The 'gay' truth: Kevin McCullough on homosexuality dominating American politics

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, May 30, 2003 | Kevin McCullough

[HiTech RedNeck]

Aunt Jemima republicans now?

[Always Right]

I do sincerely believe it to be a genetic abnormality, which probably accounts for the bulk of cases, and the other is a dysfunctional environment.

Studies in twin data suggest the opposite. There seems to be a genetic component, but non-genetic influences and choice play seem to play a larger role. Sexuality is mostly mental and the power of positive reinforcement of sexuality to alter someone's behavior can not be understated.

[Always Right]

I find it difficult to believe that anyone could "choose" a sexual orientation. As a straight male, I find it impossible to imagine being able to make a choice of that manner, as I have been attracted to females as long as I can remember. I certainly did not make a choice to be that way. I was just born that way. I find it unlikely that gays are any different.

Thats kind of funny, as a scientist you accept this based solely upon your own experience. But how do you explain weird fetishes people have? Are people 'born' with attractions towards rubber or leather? Are people 'born' being attracted to feet or whatever strange fetish people may have? Don't people change who or what they are attracted to? Today children are being much more exposed to homosexuality and are being made to accept it as OK and normal. That wasn't true 10 or 20 years ago. Don't underestimate the power of sexuality. You might be very surprised at how people's minds are shaped through sexual experience.

[tdadams]

Studies in twin data suggest the opposite.

I have to laugh when I see people post "twin studies" to argue that there's no biological component to homosexuality when any honest interpretation of twin studies suggests exactly the opposite. With monozygotic twins, the chances of both being homosexual are 1 in 2. For non-twin siblings, the chances are 1 in 20.

Anyone who can say that supports a finding of "no correlation" is either completely incapable of understanding objective scientific studies or is simply and unabashedly dishonest.

[lentulusgracchus]

As a straight male, I find it impossible to imagine being able to make a choice of that manner, as I have been attracted to females as long as I can remember. I certainly did not make a choice to be that way. I was just born that way. I find it unlikely that gays are any different.

Whether you are correct or not, the central fact -- the ball off which gays invite us to take our eyes by arguing essentialism -- is that homosexuality is maladaptive in several dimensions.

[Always Right]

I have to laugh when I see people post "twin studies" to argue that there's no biological component to homosexuality when any honest interpretation of twin studies suggests exactly the opposite.

I have to laugh at the way you read my post. Where did I say no biological component?

[lentulusgracchus]

Anyone who can say that supports a finding of "no correlation" is either completely incapable of understanding objective scientific studies or is simply and unabashedly dishonest.

While I continue to be impressed by the number of psychologists and psychiatrists who resist the official Party Line of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association (yes, two APA's -- and there's actually a third! the American Psychotherapy (sp?) Ass'n.) which has been essentialist for a while now, I still think the essentialist argument needs to be met head-on: so what?

Gayness is maladaptive, and society ought to be concentrating on gays' admitting that fact, and on agreeing to ameliorate it -- by, for one thing, working to reduce contacts between predatory gay adults and teenagers, and taking "skinned chicken" off the menu.

[lentulusgracchus]

Today children are being much more exposed to homosexuality and are being made to accept it as OK and normal. That wasn't true 10 or 20 years ago. Don't underestimate the power of sexuality. You might be very surprised at how people's minds are shaped through sexual experience.

Gays themselves appear anecdotally to think so, too. Only you won't get them to admit it when they're in polemical mode. Then you're just retailing the "pederasty smear".

Which happens to be true, but never mind -- you're a McCarthyite, and you're running a witch hunt.

First, knock down the polemicists. Then the adults can go talk.

But this business of gays coming around kids has got to stop. GLSEN has got to go, and so do the "gay studies" in schools that have been led by NEA liberals to accept them.

[lentulusgracchus]

Remedy, your link #1 didn't work. My own link similarly failed for me the other day....is that an Acrobat 5.x file? My Acrobat 4.0 reader may be the problem.

Any suggestions?

Perhaps the site upgraded the version of the file?

[putupon]

homosexual activists are pushing so hard to SHOVE their horrid agenda down everyone's throats.

LOL at your phrase, but lost my breakfast.

[tdadams]

Granted, you didn't say "no biological component" quote-unquote. But in context, your interpretation of twin studies is inaccurate.

[Always Right]

But in context, your interpretation of twin studies is inaccurate.

Isn't yours inaccurate? Even granting a 2 to 1 correlation, that means in half of the cases genetics was not a factor is making the twin gay. The strange thing was though, that these studies also find a correlation between fraternal twins, indicating even the 2 to 1 correlation could not be all attributed to genetics.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Homosexuality is an idolatry of perversion. It is no more genetic trait than pedophilia. Every person has a choice not to involve themselves with another person, provided they are not victims of assault.

By definition, homosexuals do not reproduce - - it is self-imposed sterility.

No person can ever have a "sex change." The use of the language has been so twisted by the leftist radicals, that in our touchy-feely world, many blindly accept some of these erroneous terminologies. XX or XY chromosones can't be changed after conception when mitosis begins.

There are variants in alleles...

All are still genetically male or female. They are sterile. XO (Turner syndrome), XXY (Klinefelter syndrome), XXX (poly-X syndrome), and XYY (Jacob syndrome). No matter how many X chromosones there are, any individual with a Y chromosone develops into a male. These abnormalities are so few, only one in several hundreds of thousands occur (about 0.022% of the human population - do the calculus).

Keeping in mind people with the previously listed syndromes are sterile, they cannot pass those genotypes or phenotypes to offspring.

So much for the "gay" gene - - it does not exist.

I object to voodoo science based upon personal idolatries of vanity. This idolatry of perversion is a totem of the Left. Homosexuality is an idolatry of perversion. Gay marriage advocacy is a cult of perversion.

Instead of making the open declaration it is a human anatomical perversion they enjoy, the idols of vanity and impoverished ego require the invention of some religion to justify it.

Homosexual acts are no more a genetic trait than identical acts practiced by heterosexuals. (You know which ones I'm talking about.)

[bimbo]

In the case of genetic homosexuals …

You are now speaking in absolutes, just as those who deny the premise do. Gays, while strong proponents of the “gay gene” are the last people who actually want the gene identified – you know … the abortion “choice” puts them at risk.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

All are still genetically male or female. They are sterile. XO (Turner syndrome), XXY (Klinefelter syndrome), XXX (poly-X syndrome), and XYY (Jacob syndrome). No matter how many X chromosones there are, any individual with a Y chromosone develops into a male. These abnormalities are so few, only one in several hundreds of thousands occur (about 0.022% of the human population - do the calculus).

Keeping in mind people with the previously listed syndromes are sterile, they cannot pass those genotypes or phenotypes to offspring.

So much for the "gay" gene - - it does not exist.
I object to voodoo science based upon personal idolatries of vanity. This idolatry of perversion is a totem of the Left. Homosexuality is an idolatry of perversion. Gay marriage advocacy is a cult of perversion.

Instead of making the open declaration it is a human anatomical perversion they enjoy, the idols of vanity and impoverished ego require the invention of some religion to justify it.

Homosexual acts are no more a genetic trait than identical acts practiced by heterosexuals. (You know which ones I'm talking about.)

[Clint N. Suhks]

Anyone who can say that supports a finding of "no correlation" is either completely incapable of understanding objective scientific studies or is simply and unabashedly dishonest.

You don’t know very many MZ twin studies do you? There are at least a dozen. 1. You are probably citing the Bailey/Pillard 1992 study which was discredited by Bailey himself for the biased non-random sample. . 2. The Hershberger 1997 registry study had a 0% concordance rate for males and the Bailey/Martin 2000 registry study had a 0% concordance rate for females. 3. Since you know so much about “understanding objective scientific studies” perhaps you can tell us why in real science is replaceable except when it comes to twin studies?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Considering that 90% of people tend to be more influenced by the visual, television has become a new religion. It is analogous to Plato's cave allegory and the Oracle of Delphi. Television as a propaganda tool helps create visual phantasms (or as Thomas Hobbes called them, 'phantastical images') of the brain.

There are three ways people are influenced according to the school of behavioral psychology - - visual (sight), auditory (sound), kinesthetic (emotion). The kinesthetic or 'feeling' is also based on olfactory and tactile sense, much like Pavlov's salivating dogs. Visual images and sound portrayed can be used to anchor emotional and/or conditioned responses desired by those that present them, which in the case of television, is the Leftist television media, actors who create phantastical images in film, and Leftist politicians who pander to symbolism over substance (like Rush always says about them).

The visual aspect of that phenomenon is also used by the print media to a degree. Interactive talk radio requires thought; television does not and relies on this as a means to influence viewers...

They worship for gods 'those appearances that remain in the brain from the impression of external bodies upon the organs of their senses, which are commonly called ideas, idols, phantasms, conceits, as being representations of those external bodies which cause them, and have nothing in them of reality, no more than there is in the things that seem to stand before us in a dream...'

Like the necromancy of the late Senator Wellstone's funeral rally, or "funerally" (see the Steven Plaut article, The Rise Of Tikkun Olam Paganism http://www.arutzsheva.com/article.php3?id=1760, in reference to the Wellstone brand of Judaism), the use of Martin Luther King Day, or constantly invoking the "spirit of the '60's," the Left attempts to raise spirits of the dead as a totem for worship. This was also done with respect to Diana, Princess of Wales, following her "tragic" death in 1997.

Consider the seemingly coincidental circumstance that Diana is also the name of a pagan Greek goddess, and idolatry. The figurative deification of Princess Diana and the massive outpouring of public grief are a form of civil worship. The heaping of flowers at Kensington Palace as if it were a shrine, melodramatic eulogizing and the political expressions of how the world should comply with her posthumous intent concerning certain issues is a modern use of idolatry. Royalty magazine, in a special edition, had a large drop quote spanning across two pages: "She needed no royal title…to generate her particular brand of magic." The whole magazine was dedicated to pet Leftist political causes mixed in with the pictures and soliloquy about her sainthood.

This idolatry also partly played into the modern conflict of pagan vs. Judaic concerning her billionaire playboy lover, Dodi Al Fayed. Although many consider Islamic belief to be of Judaic origin, it is pagan. The crescent symbolizing Islam was also used to symbolize the pagan goddesses (Diana, Isis, etc.) and is used by modern neo-pagan nut cases as an icon. The use of the meteorite at the Dome of the Rock as an excuse to label it an Islamic holy site, is idolatry. This is contrary to the idea that Muslim faith is monotheistic.

There is a clear connection between modern neo-paganism and ancient paganism related to Islamic conflict with the Judaic roots of Christendom. A focus on how this is manifested in a modern sense only requires a look at pop-culture icons in entertainment, sports "heroes," and attempts by the Left to use a pseudo-Christian sense of pagan moralistic idolatry to demonize political opposition. (I present to you U.S. Senator Rick Santorum as a useful example.)

Astrology is another blatant example of pagan idolatry. What else is it? The planets have the names of pagan gods. The constellations are grouped as phantastical images of mythical legends. The astrologers are revered as prophets by psychotic, neurotic adherents in frequent fanatical devotion to any musings these charlatans utter. The proliferation of psychics, seers, soothsayers, healers, gurus, etc., etc., ad nauseum, is a social psychosis, an occulted (or masked) promotion of Leftist propaganda (see the Paglia lecture at Yale, http://www.bu.edu/arion/paglia_cults00.htm.)

Marxism and their forms of Cultural Marxism are a religion, a collection of cults. In many cases they worship a dead Karl Marx like some (and I stress some) Christians worship a dead Jesus, and not a living God. This is no more apparent than in the practice of enshrinement and regular grooming of Lenin's corpse in the former Soviet Union, the use of Princess Diana, Martin Luther King Jr. and others.

It is the religious fervor associated with the pro-abortion advocacy. The societal practice of abortion is ritual mass murder upon the altars dedicated to idolatrous vanities, a collective human sacrifice to pagan idols. It has a similitude to the Teutonic paganism of Adolph Hitler, whose idolatry was the idea of a "master race." In effect, this genocide was a mass human sacrifice to those pagan idols.

The idolatry of perversion is another totem of the Left. Homosexuality is an idolatry of perversion. Gay marriage advocacy is a cult of perversion. Pornography is an idolatry of perversion. Much of television, movies, and the literary culture of the Leftist elite in print, are nothing more than a cleverly masked promotion of their Marxist cult (that is to say, masked much like actors of ancient Greek drama).

The Left is properly identified with a 'confederacy of deceivers (and perverts) that, to obtain dominion over men in this present world, endeavor, by obscure and erroneous doctrines.'

The Left is obsessed with erecting idols, images and symbols to hide their agenda(s), as well as to expand their congregation in these cults of perversion...

Here is what Paglia says about it:

"What gay ideologues, inflated like pink balloons with poststructuralist hot air, can't admit, of course, is that heterosexuality is nature's norm, enforced by powerful hormonal cues at puberty. In the past decade, one shoddy book after another, rapturously applauded by p.c. reviewers, has exaggerated the incidence of homosexuality in the animal world and, without due regard for reproductive adaptations caused by environmental changes, toxins or population pressure, reductively interpreted bonding or hierarchical behavior as gay in the human sense." http://www.salon.com/people/col/pagl/2001/05/23/oi l/index1.html

About the writer: Camille Paglia is professor of humanities and media studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia.

[tdadams]

On the contrary, I am quite familiar with them, Mr. Condescending. As such, I know you're only presenting the studies that tend to support your particular prejudice.

How about the 1993 study from Arizona State University, Tempe that states "[The] findings are interpreted as supporting the argument for a biological basis in sexual orientation."

[tdadams]

The strange thing was though, that these studies also find a correlation between fraternal twins, indicating even the 2 to 1 correlation could not be all attributed to genetics.

Don't be so ambivilent. Why don't you state what the correlation rates between monozygotic and dizygotic twins were found to be? They're quite different. With little variation, monozygotic twins have a correlation of about 1 in 2, dizygotic twins only 1 in 5.

Again, you're making a blatantly dishonest representation. The reasons why are obvious. The studies don't support your conclusions. But somehow, by amazing contortions of logic, you're able to convince yourself that the studies actually draw a conclusion exactly opposite of what they conclude by any objective analysis.

[Clint N. Suhks]

I challenge you to demonstrate a single example where I have ever been hypocritical. You can't, so you won't. We already know that.

You’re priceless…we don’t have to go any farther than this thread. You make juvenile slanders to the author, I ask you to name one and you tell me to “re-read the article” to support your own allegations and then accuse me of “leading by example” for NOT having an argument. Textbook hypocrisy of doing that which condemn. You’re a real piece of work.

But being the fair-minded person that I am I’ll give you one more chance to prove your accusations of the author. Name one “canard” in this article.