Posted on 03/13/2006 10:27:46 AM PST by DBeers
I live in MNY---and know lots and lots of gay folks----dykes, trannie the whole lot. But as far as gay men go--I am talking adult men--not children who are still in some stage of development. There are all sorts of outward behavior. The vast majority have some kind of feminized behavior. Maybe they will dress comformatively--but mannerisms, interests, etc are not only feminized, but uber feminized. A good portion of straight women I know aren't as fixated on such things as many gay men are. Then you have a smaller group of gay men who are into being masculine--just that they prefer to have sex with a man rather than a woman. I know I am not attempting to answer any questions such as which came first the chicken or the egg---oh hell, blame on a queer rooster.
The fact is that the question of whether homosexual activity is moral has nothing to do with the causation of deep-seated homosexual attraction. Whether it is from birth or environment, it is deep-seated and some and those are called to live chastely.
I think it was interesting that 60 minutes seemed to be making the case that being gay was a DISORDER. Think about all the piddly things that are considered disorders nowadays but being unable to relate properly to the opposite sex is considered normal. Serious gender identiy issues and attraction to the same sex is now "Normal" according to psychological "experts". This position is scientifically and logically flawed to the extent that it should be an untenable argument. We should push the obvious conclusion that being gay is a disorder.
Doesn't it occur to these dim bulbs that, unlike other siblings, twins are competing for parents' attention in same time frame
i.e. some need to distinguish themselves - sometimes to extreme.
It's common knowledge that a "dominant" twin emerges in the early years.
How did 60 Min. find these freaks ? (surely, not by accident)
I suspect parental complicity/enabling in what was viewed last night.
wait...9 years old?? Do these kids not have parents? What child would buy their nine year old SON a Bratz doll (I wouldn't even get one of those things for my daughter, but thats another issue...) or go to school with NAIL polish? Ugh...I can only imagin what my father would have done had he found me wearing nail polish.
I would ask this question: Can the orientation result from a choice? For example, while in prison a guy behaves homosexually, then he develops a thing for it. Or a boy is molested by another boy...and then he becomes "oriented" that way. While not a choice of the victim it was a choice of the perp and therefore still the result of choice. If that is possible -- and I believe the evidence reveals that it is -- then it should not be ignored in these studies.
The other question I would have is, are there any negative behaviors humans exhibit which are not entirely chosen and yet are 100% undesireable and should be rejected? I suppose you could say we are all born selfish and greedy. But we still are trained by out parents to not be either. Implied in some of these studies is the idea that if a desire develops early in life, then it must be good, normal and wholesome. I would strongly argue that that is false. Some children like to torture puppies for example. Were they born that way? Should we help them embrace that desire?
There are probably a variety of ways a person develops into a homosexual, just like there are a variety of ways a person develops into a pedophile, a rapist, a sex addict, a pornographer or whatever. But with homosexuality one thing you know for certain: it is a biological abnormality.
Lastly (for now), we could argue that no one is born for monogamy. We can easily be sexually attracted to more than one person. But desire is rightly suppressed by a society that values marriage, family and fidelity. Even the Supreme social engineers on the Massachusetts Supreme Court held onto the "binary" nature of marriage. Why? If the presence of desire makes an act wholesome then we are an oppressive society to limit relationships to only two adults.
It didn't appear to be an ordinary nail polish job. It looked as though it had been done in a salon. If I remember correctly the polish was blue and had little designs on it. I certainly couldn't do that at home. At my salon the manicurists take some time painting flowers etc. on nails.
9 years old is too young for any child to be wearing makeup. I had play makeup as a youngster, but my mom never let me wear it out of the house. I feel bad for this boy.
Amen to everything you said, GG. I too was a huge tomboy, hated dresses, played tons of sports...but LOVED playing with the boys! No question!
(and you're right, it was more fun!)
Thank goodness the Lesbian Nazi's weren't out there to attempt to hijack us when we were growing up!
(I might have done my tom-boyish thing, and punched one in the nose!)
I thought we were just lumps of formless nothingness til we magically turned into people on the day of our birth (or, if Peter Singer is right, a month or so later).
This part is true. I read the study.
". . . for every older brother a man has, his chances of being gay increase by one third. Older sisters make no difference, and there's no corresponding effect for lesbians. A first-born son has about a 2 percent chance of being gay, and the numbers rise from there. . ."
can you imagine trying to fob this stuff off as "science?"
I am sympathetic, because it's not his fault that a) The father is not around and b) his mother indulges his 'feminine side' instead of wondering what's wrong.
I think that this is a PRIME example of the news media grabbing a very isolated case and hyping it up, all in the name of 'proving' that this sort of thing happens all the time. No wonder people have such a skewed view of reality today.
Dr. Breedlove (appropriate name, I think) says he can take a male rat and make it behave like a female for the rest of its life, and vice versa for a female, just by altering the hormones it's exposed to at birth.
There was a study done years ago in Britain that proved that women who went through a traumatic event while pregnant tended to have a much higher incidence of a homosexual child than otherwise. Scientists concluded that it was the influx of adrenaline to the fetus that caused the effect.
Those babies didn't "choose" to be homosexual - they just ended up that way.
The study was initiated after scientists noticed that the percentage of homosexuals was greatly increased among babies who were in the womb during the London bombings in WWII.
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.