Posted on 07/29/2002 12:16:04 PM PDT by Polycarp
I think we agree more than we disagree, I could care less about someone's sexuality. None of my business unless it is forced unwanted into public politics.
I decry the abuse of science to serve political agendas, from "climate change" to "genetic predisposition to homosexuality".
It is a crying shame, people used to be able to believe what scientists said, but not since the boomers came along.
The whole stupid notion that homosexuality is an irreversible genetically determined characteristic comes from the militant leftist deviant rights industry, if it is a permanent physical condition, then, the argument is, we must reshape society and redefine the deviant as normal.
Power politics corrupting the scientific method, pure and simple.
Eeeeew!
I have no opinion about your family or your anecdotal experience and the conclusions you draw form your personal experience.
I am simply saying, there is no scientific basis for the conclusion that homosexuality is of organic origin.
Any assertion to the contrary is false, that's all I am saying.
But no one here is justifying heterosexual perverts. It seems that the media, the PC crowd and liberals in general have justified the perverted sex lives of homosexuals and wants my grandchildren to buy their lie.(bought and paid for by gubment funds)
BTW, a lot of perverted crap happens in bedrooms...much of it coerced! No matter how you look at it, homosexual acts are unnatural. And those young people who are introduced to this perverted lifestyle are being psychologically and physically destroyed in the bedrooms you imply I should keep my nose out of.
I would have to disagree. Statistically significant differences in brain function between heterosexuals and homosexuals have been documented in peer-reviewed literature. Animal studies have shown that sexual behavior can be drastically affected by prenatal hormone exposure. Even anecdotal evidence such as MAWG's can can be "scientific" evidence if it is documented to be statistically significant, which some twin and sibling studies apparently have.
Now, that does not go to say that a person having some particular "organic" element is certainly homosexual. But it does suggest that there is more to it than simply "free choice."
That was supposed to be a joke and not to be taken as a legitimate feature of being a homosexual.
Do we know what causes lying?...promiscuity?...addiction?...selfishness? or positives like diligence?...honesty?...monogomy?... on and on and on we could go. All behavior is a combination of genetics, environment and choice. That is no excuse, however. When you steal, you still go to jail. When you lie and cheat, you still have no friends. And when you are sexually promiscuous or risky, you still reap the unhealthy rewards. Sadly, so does society as a whole when the behavior is normalized and accepted.
I agree with you, there is evidence, in your own words, "suggest" there is more at work than free choice.
But then, basing public policy on mere "suggestions" is pure folly, and bears no resemblance to science. That is corrupt political dishonesty, and that is what I condemn.
Perhaps the tender ministrations of wierd uncle harry produce statistically significant differences in brain function.
Perhaps evidence suggesting that such differences in brain function exist is in error, perhaps these statistically significant differences depend more upon fators unrelated or indirectly related to sexual preference, it is this cloud of uncertainty that REAL science deals with in creating a factual basis upon which ethical people can base their political and societal opinons.
It is amusing that you agree with me in substance but adhere still to the opposing view in the final instance.
This has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with physiology and psychology. We just believe that God created that physiology and psychology.
Homosexuality doesn't fit into ANY normal socio-sexual world! The penis was not created for rectal penetration nor was the rectom created as a penile receptical. This man eroticises on the same sex and chooses to do so. He never learned to eroticise the opposite sex. He's classic S.I.D.
John Wayne? I think you're asking for trouble in this forum.
Well, aside from the fact that you're most likely referring to the very studies which this article cites as NOT demonstrating a conclusive biological predisposition, you're making the mistake of looking at the "after" picture and presuming that the differences existed "before." External factors (stress, substance abuse, exercise, etc.) influences body chemistry, so stating that a group of individuals that share a common behavior trait also have a biological condition in common is not the same as saying that the biological condition was present prior to the behavior. In research, this is called "association," not "causation."
What studies are those?
If homosexuality is "unnatural" why do we see it in nature? I remember my neighbor's bird dogs when I was growing up that seemed naturally inclined to bugger each other when given the chance. I doubt the San Francisco community had any influence over these two, Southeast Texas male dogs nor were any 'Gubment' funds used to deter them from bitches in heat. There are several species of monkeys that also engage in homosexual behavior. So nature seems to be very comfortable with animals in same sex relationships. Genetically, humans are just super-clever chimps that use personal digital assistants and bitch about fellow members of our species not doing what we want.
I can understand having a religious objection to certain people. We all develop our biases through our experiences. Sometimes we grow past these irrational beliefs and sometimes we amplify them as we grow older. I am always worried about those that amplify to the point where they feel compelled to get into other people's private business.
There is no rational basis to see homosexuality as normal, it is deviant sexual behavior and a trajedy for every individual and family thus afflicted.
The corruption of deviant liberal propagandists is there in your own words, "a normal deviation from the norm" is a contradiction in terms, you have defined the term "deviancy" not "normalcy" and putting the words side by side changes their meaning not one whit.
Now I agree that homosexuals have enough problems without getting dumped on, and among my friends are homosexual people, none of whom have reason to complain that I am intolerant.
I don't think that aids is divine retribution for homosexuality, and I do not believe that homosexuals should be persecuted.
I do believe that you will not get aids if you know which position to keep your zipper in, I am persuaded that anal intercourse is the main source of the spread of aids, and I do think that homosexuals would get a lot more tolerance from society if they were themselves more tolerant of the definition of normalcy.
It is so tiresome, this modern notion that people are mere flotsam, powerless to do anything more than drift about on a sea of preordained currents.
It is not a rational belief system, dare I label it the "religion of futility"?
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.