Posted on 03/07/2015 11:17:39 AM PST by detective
“Choice” is definitely the wrong word, although it often is a conscious choice.
The question is nature versus nurture. The evidence points overwhelmingly to nurture.
I would be very appreciative of your effort. Just point me in the direction. I am never too old to learn.
The politically correct term is not "sexually molested" but the much nicer sounding "Recruited".
In California, they probably don't HAVE to be smuggled
California may distribute condoms to prison inmates
I saw a recent article about this, but I can't find it just now.
No, it does not.
In fact science back Ben Carson up. There has been nothing that shows that the desire to stick your penis in another man's butt hole is anything but a choice.
Certainly there can be nothing genetic or other wise that makes you want to wear the clothing normally reserved for females in your culture. We are born naked.
From the article:
“California lawmakers are considering a measure that would allow the state to distribute condoms to prison inmates, an attempt to cut down on sexually transmitted diseases and HIV”
If there is no homosexual activity in prison then why is there a need to spend taxpayer money on free condoms for prisoners.
It’s strange that so many gay males were sexually abused when they were children, and science can’t make a connection between that and homosexuality.
The study doesn’t note that many homosexuals have made the choice to change to heterosexuality. Of course it causes anxiety and stress. Major changes do. Go sit in an AA meeting and ask the participants if they are anxious and stressed. Any person trying to get control over deviant sexual behavior, be it heterosexual or homosexual, has a fight on his or her hands. Stop going to porn sites on the internet, and see if it is difficult.
Show the proof that homosexuality is genetic and not conditioning. Show the proof that culture is better off being inundated with a gay agenda that serves 2 percent of the population, or what is gained by changing the definition of marriage from a union of man and woman, to whatever the hell it is going to become now.
“With females it is usually a choice. With males it’s not choice.”
What do you base that finding upon?
Something I wrote years ago:
There is no genetic test or procedure (experimental or otherwise) that can determine one’s sexual orientation. When people claim to be gay and we believe them, what we’re really doing is taking them at their word. We believe their claim, we believe their testimony and we believe their declaration that they are gay.
But there are some people who are suddenly skeptical when one claims to be ex-gay. They don’t believe the ex-gay claim, they don’t believe the ex-gay testimony nor their declaration that they are ex-gay.
When somebody uses a certain standard to measure the credibility of what one group says, but then refuses to use the same standard to measure the credibility of what another group says—thereby ignoring the claims of the second group (ex-gays)—he should ask himself why he believes one group and not the other... This is a double standard.
I think you can make a case that early sexual activity during childhood and adolescence affects adult sexual desires and behavior. The promoting of homosexuality to young people and the message sent by the media to young people that homosexuality is cool may cause people to choose to be homosexual and to desire homosexual sex.
I don't know if there are scientific studies that address this and what they show.
Real science begs to differ. According to twin-studies, homosexuality is indeed a choice, or, at least, influenced by one’s upbringing. Genetics doesn’t enter into it.
Gay science is like feminazi science. It’s not.
There's another couple of words that make my sphincter tighten just like “Comprehensive Solution” and a few others that are the preamble to a good political lie.
Knew this girl in high school who was molested as a child. She was “Lesbian” for years. Now she’s with a man.
Knew this girl in high school who was molested as a child. She was “Lesbian” for years. Now she’s with a man.
The desire to sleep with someone of the same gender may or may not be genetic, or it may be due to one's environment. But, the desire to try and mate with someone of the same sex is obviously a defect... and as such should be corrected and not embraced.
I wouldn't do well as a politician these days.
If it’s a choice, then why do they have to recruit?
“There is only human sexuality and that can manifest itself in ways that are normal or perverted.”
I’m inclined to agree with that.
Because deep down they KNOW it's a choice, and they want to increase their numbers so they can try and make themselves feel less like outcasts.
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.