Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Gay' Gene Claim Suddenly Vanishes
World Net Daily ^ | May 13, 2009 | Bob Unruh

Posted on 05/13/2009 7:07:43 AM PDT by conservativegramma

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-187 next last
To: The_Repugnant_Conservative
Not surprisingly we are much more than just what our genes are coded for.

True ... but if we attempt to discount the effect of our genetic makeup, as Mr. Unruh would apparently have us do in this case, we are lying to ourselves.

101 posted on 05/13/2009 11:51:03 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
First, you are putting words into Unruh's mouth.

Second, you are clearly not familiar with the actual meaning of the terms genetic component, gay gene and genetics.

There is no evidence or research that claims homosexuality is genetic. There is no genetic test, experimental or otherwise that can determine one's sexual orientation.

102 posted on 05/13/2009 12:07:16 PM PDT by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
includes an admission that there is no "gay" gene Sorry, Bob. That's not what the statement actually says. But then, it's WND, so what do you expect?

Actually, it does say that. They admit hey have not found a gay gene. I guess you read a different article.

103 posted on 05/13/2009 12:15:49 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lucky Dog

Would I sanction what two consenting adults do in private? No. One could argue that adultery, particularly when children are involved, is far more detrimental. I would be more inclined to sanction the latter than the former.


104 posted on 05/13/2009 12:21:31 PM PDT by drjulie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: scripter
First, you are putting words into Unruh's mouth.

Unruh's words speak for themselves.

Second, you are clearly not familiar with the actual meaning of the terms genetic component, gay gene and genetics.

Oh, OK. Sure. Whatever.

There is no evidence or research that claims homosexuality is genetic. There is no genetic test, experimental or otherwise that can determine one's sexual orientation.

And are you therefore claiming that there is no genetic component -- nothing in a person's genes that predisposes him to a particular sexual orientation? Because that's what you seem to be saying right here.

105 posted on 05/13/2009 12:49:54 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: calex59
Actually, it does say that.

Actually, it doesn't say that. Mr. Byrd says that -- but he's not the APA.

106 posted on 05/13/2009 12:51:50 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma
Well really! How could a biological reproductive malfunction reproduce itself (other than through recruiting... meaning the rape and propagandizing of innocent children)?

Reproductive malfunctions, by definition, do not reproduce.
107 posted on 05/13/2009 12:55:42 PM PDT by Enoughofthissocialism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
This entire post is filled with perfect examples of what I previously said. That is, you clearly do not understand the terms we are discussing.

Unruh's words speak for themselves.

Yes, they do. But your misrepresentations of his words do not. Because you do not understand the terms, you do not understand what was said.

And are you therefore claiming that there is no genetic component -- nothing in a person's genes that predisposes him to a particular sexual orientation? Because that's what you seem to be saying right here.

This question demonstrates you don't know the subject matter.

108 posted on 05/13/2009 1:08:23 PM PDT by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: scripter
Yes, they do. But your misrepresentations of his words do not.

I am not misrepresenting his words. His meaning is clear, and I have accurately stated it.

This question demonstrates you don't know the subject matter.

Actually, this question demonstrates my request for you to provide a clear and unambiguous answer to my question.

Do you believe that genes play a role in determining a person's sexual orientation?

That's a yes or no question. You refuse to answer it. Why?

109 posted on 05/13/2009 1:20:03 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Enoughofthissocialism
Reproductive malfunctions, by definition, do not reproduce

Huh? What's your definition of "reproductive malfunction?"

110 posted on 05/13/2009 1:21:23 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
With this post, yet again, you demonstrate what I've been saying in recent posts. Your post 90 speaks volumes:
Explain to me how there can be a genetic component without genes?
What's truly sad is you don't even understand the question you're asking because you don't understand the terms. Get back to me when you can define the terms.
111 posted on 05/13/2009 1:47:19 PM PDT by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: scripter
What's truly sad is you don't even understand the question you're asking because you don't understand the terms. Get back to me when you can define the terms.

No, what's truly sad is you holding yourself out as some kind of expert, but you won't even answer a simple yes or no question.

Do you believe that a person's genes play a role in determining his sexual orientation?

Simple question. Dancy prancy scripter won't answer -- he just dances and prances. I wonder why?

112 posted on 05/13/2009 1:57:24 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

Gay sex is a total malfunction of the reproductive act. It produces nothing but disease, justified shame, and social breakdown.

You don’t know it’s a malfunction? What did you think it produced?


113 posted on 05/13/2009 2:29:12 PM PDT by Enoughofthissocialism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: ChetNavVet

It may be true but every single court case that determined anything in favor of homosexuals assumed the “born that way” meme.

It may not be scientific, but the courts have taken homosexuality to be as immutible as skin color.


114 posted on 05/13/2009 2:29:48 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

perhaps it was a really really really really bad marriage with a really really really really bad marital sex life. It was so bad that...


115 posted on 05/13/2009 2:33:11 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
You responded to my post 102 so I'm assuming you read it. Now read post 61 which you apparently ignored and think about all the other posts.

Using the above and other posts from me as raw material, ask another question but use the correct terms or you'll, again, demonstrate you don't understand the question. Once you're able to ask the question using the correct terms, you'll realize you already know my answer. Well, I can hope.

116 posted on 05/13/2009 2:35:34 PM PDT by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos

I don’t think the behaviors can compare becaue one is an actual drug interation with the body. The other is a behvior on the body.

Perhaps it is more akin to not having another tattoo on the body. Not one more piercing.

regardless, homosexual advocates did it to themselves because their entire lifestyle is defined by a recreational sex act.


117 posted on 05/13/2009 2:36:47 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
It may not be scientific, but the courts have taken homosexuality to be as immutible as skin color.

Indeed. And those on the left and some freepers have bought the born that way lie. The good news is we have the facts on our side. The bad news is nobody seems to care about the facts.

118 posted on 05/13/2009 2:39:39 PM PDT by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: scripter

So you think there are men who choose to get erections for other men? It makes total sense to me that it is something they can be born with. I didn’t make a conscious choice to be attracted to the opposite sex, but I am. I can easily believe they are no different. All kinds of people are born with abnormal traits. This is not any different.


119 posted on 05/13/2009 2:46:25 PM PDT by ItisaReligionofPeace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

"What are you saying...?"

120 posted on 05/13/2009 2:48:51 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (If you like the Dept. of Motor Vehicles, the IRS, and the Post Office, you'll love govt Health Care)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: ItisaReligionofPeace

If the men only get erections for other men, how do some get married and have kids and wait 30 years to decide that was all a “lie”?


121 posted on 05/13/2009 2:49:37 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (If you like the Dept. of Motor Vehicles, the IRS, and the Post Office, you'll love govt Health Care)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
It may not be scientific, but the courts have taken homosexuality to be as immutible as skin color.

False. Courts rule all the time that when a person "changes" his or her sex (through hormone treatments and visual alteration of secondary sex traits) the courts bestow all sorts of protections against discrimination under their "new" identity (including the right to enter the restrooms and dressing rooms of members of the opposite sex).

122 posted on 05/13/2009 2:51:59 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (If you like the Dept. of Motor Vehicles, the IRS, and the Post Office, you'll love govt Health Care)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

I have no idea. Maybe they are bi-sexual? I guess you’re saying that after 30 years they make a choice that they’d rather suck on d-—s? Makes total sense to me (/sarc).


123 posted on 05/13/2009 2:58:29 PM PDT by ItisaReligionofPeace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: ItisaReligionofPeace
So you think there are men who choose to get erections for other men?

Well, there is http://queerbychoice.com. But the vast majority? No. Please read post 61. See my profile for more info.

124 posted on 05/13/2009 2:59:02 PM PDT by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma; 185JHP; 230FMJ; 50mm; 69ConvertibleFirebird; AFA-Michigan; Abathar; Agitate; ...
Homosexual Agenda and Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]


125 posted on 05/13/2009 3:00:33 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ItisaReligionofPeace

Clearly they decide that it means more to them than people the professed to love, including their own offspring.


126 posted on 05/13/2009 3:01:56 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (If you like the Dept. of Motor Vehicles, the IRS, and the Post Office, you'll love govt Health Care)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Enoughofthissocialism
You don’t know it’s a malfunction? What did you think it produced?

You misunderstand. You introduced a new term into the discussion, and then referred to it as being self-evident according to some "definition" that you failed to provide. I was asking you to provide that definition. And unfortunately, your definition misses the point.

Gay sex is a total malfunction of the reproductive act. It produces nothing but disease, justified shame, and social breakdown.

Well, ok ... I will agree about the disease, shame, and social breakdown; and I'll agree that there's more to it than that.

But I'd point out that the question under discussion is what makes a person behave that way in the first place. What is the cause of the malfunction? You're not addressing the point.

BTW, it's not a "total malfunction," in the usual sense of the term; i.e., that nothing works as it should. My understanding of the mechanics of homosexual behavior is that the equipment itself is apparently fully functional; what's different about it, is that it's just employed in an aberrant pursuit. And again, the question is what would motivate a person to behave in that manner.

As an aside, that aberrant pursuit does not prevent a homosexual from normal procreation -- I know and know of practicing homosexuals who nevertheless have kids that were conceived in the usual way.

127 posted on 05/13/2009 3:02:13 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: scripter
I read it. I quoted the relevant portion from the APA statement.

And you're still dancing rather than answer the question. Should we play a waltz, or is a nice two-step more your style?

Or maybe you're just afraid to answer the question. Which is, just to remind you:

Do you believe that a person's genes play a role in determining his sexual orientation?

128 posted on 05/13/2009 3:06:40 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: scripter

I am not going to argue with you because I really don’t care either way. Sorry.


129 posted on 05/13/2009 3:06:43 PM PDT by ItisaReligionofPeace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

For the last time: Your question uses incorrect terms. Rephrase using the correct terms which will demonstrate you understand the question.


130 posted on 05/13/2009 3:13:04 PM PDT by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: ItisaReligionofPeace

I wouldn’t consider pointing you to more information as arguing, but I can understand your position.


131 posted on 05/13/2009 3:14:34 PM PDT by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
OK, sorry.

No, I didn't mean it was a physical malfunction. But it is biologically malfunctional to use the reproductive organs the way the sickos do.

Thus, homosexuality turns out to be a biological reproductive malfunction.

Nevertheless: the claim that their malfunctional predilection is of genetic origins is ridiculous because they are based around a reproductive malfunctional practice, and such things do not reproduce.

Bottom line is that it's not genetic in origin, but a recruited sickness.

We are probably on the same page here, but talking past each other without intending to.

132 posted on 05/13/2009 3:16:16 PM PDT by Enoughofthissocialism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: scripter
Let's compromise, Mr. Expert. You can provide any definition of "genes" you want.

Just answer the question:

Do you believe that a person's genes play a role in determining his sexual orientation?

Yes or no?

133 posted on 05/13/2009 3:16:50 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

agreed

I would go with the mental disorder caused by a sexual confusion on how to be satisfied

either way they should not be allowed to have a marriage based on a sexual turn on and should not be allowed to have kids though foster or adoption

Now I do not go north many times but for some reason many white collar elitist folk up in the north east seem to think it is cool being seen with a homo

is it in the water there or are they like the rest of the left who only go with what they are told to think


134 posted on 05/13/2009 3:23:02 PM PDT by manc (Marriage is between a man and a woman no sick queer sham--- end racism end affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Enoughofthissocialism
But it is biologically malfunctional to use the reproductive organs the way the sickos do.

Careful of the terminology -- that could be a reference to a genetic predisposition, which is the topic under discussion.

Nevertheless: the claim that their malfunctional predilection is of genetic origins is ridiculous because they are based around a reproductive malfunctional practice, and such things do not reproduce.

That's not a logically sound statement. People can be genetically predisposed to a lot of things, and will not necessarily manifest those traits unless some other triggering event takes place (e.g., cancer or Type I diabetes). Or, such genetic predispositions may never manifest themselves, for various reasons.

If we hypothesize that homosexual behavior has a genetic component, we would place it in the same class as the above: the genetic aspect might not, in itself, be fully determinative of homosexual behavior, but in conjunction with other factors could make itself known.

And, for that matter, there is no need to assume that a person is "fully homosexual." As I noted above, I know or know of a number of practicing homosexuals who have children that were conceived in the normal way. If there is a genetic component to homosexuality, a genetic predisposition could be passed on.

It's a complicated situation -- I don't believe there is any one cause. However, I do believe that many homosexuals have had a predisposition toward it from birth; that there's something in their genetic makeup that makes them lean the way they do.

And because it's complicated, I would go so far as to say that there are probably people who are considered heterosexual who have the same predisposition, that just hasn't been triggered in the same way.

135 posted on 05/13/2009 3:28:55 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Seruzawa

I lived up in MA for some time, had to unfortunately and WOW it seemed many folks went to see a shrink so I decided to see what all the fuss was and made an appointment

This woman was out of her head, I thought I was helping her when sitting there. She was completely fried in the brain especially when I said things like what do you mean white trash, why would you say that, if I said black trash you would call that racist.

I swear I did this all of the appointment and she was glad to see the back of me as she had no answers but just liberal left wing loon speeches and slogans

Later that year I saw her going into an office I was visiting to see a shrink

LOL


136 posted on 05/13/2009 3:31:30 PM PDT by manc (Marriage is between a man and a woman no sick queer sham--- end racism end affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Thanks for the clarification. I guess we ARE in disagreement.

I do not believe there is any genetic predisposition to self-genocidal behavior.

One has to choose to be that kind of sicko.

As another poster put it, what the pillow-biters REALLY want is for there to be no judgment of their disgusting actions. Too bad. Even little children find them disgusting. It's just natural. They will NEVER have full acceptance.

137 posted on 05/13/2009 3:33:54 PM PDT by Enoughofthissocialism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: conservativeharleyguy

LOL

I ask them before we get into the debate so they do not know where I will come from and then say well if you believe in Nature and Darwin then surely we are here to reproduce to keep our species going and alive for another generation and with that why didn’t nature make it so for homosexuals to reproduce.
Isn’t that the an unnatural act

the usual answer is dur dur dur and then go off on the talking points with no direct answer to what I have said


138 posted on 05/13/2009 3:34:14 PM PDT by manc (Marriage is between a man and a woman no sick queer sham--- end racism end affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Do you believe that a person's genes play a role in determining his sexual orientation?

Just butting in here, but would you consider the statement "a person's genes play no known role in determining his sexual orientation" to be valid, based on the APA paper?

139 posted on 05/13/2009 3:49:18 PM PDT by Lucius Cornelius Sulla ("men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." -- Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
I side with what science says on the matter, post 39: From post 102:
There is no evidence or research that claims homosexuality is genetic. There is no genetic test, experimental or otherwise that can determine one's sexual orientation.
Homosexuality is not inherited.

What is meant by genetic component? By genetic component, scientists mean linkages and associations. What confuses people is how little linkages and associations play into the mix as those who don't understand the science take linkages and associations to mean causation. Scientists know they don't.

There is no such thing as a gay gene.

No ifs, ands or buts about it, science is quite hostile to the born that way theory of homosexuality.

A summary of the scientific evidence is that homosexuals are not born with their same-sex attraction, but neither do the vast majority choose their same-sex attraction.

Here's a primer on the subject: How Might Homosexuality Develop? Putting the Pieces Together

An interesting article: "Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired," Concludes Dr. Francis S. Collins, Head Of The Human Genome Project

How would you summarize the above?

140 posted on 05/13/2009 3:51:59 PM PDT by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: ItisaReligionofPeace
In the sixties, the “forbidden pleasure” was being caught having extramarital sex, which in many circles is now acceptable. It was “forbidden pleasure” related to be single and pregnant. (or so those seeking the pleasures thought. If a girl became pregnant, they were generally sent to a home for unwed mothers, or to live with a relative until after she had the baby, and her family concocted a story to explain her absence. Today, that is widely acceptable. When a boy is young, the “forbidden pleasure” is generally porn, and while that is not yet acceptable, it is still a forbidden pleasure, something they hide. There are all sorts of them, but the as people experiment with more and more forbidden pleasures, including drugs, they sometimes get introduced to homosexuality. The ever greater thrill, and to rebel against society is what most of them seek. Yes, it is a mental disorder. A lot of them cannot differentiate between a fantasy and something they should act upon.

How could it possibly be considered love. If you knew the very acts you perform with your partner would lead to serious medical issues, some of them recurring, some even deadly, would you do that with someone you love? I would guess not. It isn't about love, it is about having gradually sunk to ever lowering standards of depravity.

141 posted on 05/13/2009 4:01:04 PM PDT by gidget7 (Duncan Hunter-Valley Forge Republican!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma
Here's a very interesting read: Destructive Trends in Mental Health

The book is written by Wright and Cummings who are (self identified) lifelong liberal activists. The above link is an Amazon link. Here's a review from NARTH: http://www.narth.com/docs/destructive.html.

142 posted on 05/13/2009 4:06:38 PM PDT by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drjulie

The libertarian view is to live and let live. We don’t want people in our bedrooms, front yards, and gun cabinets.

Me, I am of the standpoint that it does not matter if being gay is a choice or not—so what if it is? As long as two consenting adults are keeping their behaviors in their bedrooms, hands-off as far as I’m concerned.

The government, and we, have no right to dictate what goes on in the hearts and minds—and between the bodies—of two consenting adults.


143 posted on 05/13/2009 4:13:37 PM PDT by notafraidofyou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: gidget7

I am sorry but I don’t see how you can make a leap between extramarital sex, unwed mothers, porn, and homosexual sex. What you are attempting to described could be summarized with one word: hedonism. You also believe that part of the attraction is so that they can rebel against society.

I don’t have the time to go over the fallacies in your argument in detail, but having extramarital sex and wanting to look at naked women is quite natural. It would be fair to say that people (men) are born with these desires. Some men choose to control their desires. You then indicate that when people do these quite natural things they are prone to becomming homosexual. This makes no sense at all to those of us who don’t have an agenda. Sorry.


144 posted on 05/13/2009 5:13:18 PM PDT by ItisaReligionofPeace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: ItisaReligionofPeace; gidget7
You then indicate that when people do these quite natural things they are prone to becomming homosexual.

Actually, what gidget7 said was:

as people experiment with more and more forbidden pleasures, including drugs, they sometimes get introduced to homosexuality
I'll expand on what I think gidget7 said: since there is no evidence of a gay gene, when men and women practice hedonism (your word) they can be introduced to same-sex sexual behavior.

Perhaps you disagree but you don't say why.

Then you say:

This makes no sense at all to those of us who don’t have an agenda

What agenda does gidget7 have? Please be specific.

145 posted on 05/13/2009 5:57:40 PM PDT by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: scripter
In your mind hedonism would lead a “normal” person to homosexual behavior? That's like saying that hedonism leads to bestiality. It's just not behavior that people fall into on a whim while they're seeking a good time. Say what you want, but my experiences here on earth lead me to this very sane conclusion. Her agenda, like yours, is that all homosexuals choose to be homosexual. For some reason the idea that they are born this way insults your religious beliefs. I am not sure how or why this is because certainly you acknowledge that lots of people are born with all kinds of defects ranging from physical deformities to mental illnesses.
146 posted on 05/13/2009 6:11:50 PM PDT by ItisaReligionofPeace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Sorry to be so long in replying… business interfered with my internet hobby.

You're pretending that actions can be considered in isolation from motivations.

I am not pretending… I truly do not care what the motivations are, or are not, for homosexual behavior. Such is irrelevant to the act unless you are going to maintain that homosexual behavior is the result of a mental illness. Either an individual has the intent to commit a homosexual act and does so, or he or she doesn’t.

If the individual does not commit the act, then there is no potentially disease-ridden, immoral threat to society’s definition of marriage or other values. On the other hand, if the individual commits the act privately with another consenting adult in a completely monogamous or monandrous relationship and doesn’t insist on altering any societal values nor claiming any special rights, then their actions are none of my concern.

However, an overwhelming majority (according to government statistics and academic studies) of homosexual practitioners do not restrict themselves to private, monogamous/monandrous relationships. Additionally, this same overwhelming majority of homosexual practitioners loudly and obnoxiously insist on altering millennia-old societal values. Furthermore, despite comprising a very small percentage of the population, they and those that traffic with them make up between 60 and 80 percent (or more) of the HIV/AIDs infections in this country. Moreover, while not all homosexual practitioners are pedophiles and child molesters, a hugely disproportionate number of pedophiles and child molesters are homosexual practitioners.

Kids can get away with that kind of reasoning because they lack context. Grown-ups don't get that sort of free pass.

I think the previous paragraph is more than enough context. However, there is certainly more if you want it.

We're not talking about theft. And even then, we can and often do make distinctions about theft based on the motives of the perpetrator. For example, the person who steals because he's starving, is in a different moral class from the person who steals because he likes to steal. Stupid kids who steal are different from career criminals, and are treated differently.

Ok, I am willing to treat homosexual practitioners who commit homosexual acts because they are starving differently. Similarly, I am also willing to treat stupid kids who commit isolated homosexual acts differently from those homosexual practitioners who are habitually doing so. Contextually satisfied yet?

I know homosexuals…who are pretty private about their activities; and who don't spend a lot of time pushing their agenda on others. Aside from your attitude their behavior, what would make those particular folks "bad" for society?

Let’s modify your assertion slightly to see if passes the “smell test:” There are prostitutes and polygamists, bestiality practitioners and incestuous adults that are pretty private about their activities; and who don't spend a lot of time pushing their agenda on others…

Using your logic, prostitutes, polygamists, adult incest practitioners and bestiality practitioners should not be sanctioned by society. Is that your intent?

It's not as simple as you would have it be.

On the contrary, it is exactly as simple as I stated: If homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is/should be subject to the same types of societal behavioral regulations/norms/laws as is any other sexual behavior.
147 posted on 05/13/2009 6:34:39 PM PDT by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
As far as I can see it's either: A) A chosen lifestyle B) Genetic flaw C) Mental illness

bump

148 posted on 05/13/2009 6:46:12 PM PDT by Ronaldus Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: drjulie
Would I sanction what two consenting adults do in private? No.

If two consenting adults were making a biological weapon in private, you would not sanction them?

If two consenting adults were preparing to kill someone in private, you would not sanction them?

If two consenting adults were conspiring to defraud and steal in private, you would not sanction them?


149 posted on 05/13/2009 6:52:51 PM PDT by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: ItisaReligionofPeace
In your mind hedonism would lead a “normal” person to homosexual behavior?

I said "since there is no evidence of a gay gene", and there isn't, "when men and women practice hedonism (your word) they can be introduced to same-sex sexual behavior.

That's like saying that hedonism leads to bestiality.

You're equating homosexuality with bestiality, not me. For what it's worth, I hope we haven't reached that low...

It's just not behavior that people fall into on a whim while they're seeking a good time.

But it's certainly a behavior some of those who practice hedonism can be introduced to. And I know people who have fallen into that exact behavior.

Her agenda, like yours, is that all homosexuals choose to be homosexual.

Earlier I asked you to read post 61 which if you had, you wouldn't have made the above statement. So go ahead and read post 61.

For some reason the idea that they are born this way insults your religious beliefs.

Just so you know, whenever somebody brings religion into the thread I point it out. And you brought religion into the thread, not me. My entire argument has always been based on science. Knowing that, what is my agenda?

150 posted on 05/13/2009 7:05:39 PM PDT by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-187 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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