a picture of animals being homo. Any animal. I keep hearing this about animals and I have never seen a queer animal. Maybe you have movies of animals exhibiting queer tendencies? If you do please post them here so we can all see for ourselves. If you have no proof, make no statements about it.
>>They look good and are for the most part healthy because homosexuals are not recruiting those whom they do not find attractive.<<
No, it's because homosexuals are, by nature, narcisistic. And they also tend to be sexually compulsive, so they are very driven to get off on themselves.
Now I wonder what kind of "sexuality" it is when my neighbor's dog tries to do my leg. If it's a male dog on a man's leg is the dog homosexual? But a male dog on a woman's leg is heterosexual?...
It's pointless to discuss these types of things with the homosexual lobby. They have no argument other than emotion.
And if that BS were true, you'd see consistent findings from the dozens of MZ "twins-studies". But you don't, you see data range from 0% to the high 70's% concordance rates.
If the twins studies prove anything it's that the practice of perversion in NOT inherited, if it were the "studies" could be replicated.
Oh, and calling them narcistic is not a judgment. I just mean it as a natural result of being turned on by bodies which look like your own.
Actually I tend to think the benefits of being heterosexual occur here on earth. I don't think God really cares that much about our sex lives, but I do think that a secure and stable marriage and children are two of lifes greatest joys and if you are homosexual chances are you won't have either. It's also a very unhealthy lifestyle both emotionally and physically. Men and women are naturally complimentary to each other. Men and men or women and women are not.
It really doesn't matter whether there is such a genetic predisposition or not. Homosexuals have free will just like anyone else, and they choose their behavior.
I believe that he **did** do a song titled "Beat It." Hmmmmm.....
Congratulations on your cure and recovery!
Read post #84. I had pet rabbits. We got females only, so they wouldn't make a zillions of little pet rabbits. They did mount each other. I explain in post #84 why this is not comparable to human homosexuality.
26: I agree. Well stated.
I can only guess what the poster was referring to. Somehow I know her from something. She and Ellen seemed quite the item in People magazine, etc . . .
I now take my own magazines to read in the dentist's waiting room! LOL
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.