Posted on 05/17/2012 8:43:32 AM PDT by Paladins Prayer
According to modern dogma, homosexuals are like sprinters: born and not made. Thus, even though psychology’s longstanding nature-nurture debate has concluded that many traits are the result of both factors, it isn’t politically correct to consider even this possibility with respect to homosexuality. But does this biology-is-destiny theory hold water with respect to same-sex attraction? And, if so, what does this say about the behavior’s moral status? Let’s examine the matter.
When discussing same-sex attraction’s cause, the first thing usually mentioned is the much touted “homosexual gene” theory. In fact, the idea has been repeated so often that many today accept it as fact. But the reality is this: Neither the groundbreaking Genome Project nor any other research endeavor has found any such gene. Moreover, it makes no sense from an evolutionary (or selective breeding, if you prefer) standpoint. After all, such a gene would greatly reduce the chances of its bearer procreating, would be unlikely to be passed on, and thus would be a dead-end mutation unable to survive many generations. And, I must say, it’s a testimonial to the emotion-oriented decision-making of secular modernists — who are generally staunch evolutionists — that they would glom on to a theory so contrary to Evolution 101.
Next we have the intrauterine development theory. It states that if a boy’s body fails to provide him with the necessary amount of testosterone in the womb, his brain won’t be fully masculinized. This, presumably, accounts for that rare boy we’ve all met who, from the word go, has very effeminate mannerisms. Anyway, the idea is that his more feminine brain will militate in favor of attraction to other males. It’s a logical theory, as far as it goes.
Yet it isn’t airtight.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
Well, if it is genetic, then the homosexuals we have now are not reproducing. Therefore, this gene should disappear from the gene pool.
IN the evolution versus creation(ID) debate the former argues that evolution theory is predictive.
But if these lib psychologists (pseudo-scientsists) are right and ‘sexual orientation’ (ie physical attraction) is determined before birth then they should be able to predict exactly which flavor of 'Gay' the child will become when they get older.
The flavors are :
GL=gay/lesbian
B=bisexual
T=transsexual
Tell us which one it will be.
“As to this, I remember reading an explanation an anonymous pedophile used to justify his behavior (I’m paraphrasing): “I didn’t ask to have these feelings, so what do you want me to do?””
In 10 years, continuing down our immoral path, this will be as common as homosexuality.
The author has nailed it, but no one wants to think, they just want to do what feels good.
Human behaviors are complex like we used to learn in behavioral psychology. I think imprinting is one of the major causes of homosexual behavior.
Another thought, how do you know someone is homosexual? You either observe the behavior or they self identify?
Agreed - side note: I have at least 4 male ,married, heterosexual friends who have effeminate mannerisms yet are not in the least homosexual. Second, related note: interesting that the show “Suburgatory” has two male characters who have flamingly, over-the-top effeminate mannerisms yet have not been portrayed as “in-the-closet” types and are married to women. The joke appears to be that they just don’t recognize their own homosexuality, but given my personal experience (above), I’m taking it that they’re just very effeminate.
THanks for the article.
You can make the case that sin of ALL kinds are in our DNA!
EVERYTHING we do is a choice. We either give in to the material momentums and lusts of the flesh, or we are disciplined in the Way of our Lord and His teaching and do not engage in behaviors which He has told us are harmful.
This reminds me... there are actually more effeminate heterosexual men than homosexual men.
80% of gays were sexually abused as minors.
Prove me wrong.
That is a canard....no way.
Whenever people say "He/she/they was born gay! its normal!" The correct response is, "Some people are born with 11 toes, or three gonads. Still not normal."
Regards,
Cope
And . . . therefore, what? A lot of people were physically abused by beatings as minors. So what? A lot of people had drunk parents. So what?
Homosexuality is a "Character and Behavior Disorder" no matter what the psychological world says, similar to being an alcoholic, thief, gambler, etc., all of which deserve therapy, either religious, secular, or both. But to pat them on the back is insane.
“...very effeminate mannerisms. Anyway, the idea is that his more feminine brain will militate in favor of attraction to other males.”
For a moment, I thought this was going to be another Obama tread.
80% of gays were sexually abused as minors.
My son is a homosexual. I have not seen him in 10 years.
You should hear the stories he makes up about our family!
They have no basis in reality and are only created to justify his behavior.
These guys hang out together and feed on each other’s tales of abuse, and lose their grip on reality.
Oh. I’m sorry to hear that. The fact that you haven’t seen your son in 10 years must be heartbreaking.
I read somewhere that 1% of live births have both male and female genetalia. I think this explains the bull dyke. It probably accounts for a large percentage of the 1.8% of the population that is gay. The remainder have some form of psychosis.
All one needs to know about homosexuality is that it is Halakhically a capital offense for all mankind. ‘Nuff said.
How about when he prances down the steps of Air Force One with his little paws clenched up close to his chest!!
Very powerful article. The fact that it’s in “The New American” means that the people who really need to see it will probably not or they will selectively ignore it. :-(
I especially like the last paragraph where it says, “...it’s self-evident that a choice is involved in any behavior; to deny this is to deny free will and reduce man to an animal.”
Great military Quote
“When I joined the military it was illegal to be homosexual, then it became Optional, and now it’s Legal.
I’m getting out before Our Commander & Chief makes it mandatory.”
GySgt Harry Berres, USMC
Prove me wrong.
I don't know about the % but a good point. How do the born gay people explain the connection between the normal child victims of homosexual pedos and how many become gay later?
As an unquestionably heterosexual male, I have ALWAYS argued that I was hard-wired at birth coax cute 14 year-old girls into the sack and have my way with them. I don't, never have, and never will . . . because it is MORALLY WRONG!!! Behavior, to include the practice of same-sex relations, is a behavioral choice.
Mrs. WBill has been going to her hairdresser for 20-odd years. He fits the "gay stereotype" to a T. Right down to the fact that he designs and builds tiaras as a hobby (built one for my wife, as a wedding present).
In contrast to all of the stereotypes, he's married to a scorching hot gorgeous blonde, and they have 5 kids together.
Go figure.
I agree with the dogma, in a sense. I know a nationally competitive sprinter who started with a huge amount of natural talent and then trained hard and practiced to get to the top. The siblings had runner's bodies and could probably run well if they wanted, but none took up the sport. The question is: Are you a sprinter just because you have potential, or do you actually have to get out there and run to be a sprinter. Most of the family I have in mind chose not to run. Is homosexuality any different - you're born with or without some tendency in that direction, but then you make a choice?
My sister in law was a full blown bull dyke. but that wasn’t enough. Her girlfriend was a multi-minority (race/religious). The world revolved around “Gay”. There was not one subject that she did not steer to ‘gay’. It was impossible to have a rational conversation with her.
She also existed solely to create problems for everyone she came in contact with. I could go on typing for literally days and not touch a fraction of the damage she did.
And suddenly, one day, here girlfriend decided she, militant lesbian, was straight, dropped my SIL and went o her merry way. My SIL then determined that she too was straight and got a boyfriend, dropped her gay friends like a hot potatoE and found a whole new way to fantasize her past away.
Homosexuality is a mental disorder. It always has been and a bunch of homosexual doctors owning the psych board do not change the reality of that fact. We will live with the damage of the mainstreaming of homosexuality for a LONG time.
That said, I once had a friend who was homosexual. He was a very good person in a number of ways. I had to make a choice between that friendship and what I believe. I miss him but I refuse to play the ‘gay id OK’ game.
And therefore their hommosexuality is a behavioral response to the abuse, and NOTHING to do with genetic factors.
If they choose to use free will to avoid getting such a devastating disease - then I believe they also have the ability to choose not to be gay at all.
you are certainly up on it given your homepage and i applaud your diligence
but my own in depth experience knowing many from mid teens up and even once caring for a terminally ill homosexual the past half century gives me practical experience otherwise
i am ambivalent on the nature nurture argument
i don;t think anyone can say with total authority one way or the other 100%
i do know we are much of what we are born...far more than behavioralists like to think
just watching my 5 kids
but even if there is some nature to it that doesn’t justify it
it is my nature to screw around...i just relish women physically ...no question...that would not justify it if I did
character keeps the satyr in check...as it should
in the realm of homo-evolution, my scientific theory would be... 'extinct' ???
why is it that all the prog/comm ideals are so obviously contradictory and yet they still manage to convince the majority of dumbasses to commit national suicide ???
IMO, some homosexuals are born that way, and others, who as children experiencd horrible abuse and neglect, are not.
Can you explain what you think he means by the use of the word “sprinters” in this line? I don’t understand this usage of that word at all:
“Well, consider that the same psychologists who may claim that homosexuality is inborn will also usually say that sociopaths are sprinters, too.”
That relates to the first line, where he writes “According to modern dogma, homosexuals are like sprinters: born and not made.”
So it means that it’s said that sociopaths are born and not made.
Remember, Rush said if a gay gene is ever found abortion would be outlawed.
Good question. In my mind it comes down to herd instinct. It's just easier for some to go with the flow created by the vocal minorities. Combine that with the left's genuine brilliance in amplifying their influence through smoke and mirrors, and you have an opportunity for a real lemming fest.
” why is it that all the prog/comm ideals are so obviously contradictory and yet they still manage to convince the majority of dumbasses to commit national suicide ??? “
We should give homos their own country, and let them become extinct.
I think an “all-of-the-above” model for understanding the genesis of homosexual behavior has better explanatory power than just focusing on only one area, such as abuse.
“Generally, the histories of men engaging in same-sex behaviors reveal a history of cumulative problems: significant peer rejection, low self-esteem, a distant father, an overprotective or controlling mother, victimization by bullies, or sexual abuse. Fortunately these conflicts can be resolved, and the masculine identity can be strengthened and then embraced. “
Richard P. Fitzgibbons, M.D., available at http://narth.com/docs/fitz.html
In general, NARTH (http://narth.com/) is a pretty good resource for info on GID (Gender. Identity Disorder). And I don’t think it’s problematic to recognize it as a disorder. Being a disorder does not put it outside the moral, decisional realm. Quite the opposite. For a wide range of disorders, therapeutic solutions that work well consistently require the patient to make life-changing choices about their behavior. But recognizing potential root causes empowers the therapist and the patient to locate and lock onto those decisional behaviors most likely to bring about real healing, and that’s all good.
ping for later
I have been covertly sampling peoples opinions around here and have come to the conclusions that most people are clueless. 20 years ago they had an excuse which was limited information sources, but now that they all have internet and many have it on their phones that excuse goes away.
I cant tell you how many people just believe what the politician in charge claims(better if it's something they want to believe), or whatever the News says, even those who vote for the other party.
Ask Republicans in work or neighborhood what Citizens United was about and most will just repeat what Obama said, and, maybe argue against that.
I think it comes down to a couple things. For the younger set. Logic and critical thought have been eliminated from ciriculum from K-PHD level. A populace unable to form a critical thought is open to anything fed them.
Second, most people are in fact willfully ignorant to ‘get along’. They seek to avoid conflict at any price. To get along with co-workers/friends/family/teachers et all. There is also fear for their jobs/grades to consider in this category.
As nuts as it sounds, the perfect (IMO) summation of this situation was a line by Tommy Lee Jones in the original Men in Black movie. Yes, it’s a dumb movie, but the quote itself has a profound truth at it’s core.
“A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it. 1500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you knew that people were alone on this planet. Imagine what you’ll know tomorrow.”
I get the point, Norm, but in a way the quote is emblematic of the problem. First, even 500 years ago educated Europeans knew that the world wasn’t flat. Secondly, the Earth very well could be the center of the Universe because we don’t know where the Universe’s boundaries are.
So my point it, while the quote makes a point about ignorance, it does so in two ways - one of which is unintentional. Because it was formulated by someone who fell victim to myth/revisionist history and who exhibited a failure to think a matter through thoroughly, it reflects ignorance itself.
” I cant tell you how many people just believe what the politician in charge claims(better if it’s something they want to believe), or whatever the News says, even those who vote for the other party.”
Leaves everything wide open for evil to flourish.
Sure a few people knew. But the context is the general population following the herd based solely on what the crowd thinks.
The crowd believe gay marriage is good, ergo it must be the truth.
The crowd believes in global warming so it must be the truth.
The crowd believes the earth was flat...except it isnt. Likewise for many ‘crowdsourced’ and self perpetuating bits of ‘fact’. The whole self-fulfilling prophecy thing. That’s all I’m getting at and IMO the point of the quote.
I’m not criticizing you, Norm. And as I said, I got the point of the quote. My only point is that a lot of people believe silly things like “everyone” 500 years ago thought the world was flat. And what bothers me is part of the reason why people believe these things: it is another way that liberals discredit Christianity (Ooh, look what people believed when Christianity reigned).
A lot of what people believe about the Middle Ages simply isn’t true.
I don’t think you’re criticizing me at all. Nor I you. It just seemed like we were going in different directions. My bad ;)
People just don’t want to pay public welfare benefits for two lunatics sodding off all day.
Muslims would just kill homosexuals.
Taking into consideration broken clocks tell the correct time twice each day, maybe “spread the other cheek” is not a good public policy.
In your unabridged Oxford Dictionaries, the word “faggotry” denotes the bundling of steel to be hammered or rolled together.
Mammalian evolution is entirely heterosexual.
Monogamy is not required for evolution, monogamy is a tenet of religion.
To prohibit polyandry and polygyny is an ecclesiastic rule of law.
To establish an ecclesiastic standard of monogamy for homosexuals is nothing but RELIGIOUS FAGGOTRY.
Democrats live in a fantasy world where fairies wave magic wands over their anus and babies materialize out of thin air.
All men are born of a woman.
If you have to tell grown men that babies will not come out of their rectums, there is no hope for any rational discourse...
born gay = birth defect
(They hate that.)
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.