As various marriage definition battles work their way through the nation's courts, state legislatures, and ballot initiatives it might be useful to take a hard look at several politically correct assumptions which are integral to efforts of the same-sex marriage lobby but which are rarely discussed. By not questioning these assumptions (or worse by having them assumed but unstated), incorrect initial conditions can be used to alter and corrupt the discussion and the resultant public policy.
The first primary assumption is that same-sex attraction is an unchangeable genetic given, that it is embedded unalterably in each person. The second is that the homosexual lifestyle is just like any other, that it's adherents are routine in other facets of their lives and indistinguishable from their neighbors except for their sexual orientation. It is upon the tacit acceptance of these two foundational assumptions that the entire house for gaining acceptance in the wider society for the homosexual lifestyle is built. If these assumptions are untrue or unproven then the weakness of the arguments (rising sometimes to the level of deception) of the homosexual lobby can be seen.
Let's consider these two assumptions in order.
Sexual Orientation Not So “Hardwired†As You've Been Told
A number of peer-reviewed studies reported in academic journals have investigated the genetic and environmental foundations of same-sex orientation. An important subset of these studies compare identical twins who share not only identical genetic factors and prenatal experiences but also generally a consistent child-rearing environment. Often fraternal twins and siblings are often also evaluated.
The attached table (taken from Table 19.2 from reference 4) summarizes the findings of a number of such twin studies. Concordance occurs when both twins share a given characteristic (in this case a same-sex orientation). Thus a concordance value of 0.43 would indicate that 43% of the twins studied both share that characteristic.
Concordance Rates of Twin studies of Homosexual Orientation
Male studies | MZ concordance (identical) | DZ concordance (fraternal) | Sets of Twins studied (MZ // DZ) | Notes on Method of Inclusion |
Kallmann, 1952 | 1 | 0.15 | 40 // 45 | * |
Heston & Shields, 1968 | 0.6 | 0.14 | 5 // 7 | Â |
Bailey & Pillard, 1991 | 0.52 | 0.22 | 56 // 54 | * |
Buhrich, Bailey, & Martin, 1991 | 0.47 | 0 | 9 // 2 | Â |
Bailey et al., 2000 | 0.2 | 0 | 312 // 182 | Â |
Female studies | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Bailey et al., 1993 | 0.48 | 0.16 | 115 total pairs | Â |
Bailey et al., 2000 | 0.24 | 0.15 | 668 // 376 | Australian registry |
Combined Male/Female Studies | Â | Â | Â | Â |
King & McDonald, 1992 | 0.25 | 0.12 | 25 // ?? | Â |
Whitam, Diamond, & Martin, 1993 | 0.66 | 0.3 | 61 pairs + 3 triplets | * |
Kendler et al., 2000 | 0.32 | 0.13 | 756 twin &non-twin sibling pairs | Â |
The oft-quoted Kallmann study (1952) utilized some questionable data from correctional facilities and psychiatric institutions. Several of the studies (*) utilized gay press ads to identify twin pairs (which may skew the results as they may be more enthusiastic respondents than those in the general population).
While there exists variability in the results (based on factors such assample size, method of inclusion in the study, and other factors) some general conclusions are evident. It appears that twins who exhibit same-sex affinities are joined by their identical twin sibling roughly 20 to 40% of the time. This is roughly 2-3 times the concordance of fraternal twins (that don't share identical genetics). Thus, there is a genetic factor toward same-sex affinity but that linkage explains well less than half the observations of same-sex orientation.
This result is important because it means the majority of same-sex orientation appears to NOT be genetically related. Thus it is more strongly influenced by environmental, social, and/or a combination of factors. While there may very well be some genetic predisposition toward homosexual orientation, that predisposition appears fairly weak and is not dominant.
Another study(11) that reinforces the environmental influence on sexual orientation over genetic factors demonstrated that children of gay couples are more likely to be gay themselves. Between 16-57% of male children adopted a non-heterosexual lifestyle and 33-57% of female children did so as well. These figures are much higher than the roughly 3-5% of the population involved in the same-sex lifestyle. Thus their upbringing appears to have a substantial impact on their ultimate choice of sexual preference.
Even in a condition with a well understood and undisputed genetic basis such as sickle-cell anemia the condition parameters vary substantially even among identical twins.Thus even “in-the-genes†conditions reflect significant variability due to non-genetic factors(6).
Several points are important here. The first is that since this research shows that homosexual orientation relates predominately to societal pressures, relationships, and other environmental factors (as opposed to genetics) then it is in society's right to decide whether such behavior is to be encouraged or not. Because it is not primarily (much less exclusively) triggered by genetics such behavior is not a civil or human right. Â Lastly the presence of a modest genetic predisposition toward something rarely causes us to give up, accept that the predisposition cannot be countered, and look the other way. Â We don't do this with obesity, diabetes, heart disease, mental illnesses or a host of other conditions that also have some genetic component. Â We routinely seek out treatments and promote behaviors, attitudes, and coping strategies that will lesson or minimize the impact of the predisposition. Â Central to these efforts is proper education. Â The misrepresentation of the causes of homosexual orientation disreputably fails to meet that important educational standard.
Even if we don't take such active preventative actions we recognize the negative impacts of conditions/choices like adultery, obesity, divorce, pedophilia, alcoholism, and single parent households on society in general and on affected children in particular and in large measure don't celebrate these behaviors. If we could control a so-far undiscovered “fat†gene is there any doubt that we as a society would likely do so?
Society has historically applied various levels of stigma to these and other behaviors/lifestyles. Stigma can be warranted and is an effective and common societal influence on individual behaviors. That it is not always applied appropriately does not invalidate it's role (especially when facts and science agree). The homosexual lobby not only doesn't accept silent consent (recall “don't ask – don't tellâ€) much less any level of stigma as regards same-sex oriented lifestyle choices but rather demands it should be celebrated and normalized. The recent attacks on the Boy Scouts for prohibiting homosexual leaders is just the latest example. The following chart demonstrates this contrast:
No Health Impacts Due to Lifestyle Differences?
The other major pillar of the same-sex lobbying effort used to influence wider public support is the contention that there is no appreciable difference between homosexual and heterosexual lifestyles. Again academic studies demonstrate that there are real and negative consequences attributable to the homosexual lifestyle (8)(9). These include increased risks for STDs, mental health issues, drug /alcohol abuse, domestic violence and promiscuity(10). Even if the pressures of societal stigma (whether warranted or not) account for some of the negative health affects, it cannot be overlooked that the very nature of the specific mechanics involved in same-sex physical interactions comes with a higher risk of bodily harm and disease.
A study conducted in 2005 (7) indicates an 8 to 20 year negative impact on life expectancy for 20 year old gay males. This decreased life expectancy is no doubt influenced by the impact of AIDS. That these statistics may improve somewhat due to better AIDS diagnoses and treatment does not detract from the overall negative impact on life expectancy and health from this lifestyle. This impact is not vastly dissimilar to the 10-15 year estimates on impacts to life expectancy due to smoking.
When negative health impacts such as these are observed in other areas the society moves to restrict or limit such impacts. Non-smoking laws/prohibitions (as well as ever more complete bans on secondary smoke exposures), child labor and workplace laws, and even cell phone driving restrictions are all examples of society acting to protect itself against these negative factors.
It is inconsistent and inappropriate that substantial negative impacts to life expectancy and health due to a homosexual lifestyle would be disregarded when other similar impacts are consistently minimized by legislation.
That the peer-reviewed scholarly results considered above are not widely publicized or known ought not to surprise. We frequently see the same “political correctness†working in other areas of academia to restrict research on and publication of findings which, for example, question human caused global-warming, that refutes the explanatory power of Darwinian evolution, and that reinforce the effectiveness of market economics. The resultant and intended blindness achieved by such restrictions is not helpful in developing proper public policy on any issue much less on controversial ones.
Other Considerations
Another argument often encountered is that the inability of opposite-sex couples to have children makes that situation indistinguishable from same-sex couples. Alan Keyes addressed this point in a debate against Barack Obama in 2006 (1) when he argued that in principle heterosexual couples can have children while in principle same-sex couples cannot. Since society invokes marriage, in part,as a manner of defining responsibilities to those offspring, changing the definition of marriage in a matter which in principle ignores children makes no reasonable sense.
A related claim is that denying same-sex marriage shows the same kind of prejudice found in the former prohibitions against mixed-race marriage. Keye's argument clearly refutes this as a mixed race man-woman marriage can in principle produce offspring where a same-sex marriage cannot.
If the definition of marriage is relieved of any connection to procreation and the resultant family responsibilities that follow then it can't logically be limited to just two people. Three men, 4 women, any sort of polygamy, and even men and animals can then follow as valid “familiesâ€.  Advocates of same sex marriage scoff at this and insist that only two people are appropriate for marriage. They do this by clinging to just the numerical aspect of the marriage definition (but not it's ingredients) from Christian doctrine when Jesus tells us in Mark 10:6-8: “But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.â€
Thus the supporters of same sex marriage maintain one part of human experience and biblical teaching (a 2 person marriage) because they know that the logical extension of their stance would not be supportable politically. At the same time they neglect the corresponding Biblical teaching that such a marriage consist of a man and a woman.
The above discussion highlights that arguments for same-sex marriage violates “the law of nature and of nature's God†as written in the American Declaration of Independence. Either the Christian worldview allows that the Bible is true or it doesn't. Either Christ' words and other related New Testament counsel against same-sex marriage was intended for us or they weren't. There is no evidence that such counsel was intended to be limited in time or local in it's application as was, for example, the instruction about women speaking in church. As Christianity is at it's root about relationships, surely scriptural guidance on a relationship as important as marriage is of more weight than that on hair length or dietary instructions.
Conclusion
In conclusion the same-sax marriage community is unable to defend the two pillars foundational to their cause (that same-sex orientation is based on a non-changeable genetic basis and that the homosexual lifestyle is “equivalent“ to any other) while clandestinely encouraging that these pillars be accepted as “givens†for the purpose of influencing the wider acceptance of same-sex marriage and lifestyle. Their effectiveness in this effort is seen in that these two fundamental questions are assumed and rarely considered in any discussion of gay marriage or homosexual lifestyle.
Their downstream arguments in support of same-sex marriage, that the practice is Christian, pro-freedom, and pro-family can be true only when the two underlying assumptions considered above are accepted. Without their underpinning such arguments lose their standing and weight. Where else does society award civil rights on a voluntary basis?
As societal and environmental factors such as family and relationships are the more important precursors to homosexual orientation then important mentors in the formative life of children may very well influence their sexual orientation. When these important positions of impact in young people's lives (such as teachers, coaches, mentors,etc.) are filled by LGBT persons, the resultant impacts may not be what the parents desire and may very well (as the above research shows) not benefit society.
As a society and as citizens we should not encourage (and should not be forced to encourage - is there a civil right there?) a lifestyle which embodies destructive health elements and influences (regardless of the enthusiasm of it's adherents) which violates our basic biology, which is based on false premises,and which peer-reviewed science demonstratesis not a certainty.
As Christians we know and can and ought to speak into the culture other insights. We are not surprised that science reinforces the agreement and consistency implicit in the words “the laws of Nature and of Nature's Godâ€. We are aware that our spiritual enemy uses deception to confuse and discourage us. If someone thinks their situation is fixed and unchangeable then they are more likely to surrender to it. The resultant resignation (even if warranted and especially if false) harms the individual and impacts their other relationships and future. When that resignation is applied to forcing public policy then everyone is harmed.
Where From Here?
It is critically important that society in general, lawmakers, the media, clergy, educators, and those that embrace the homosexual lifestyle be FULLY informed about the science related to this issue. Only then can informed and defensible public policy decisions be made.
References:
1) Alan Keyes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrD8zvCUtWc
2) JournalofHumanSexuality_Vol2.pdf
3) gss_Bearman,%20Peter%20and%20Hannah%20Brueckner.pdf
4) NGMHandbookBehGen_Chapter19.pdf
5) 24 diseases study http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120402124147.htm
6) Sickle-Cell study http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/abbasalsaeed/Intersting%20aricle%20for%20students/Phenotype-genotype%20relationships%20in%20sickle%20cell.pdf
7) http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/yet-another-study-confirms-gay-life-expectancy-20-years-shorter
8) Homosexual health risks http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2005/feb/05021709
9)The Physical Health Risks of Homosexuality , Family North Carolina Magazine—July/August 2007 http://www.ncfamily.org/FNC/0707S3.html
10) Homosexual costs
http://mannsword.blogspot.com/2011/05/homosexuality-costs.html
11) J Biosoc Sci. 2010 Nov;42(6):721-42. Epub 2010 Jul 20.
Children of homosexuals more apt to be homosexuals? A reply to Morrison and to Cameron based on an examination of multiple sources of data. Schumm WR. Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20642872
12) Biology and Sexual Orientation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
Â
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 133
It is the "unchangeable" "unalterable" aspect of the attraction that is the crucial aspect. Regardless of whether the attraction is from DNA or from some environmental factor or (most likely) from some combination of the two the fact that it appears to be involuntary and permanent is what's important. The studies which cast doubt on the DNA aspect being a complete and sole determinant of homosexual attraction are beside that point.
As to the second assumption: "The second is that the homosexual lifestyle is just like any other, that it's adherents are routine in other facets of their lives and indistinguishable from their neighbors except for their sexual orientation."
I think it is obvious that what we call the "homosexual lifestyle" is not just like any other and is much more likely to involve sexually transmitted diseases. But we should keep in mind that the features of that lifestyle are considerably influenced by how homosexuals are treated in our culture. They are denied marriage as a standard of behavior for themselves. That is, gays are not expected to marry persons of the same sex. There are far fewer social supports for gay marriages staying together.
I find your post quite well done and strongly approve both your approach and how you carried it out. Bravo.
You mention
"..the fact that it appears to be involuntary and permanent is what's important" but there are numerous ancedotodal examples that suggest otherwise. One relatively public such example is Ann Heche - Ellen DeGeneres' famous significant other. She broke it off with Ellen, married a man and had a son. In good Hollywood fashion, she went on to divorce him and have another son with a second this time live-in husband.
Why are you so quick to dismissively step over the 'much more likely to involve sexually transmitted diseases' aspect of homosexual relationships?
Thanks for your kind words - I was careful to keep money out of the article so I might get a good review :)
You will find I give good reviews on many topics which involve money as well. I like to praise good quality where ever I find it and no matter the topic.
In other words, you deserve my praise.
1. Same sex marriage has nothing to do with genetics.
2. This is a highly personal feeling which is not accepted, usually, by religious societies and neighbors.
1. There it seems that many "reason" can drive to it: they could go from an excessive love or hate of one of the parents. This is a "psychological" personal reason, no one of us could help to solve. It requires health care.
2. the main reason is a tax and social organization which considers the spouse as inheritor of the accumulated wealth. A tax system which considers non-married people as individuals and therefor paying far more taxes than 2 married individuals (how this works with Mormons, I ignore).
It is easier to correct such lack of justice through a "marriage" than with Congress.
This being stated, it seems to me, that adopted offspring or a same-sex spouse will render the life of the kid(s) (first in school, etc.) quite difficult, maybe creating even some psychological problems.
Some people, as you, revert to the "religion" to "justify" their concerns about same-sex couples. And this shows as well a psychological problem: at the end of the day no one of us should mind the way others make love: many practice sodomy or fellatio, even with "legal" opposite sex partners. Bible reference, among many others.
How come this became a subject of interest (other than social organization reasons) is a psychological question which could raise some interest in promoting some type of dictatorship, I suppose.
Gilbert, "
1. Same sex marriage has nothing to do with genetics.
Actually Gilbert, I don't think you can make that statement and be accurate.
Numerous children are born with both an X and an XY chromosome due to error in fertilization. Lately, they have encouraged parents to not do surgery on these children, that are often a mixture of male/female private parts. Some are strongly male or female acting at a very young age & probably pretty much unchangeable. until the child has grown a few years, and, hopefully finds which sex is dominant. Then they may announce to the world what they are :)
The children can be told how rare and special it is for them to get to choose which sex they are. It should be worked into society as a normal thing for some children to make that decision. It should be counted as a privilege and not a deformity so the child isn't embarrassed.
Most children discover which sex seems to dominate fairly easily.
Maybe you just mean there is no 'gene' for homosexuality. I might have misunderstood you. Thanks.
In fact, I should underlined that when breeding each human being brings in about 9 billions miles long genes (if they were put end to end and in a straight line) and therefore there could be some "errors" incoming.
The predominance I mentioned can be enhanced with wrong education or treatment, it seems to me.
Sorry for such a wrongly defined statement.
Hmmm, not sure about that~me, I've been approached before, the answer was always, "No, thanks!"
This is not dependent from any kind of proposal, it comes naturally enjoying the pleadure to be together, successful and constructive. At the least in my case it hapenned few times in my whole life and only with one partner. The feeling was there for both of us and both of us are straight. As per your comment I feel yours was somehow "superficial".
Gilbert, August Lady's comment was not at all superficial. Her point being that the statement, "It is true that we ALL are bisexual" is not true. And I agreee with her.
I am not sure what you were saying in your comment in response to August Lady.
Hmmm, that doesn't sound straight to me & I never had a gay approach either~the discussion, I thought, or what I quoted, referenced bisexuals.
Yeah Rene, I don't think Gilbert knows quite what he's saying, either. Not really bothered by the "superficial" tag (like I wouldn't be if someone called me stupid)~I'm not & never have been, simple as that!
This is genetically proven and research has been published still this year. Despite not being presently in Euroe, I feel that the University which found such reality is the EPFL from Lausanne.
This confirms what all psychoanalysts stated without so accurate figures.
It is not because we never ate a bug that bugs are not existing, that some people are not eating bugs and as we shall never eat bugs. I even met people which were kept in concentration camps who ated ants!
In the present case, for a reason I ignore, but which is a projection of yourself in some unusual position which closes your mind. There are several ways of "suggestion" : one is the one I enjoyed with my male partner; anothero one is when we ak ourselves if this could happen with ..., another is when we dislike someone which is often due to some feeling to discover , etc.
I believe the psychos found out this far before the genes study and the latter confirms it.
Nice try but despite all your labeling the eugenics support came exclusively from the progressive left - like Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.
Rick, I quote sources and data much of which are found in peer-reviewed
articles.
Reference 7 of the article and it alone discusses a study by Cameron. It ALSO mentions another study which had the SAME results as regards life expectancy. So all your bloviating about the Cameron study is without merit unless you are prepared to explain why the second independent study (published by International Journal of Epidemiology) is also flawed.
And what is your evidence, Mr. Science-Man, that I am a paid shrill?
You are to be commended.......
Your post forgets the simple fact that, if being a homosexual is a choice, then so is being a heterosexual; one cannot state that one sexual orientation is immutable, while the other is just a “choice”.
If being a homosexual is a choice, why would anyone want to make that choice in the first place, knowing very well that homosexuals are the most hated minority group in the world? Do you think I am gay just for fun? No. I am a gay male because I was born this way. I do not care about whichever rationalization the heterosexual community might come up with regarding homosexuality; the truth of the matter is that a homosexual person is born with the innate liking for persons of the same gender.
Granted, in human sexuality, there are always gradients regarding sexual interest. At one end of the spectrum you have the totally heterosexual person, with absolutely no sexual interest in persons of the same gender. On the opposite side, you have persons with absolutely no interest in persons of the opposite gender; the homosexuals. In the center of these two extremes, we have the bisexual people, who are equally attracted sexually to both genders, and are quite comfortable as such.
In between the center, and the two extremes you will find degrees in attractions. You will find that between the bisexual and the totally gay people, are gay people which might have a slight interest in heterosexual sex, but they much rather prefer gay sex, which they might find more satisfying.
The last group are the people between the absolutely heterosexual and the bisexual. These are the people which I find the most dangerous, especially the males, and I'll tell you why. “Heterosexual” men with some homoerotic feelings tend to be, combined with poor education, the ones that speak negatively about the gay community. When you see in the news about some gay bashing somewhere, I will bet you anything the gay bashers fall in this category. The women in this group tend to be rather discriminatory as well, but the men are the most violent. It is as if the would like to kill “those feelings” they feel inside, but all is a moot point; the gay basher will continue having homoerotic feelings until the day of their death.
In summary, your post seems to be supported by groups of people who have come up with made up rationalizations regarding homosexuality, with complete disregard of the real nature of the human being, and quite bias to say the least. Human beings are more complex than what your sources want to convey...
I have known men who were married, raised children, divorced, all before they decided to walk the gay side of the street. And frankly I don't care if it's a choice or a compelling force. It 's just as legitimate as your 'married with children' model. How many abused children come from heterosexual couples?
Perhaps your brother belongs in that range between bi and totally gay. Let's make clear that a lot of gay men “decide” to get married because it is expected of them, not by choice, thinking it is just a phase. That's being delusional. Eventually, the real persona takes over, they start having gay encounters on the side, to meet that emotional need that cannot be met by their spouse. Eventually, like what happened to your brother, the truth prevails, and the mirage of a “perfect marriage” dissipates, leaving behind – depending the situation – confusion, bitterness and resentment. This is what social pressure to conform to some form of limiting social standard looks like when there is no room for encompassing the myriad of differences of the human spirit.
And for the choice part, if it is so one way, then it is so in the other direction. Your argument of “choice” cannot work one way only. You can say it is a choice for a gay man to marry a woman for the sake of social pressure, and that's as far as it will go. The desire to be intimate with another man will never go away. Denial is not a river in Egypt.
Whomever is reading this, and is in the same predicament, take note... Your feelings will never go away; you might try to obfuscate them, to hide them, call it whatever name you want, but if you are not totally straight, at least accept the fact that you have homoerotic feelings for other members of your same gender, and embrace that part of yourself. If you don't want to act on it, that's the real choice. However, denying that you have homoerotic feelings will always bring you sadness and depression.
I heard a Chinese proverb somewhere long time ago that says; denying a truth is giving it strength until it becomes unbearable.
I know I was always attracted to men since I can remember; I never found a woman attractive in a sexual way. As a teenager, I made peace with who I was, and decided to be true to myself, and to love the person I was. As an middle aged adult, I am happy of who I am. I can look in the eyes of the man in the mirror, and I love that man. And I am at peace.
Who of you readers, especially the men, can look at your reflection in the eyes, and say the same thing. Do you love the man in the mirror?
What creates either practice? It's a very tough question which becomes important BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE REFUSE IT.
And their refuse seems to show that, to the contrary, these refusing people would like to accept homosexuality mainly for themselves.
Otherwise how come they refuse it? When we see a couple of female and male adults, do we figure out how they keep making love?
Some few religious people believe that we should make love to procreate! Strange idea! Would yoy ask before making love to a lady if she has had her menopause?
We should stop kidding about such nonsense of choice. The evolution sows us that we are not so far from our cousins the Chimpanzes and the Bonobos.
The bonobos fix their conflicts making love to each other indifferently of any sexuality, insuring a much better balanced society.
Of course, religious people tend to sacrifice their sexual instinct as an offering to God.
But, if sexuality is an offering to God, such sexuality is of value for who offers it.
This shows how much religious people "envy" those who can freely practice their own sexuality. Usually, even, talking about sexuality is a taboo.
So the question is:
How come they envy our sexuality, whichever is it?
You make a good point, and your question is excellent.
I guess the answer to your last question stems from religious beliefs, especially with dogma. If there are people that “envy” our sexuality, or even better, the fact that I am so comfortable in my own gay male skin, while “they” cannot understand my nature, the only explanation in “their” minds is that being homosexual is a choice, while being heterosexual is the “default” way of being… Those same people cannot let go of the dogma they were imposed upon by their parents, school, and/or church, because that’s all they’ve known all their lives. They are also afraid of letting go of that dogma, because they were taught that leaving the faith would bring gloom and doom to their lives.
Even though I was raised Catholic, at the age of 20, I stopped going to church, and decided that I had to follow my own path, following my inner voice, or instincts, or whatever you want to call that guiding “thing” in you that leads. In doing so, I went through a lot of doubts and tribulations, until one day it all made sense, and never looked back. The best part was when a friend of mine introduced me to the author Jane Roberts, and her Seth books. Once I read the books, I felt I just found a clear path to my life, which is pretty much the path you build for yourself to get where you want to go. This path is not being forged by some dogma or religion; this path is one of self-enlightenment and fulfillment.
I’ll be honest, I’ve never understood what men find attractive in women, but to each its own. What I don’t like about posts like this one is the obsessive want to prove that being a heterosexual is the only way to go, while anything else is an aberration. That’s not so. We come to this realm with different traits and interests, and those differences make us human. We cannot all fit nicely in those little boxes that dogma wants us to live in. Never has worked, and it never will…
Ah, there lies the rub! The concept of normalcy, or what is natural, is the crux of the situation. What's normal or natural to you, is not normal nor natural to me. Sexual orientation is a perfect example...
In my case, it is natural to have sexual attraction to members of my own gender, and absolute indifference to members of the opposite sex. For the majority of men, this behavior feels unnatural, and that's OK. However, when heterosexual people want to tell me that my behavior is not natural, then I have a problem with that statement, since nobody is walking in my shoes, nor know what's in my heart.
My point here is that, regarding LGBTQ people, the concept of "natural" and "normal" are not meant to be defined in statistical terms, but how they are perceived by each individual in a given situation. Now, posts like this one just want to support bias and prejudice, instead of illustrating how things are in the real world.
If 'normal' is decided by the individual perceptions of individual people then doesn't the term lose all meaning? If society cannot set any standards at all then the post-modern "There are no absolute truths" path will soon eliminate society itself (or else a tyrant will define it).
Thanks for weighing in. I just realized my last comment was intended for Philippe.
If God wanted us to be with the same sex sexually, then why, didnt he just make one sex? There would of been no need for male and female... We had to populate the world, a female and female relationship could not produce, a male and male relationship again could not produce... Its as simple as that...
Ken great article and thanks...
TS MS/SHeF BI MG/SHetF TG
TS = Totally Straight
MS/SHeF = Mostly Straight/Some Homoerotic Feelings
BI = Bisexual
MG/SHetF = Mostly Gay/Some Heterosexual Feelings
TG = Totally Gay
Human sexuality is not so cut and dry, Gay v. Straight, but in degrees of interests. Totally straight people have no sexual interest whatsoever towards members of the same gender, and vice-versa towards to other end of the spectrum. Bisexual people have equal sexual interest for either gender, and feel quite comfortable as such, for the most part. The interesting cases are the people closer to the extremes. The MG/SHetF are considered gay, but they might have sex with people of the opposite gender occasionally, and usually earlier in their sexual experimentation. These are the same kind of people who either choose to live a heterosexual lifestyle due to societal pressure, though they don't find this lifestyle satisfying for the most part, and most probably end up in divorce, or living a double life, or might decide to embrace their homosexuality as is, and make the best out of it.
The other group, the MS/SHeF, are the kind of people – especially men – who live life like really straight people, but recent to a certain degree the homoerotic feelings they feel occasionally. Some keep these homoerotic feeling to themselves, while others take a more dangerous approach; the so call homophobes and gay bashers. These are the same people who obsess about homosexuality in their conversations, and are fond of make disparaging remarks about gay people, or preach against them.
I, for one, belong to the TG column, since I do not have the slightest sexual interest on people of the opposite gender. I do not understand why or how some gay people do not realize their sexual orientation earlier in life; I have been attracted to men ever since I can remember. As a child I used to love to look at men wearing tight jeans, and always loved to look at men with muscular bodies. I've made the best out of my life, and I am quite happy with it. I have a good job, and a good life.
This obsession from the heterosexual community that being gay is a choice obviates the fact that if one sexual orientation is a choice, so the other one has to be. This not a one way street. If it was a choice, why would I choose to be part of the MOST HATED minority on the planet. You can bet your life I am not that stupid, nor are your gay friends! Now, it is rather short sighted not putting yourself on someone else's shoes. And since I've lived in the heterosexual world like the other gay people do, I understand your world much better than you understand it yourself.
And this post is another attempt by the heterosexual community to legitimate their homophobia, and to try to prove we are wrong. You cannot accept the fact that you are wrong, that we are OK. Being gay, bi, or whichever sexual preference we are born with is as natural as the variations of the color of our eyes or our skins.
You ask why one might choose a same-sex orientation. A few come to mind. One influence in todays' culture is that many TV shows and movies contains a likable and witty gay character whose sexual activities are never shown and only obliquely referred to. Thus the media and the culture constantly portrays the gay lifestyle in the most positive light possible. This is a not-easily-dismissed influence on today's youth. Other possible but inappropriate reasons might include experimentation, seeking the forbidden, rebellion, a search for a unique identity (driven perhaps by low self-esteem), response to hurt, deception (by self or from others), even an addictive component. Why do high school teachers engage in sexual relationships with their students? Are they driven or are they making choices?
And to your last point, it is worthwhile to note the variations in skin and eye color are genetically decided while the data indicates strongly that sexual orientation is not primarily genetically determined. Additionally, evidence is found in a recent academic paper tracking the negative impacts on children of gay households. [See http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1614682]
With all do respect, your statement above seems quite shortsighted, and I will explain why. First of all let's start with the fact that homosexuality has been around since before the raise of hominids, which is part of our family tree. Many animals of different species show homosexual behavior on a regular basis; it's a natural phenomenon.
That said, you are dealing here with a gay male that as far back as I can remember, I have been attracted to men, and I'm going to be 53 years old this fall. I grew up in a farm which had no electricity. At the time I had no access to positive gay role models because there were non to be had in a farm. When my parents managed to move closer to the road to a better house with electricity, the television programming was the usual stereotypical heterosexual kind. Again, there were no positive gay role models to be had, and I was still attracted to men.
I grew up just like most kids do, went to school just like everyone did at the time, and had a normal life like everyone else. Even during my college years, there were still no positive gay role models to be had, and I was still attracted to men. In college, there were several women that liked me in more than friendly terms – I was not bad looking then – and I had no interest in them; they lack the "right equipment" that get me "excited".
What I want you and your followers to understand is that, it does not matter what hypothesis about the origins of homosexuality homophobes might come up with, the reality is that being gay is NOT a choice. And, if you are familiar with the Kinsey scale, you will find out there are degrees of sexual expression, from totally heterosexual to totally homosexual, which is where I fall into; things are not black and white, they are in shades of gray.
Now, if you want to go metaphysical with me, we can go there, if you want me to. At that level, we can have an open forum over the origins of homosexuality... But, for as long as you stick to the average belief system of our present society, homosexuality is NOT a choice. We are all born with degrees of sexual expression.
You repeatedly contend that orientation is not a choice. Let us for the moment so stipulate. It is, however a decision to engage in same-sex behavior just as it is when a teacher decides to engage in a relationship with a student, an alcoholic decides to continue to drink, a person with a family history of heart disease and obesity refuses to look after his weight and engages instead in an exercise-poor lifestyle, or a man decides to engage in an extramarital affair with a co-worker.
In each case supposedly “natural” forces are at work but a decision must be made to follow them. Would you recommend to a young man who believed himself to be gay to follow that course if engaging in that “decision” would shorten his life by 10 years on average, would cause any children he might happen to have/adopt to be 3-6 times more likely to be gay themselves, and cause any other youths in whose lives he had significant influence to be more likely to themselves be gay? When does the circle of influence outside of ourselves have an influence on checking our behavior? When does responsibility matter more than today's selfish interests?
So, what you are saying is that, it is fine to pursue your natural desires if you are heterosexual, but it is not fine to pursue what is natural to me, just because societal or religious norm frowns upon homosexual behavior. Am I correct in presuming that much of your statement? Talking about double standards!
Ken, I want you, and the rest of the audience here at Gather.com to understand that, it does not matter the arguments you bring to the table against homosexuality, the truth of the matter is that, given the fact that homosexuality is a natural occurrence in the human animal, it does not matter what society or religious organizations says about the topic, we gay people will follow our paths, just like heterosexual people follow theirs. We, the gay people of the world, are done feeling guilty and unworthy just because we were born gay. Nobody can change that fact. You can try to come up with all sorts of supporting arguments coming from dubious sources, including religious books of made up deities and holy people, and they cannot change the germinal fact that being gay is part of the human nature, and as such, it is a mistake to channel such nature against itself just because someone or a group of people finds it an abomination. These people just have to get over themselves, snap out of it, and move on.
Why would I engage in a relationship with a person of the opposite sex, just because that's what society expects from me? How about my happiness, my feelings, and my desires? These are not things you can put in a file cabinet and forget about it. My desire for a male companion is not going to diminish just because I entered in a heterosexual relationship. And it does not matter that this woman is the most beautiful woman on the planet, I would still feel absolutely no attraction for her. And what about her feelings and desires? Because you know what won't stand up to go you know where... Not with a woman; it ain't happening... And if I was the last male on the planet, we better find a cup and a turkey baster to produce babies, because I'm not going there...
Altogether, sexual orientation dictates who and what we find sexually attractive in a person, and when you are gay, you like people of your own gender. I presume you are heterosexual, and I also presume you enjoy sexually what heterosexual men do enjoy...
Do I make myself clear, or are you going to continue debating me on this issue? I absolutely see your points, but you continue trying to hammer in me arguments that have no consequence. You cannot change sexual orientation. It's a foolish pursuit of those who cannot take no for an answer. And yes, as a human being, I will follow my nature, which brings me fulfillment and happiness, which brings good things to the people around me.
Don't let the statistics and lengthy bibliography fool you. Statistics can easily be generated from faulty data. The mere presence of bibliographic references does not guarantee an assertion's accuracy or validity, and academic journals vary widely in their quality.
You mean like Global Warming.. ; )
I wrote the article using a number of academic studies and other sources (none of which were penned by Cameron - as far as I know). Rather than simply inserting a straw-man author/messenger to be the target of your attacks, you might rather spend the time more usefully investigating and refuting the message.
No. I mean more like your claim that somebody would need "16 years of Formal instruction in the fields of History, Biblical History, Theology and Geology," to understand what you are talking about. When in reality, you appear to have had no formal instructions in any of those fields.
Ken,
If you composed any of that post yourself, it is the first two paragraphs which contains phrases such as the "homosexual lifestyle" and "homosexual lobby." The style reveal your bias and hate.
Your studies have already been refuted by the overwhelming majority of psychologist, psychiatrist, and scientists who have worked in the field. You know the studies are there, you just refuse to accept them.
The terms I used communicated who and what I was talking about. They are descriptive and no bias or hate is involved. What alternative terms would you recommend I use that would both indicate with precision what is being discussed and that pass your mythical 'hate' filter.
If there are alternative studies that refute my points please identify them. Such is the nature of dialogue. Simply jumping to your "super-conclusion" is not helpful or defensible.
I have not collected a bibliography of sources, because this has not been an obsession with me. However, several excellent points are made in the book Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research Into Homosexuality by Simon Levay (click on title to read review.) The book is available on Amazon.
You may also be interested in reading the position paper of the American Psychological Association (Click name)
Within the APA position paper you will find the statement:
What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.
It may appear strange that there is no answer to what causes homosexuality, but the same can be said for left handedness. As a college student I did two papers on the causes of left handedness. Genetics has been ruled out, and we know it is not by choice. The same thing stands for sexual orientation. Recent studies have looked at the development of the embryo and how it could be effected by outside influences, but nothing certain.
They do have some feelings about homosexuality and, as any "feeling guilty" people, are compelled to justify their own positions.
We can see this as far as religion, climate, economics, sexuality, coffee and candy tastes, just creating what, at the end of the day, are just quarrels of puppets.
Your link reinforces the point I make in the article when it says: "LeVay makes it clear that he supports a "born that way" perspective, scientific support for which, he claims, is beneficial to the continuing fight for homosexual equality and acceptance...". His admitted agenda requires him to take this view. But the APA position opposes Levay when it does NOT say orientation is clearly genetic, in fact more science that not, implies it is not so determined.
The offshoot is that if orientation can be influenced by environmental factors then society (and families and parents) properly can and should have a role in deciding how prevalent those influences ought to be.
In the case of sexual attraction of a person to a partner of the same sex it is also possible that it can be caused by something which happens to the child in early growth, which would still put it outside of being either a choice or genetic. There is certainly more than one cause, and it could sometimes be a combination of causes including genetic.
So, if homosexual behavior is indeed a choice (and I'm not saying that homosexual orientation itself is), then it would be a choice to deviate from the "norm" of heterosexual behavior. Note that homosexual behavior does not equal being homosexual. And heterosexual behavior does not equal being heterosexual. So whether one is homosexual or heterosexual, we may indeed choose whether or not to engage in either homosexual behavior or heterosexual behavior. The behavior does not equal the orientation.
My point is that we should be careful to consider the wording of our respective positions, lest we make the mistake of conflating concepts.
Your answer is evasive. Could you have chosen to become a homosexual?
In case you are interested, I am not homosexual, and I do not feel that I had a choice in the matter, therefore I do not assume that homosexuals necessarily had a choice. But it seems to me that if you feel that homosexuality is a choice, that you must think heterosexuality is a choice too. Did you make a choice?
Gary,
We know that even if genetics contributed in some way to homosexuality, it cannot be the sole factor. Therefore the race is in no danger of dying out. We also find homosexual behavior in members of other species, and they have not died out.
It bothers me that you want to impose "norms" on people without giving a clear reason why that "norm" should be imposed. The Courts have a rule that any law should fill a legitimate governmental need. What is the need? The argument that DOMA type laws protect marriage is rather specious and have not impressed the courts. DOMA itself will likely get overturned by the Supreme Court itself because its sole purpose appears to be to discriminate against a class of people.
You are wrong on your statement. Trust me, I do know what I'm talking about. I never felt sexual attraction towards females, ever.
You are not being consistent: If we are all born hetero, why would somebody deliberately chance their sexual desires? The desire for someone of their own sex would have to come first, but in that case it is no longer a matter of choice.
At any rate, I'm far from prepared to make a strong case for my thoughts on the matter. There are other issues that seem more pressing to me these days...
The problem remains in the choice: who did it and how?
And it seems that you "forgot" some important and acknowledged doctors and professors dealing specially with this matter as, the Freuds, Klein, Spira, etc. who dealt with these matters.
The SA, the armed force of Hitler, was made of many homosexuals and has been eliminated with such an excuse, not because they failed in protecting the fuhrer, but because Himmler was "very curious" about homosexuality and rather jealous about the SA power!
I would have appreciate this post if balanced showing each position instead of yours exclusively.
However: "The point of marriage is to sanctify sex.... " but, IMO, this is a rule made by men just for appearance. How many couple make sex in some other ways which are not procreating ones?
Who decided that sex could be "moral" or inmoral"? As per the Bible , this is a human decision and as such it precludes some type of sexual activities which are not covered neither by God Himself, neither in convents.
Should we apply such a rule to all other remaining people?
They do care about the word marriage because of the social organization which requires people to be "married" in order to be considered as a couple, with the related tax benefits and inheritance benefits.
Change the law and they will not require the word "marriage" if this hurts you!
What hurts the community is the usage of the word "marriage" but it's status has been reviled with divorces, mormonism, sectarian people, etc. and has far not the "weight" it use to have, neither, any more, the significance of a mutual support.
All citizens are free to marry any one (at a time) of the opposite sex that they choose. That is equal treatment under the law so no constitutional issue exists.
Society can, per the Constitution, insure domestic tranquility and thus can impose appropriate regulations on such unions. To extend the right to marry to other combinations of persons requires the points of the article to be addressed and in effect rebuked. Without doing so it is unjustifiable to arbitrarily extend a privilege and call it a "rights".
I seriously doubt if the Founders would 'construct' the Constitution in the manner you prescribe.
As I mentioned in the original article: "If the definition of marriage is relieved of any connection [in principle] to procreation and the resultant family responsibilities that follow then it can't logically be limited to just two people." Neither you nor anybody else that I know of has made a case why the above is invalid. My larger point is that the basic assumptions upon which the same sex lobby depends and from which make their claims are untrue.
And it's not just my personal assumptions in play. I believe 31 out of 31 states (whenever this question is put to the voters ) have reasoned the same way.
Well done.
Anti-Social behaviour exhibits itself in many, many ways. This is merely one of them.
No such amendment is required as the US Constitution is silent on marriage. The States are responsible for legislating that institution.
Nice insults btw. Very mature.
What is calling someone a 'blind extremist ideologue' (especially without any reasoned arguments in order to try and establish that fact) if not an insult?
Again the constitution is quiet on marriage, leaving it (as per the 9th and 10th Amendments - you should try reading those as they are ALSO part of the Constitution- very enlightening!) to the states. Procreation is not a requirement for conferring rights under the Constitution but it is a requirement for understanding in principle the basis for marriage.
The FMA is not law so is not part of this discussion. I appreciate that it is part of your zeal to want to throw rocks.
You comment confuses me a bit. It sounds like you are saying that you chose hetersexuality after trying other options. In other words you said you were not hard wired for one way or the other. But that is exactly what Ken is saying, so I dont know why you disputed his point.
As for me, I think the twin studies show what the consensus is, as stated by the APA. There is a clear and fairly important genetic component to homosexuality, but, as in many, if not most complex behavioral traits, this genetic propensity is subject in some cases to alteration due to environmental, such as early life experiences.
For some people, like Phillipe by his own testimony, which cannot be discounted, there is no choice, and never has been. For Rick and many others, a choice was made. Teasing out the precise cause and etiology of every gay person's route to homosexuality is impossible and meaningless. And even if we could, is the answer that we let the genetic gays get married, but not the chosing gays? Doesnt make much sense to me. Given the complexity of the etiology and the impossibility of ever sorting it out, why not just forget about it, and let people live the way they want to.
There is no fear in the equation. So, let us dispense of the straw man, forthwith.
No-one has prevented, or INTENDS to prevent you from "remaining autonomous, and having more than one meaningful relationship." What we are discussing here, is MARRIAGE.
"There is nothing in my personal experience which makes homosexuality evil."
So what? We do not discuss an emotional desire to commit a homosexual act. We discuss the act of homosexuality. Many have an intense desire to commit numerous anti-Social acts...it is our personal responsibility to fight our Evil Nature. That is why we call one who has an intense desire to Murder, and does, a Murderer...and Evil. That is what makes us Human...and unique.
"Nor is it any more legitimate a choice than heterosexuality." -
Of course it is; we are two genders. Interestingly, Grande Design is such that it takes one of each to Procreate. Funny, that...
"For me, it's all about love and respect, not about constructing some cathedral of reasons for rejecting, ostracizing, and hating an entire class of people." -
Of course it is, Sir; and that is where you are confused. Again, "hate" has nothing to do with it. Let us reserve hate for those who wish to impose their narcissism upon Society. We can "Love" many things; we can Love many People. Love is but a component of Marriage. I'm certain that you love your dog, if you've gotten one. Many could be "in Love" with more than one Man, or Woman. A "woman" in Michigan recently "married" herself. This is the problem of narcissism manifested, as well.
Marriage is an Institution, Sir. Not a Social experiment. There can be no healthy and successful Society without the parameters of True Marriage; a union between one Man, and one Woman.
You slap the label "narcissism" on those who would change society, make it less oppressive for people who wish only to have their loving relationships sanctified, recognized, and accepted. If "marriage is an institution", to exclude some people from the institution is nothing but discrimination, which is a pretty cold case for someone looking at himself in the reflection of the water and thinking himself superior, as Narcissus did.
As far as I know, I never decided to prefer girls. In fact I'm pretty happy that at least one preferred me.
I never spoke of your selfish worry that the ill affects (or no effects at all) would be to your marriages, or your persons, genius's.
Your narcissism, like that of those who wish to redefine Marriage for their own selfish purposes, causes you to leave out the most important and innocent in this equation:
The Children.
But then, in your narcissistic blindness, you're unable to fathom the Societal devastation that your narcissism would bring.
Truly pathetic.
Think again.
Mr. Kai, here, is a perfect example...
"Gay marriage has no effect on heterosexual married couples. The only reason for all this anti-gay hysteria is fear, pure and simple."
And again, the "Poster Boy" for malignant narcissism. I've said nothing about "an effect" on Married couples.
Wake up.
Read it.
As I mentioned in the article, if environmental factors are (as they appear) a large part of orientation then such influences from same-sex leaders in schools, sports teams, and other organizations might not affect your marriage at all but might very well impact your children.
In that sense, this situation is not comparable to painting your hair green or an affinity for opera. It is comparable to the zeal to say , be a nudist, which we as a society wouldn't allow in general public spaces.
Additionally, only a narcissist would demand to have his way on this matter with complete inconsideration for the devastating effects on Society and Children.
You focus solely upon yourself. Pathetic.
Fools are not capable of learning. That is why they are called 'Fools.'
Peer-reviewed scientifically published articles are not bogus. Logic and reason are refuted by argument , not by mere attack.
Peer-reviewed scientifically published articles are generally not referred to as "pseudo" except by those that have no other argument.
What if the "living a life of one's own design including going everywhere as a nudist? Could society legislate that?
Also the idea of 'Gay Pride' is interesting and instructive. In general, is the average person proud to be a man (or a woman if the candidate is a female), blue-eyed, or big-boned? Probably not. Why the gay-pride at a characteristic that supposedly isn't selected and can't be changed?
Do you mean to suggest that sexuality is as trivial as public nudity statutes?
I have no idea where you're headed with the comment about being gay and what, unattractive? Big-boned? Naked? I don't have perfect looks, and it makes me not want to wander around in Speedos, but it does not influence my basic sexuality.
I was going to respond with a giant, lengthy, rebuttle that you would only skim through, but stopped at the word "homosexual lobby" and couldn't stop laughing. Is that similar to the homosexual agenda? Our horrible, nasty, evil, nazi-like plan to con you over to the gay side? Not gonna happen! As all we want is the same thing you have, equality and the right to marry. Don't believe me? Than do some unbiased science.
As all I see is bias here, and you won't get this past a peer review.
The Bias That Ken S. And Advocates Don't Want You to Know (or Think About)
References:
Blogspot?
NCFamily.org?
Youtube?
Wikipedia?
Lifesitenews- known religiously biased website that has ads for ending abortion on front page.
Schumm WR and Cameron P are scientists who are being criticized for their deliberate distortion of the literature they used, and their Meta-analysis, for lack of a better term, sucked. And Paul Cameron's science is only equivocal to antisemitism. And is almost always incorrect, misquoted or mis-sourced.
Please, pick some good sources if you plan on using any of this against homosexuals.
I suggest that you use peer reviewed, scientifically sound research... oh wait. You'd have no case.
You question a number of the sources used.
Blogspot? The blogspot article lists numerous journal articles as the sources of the statistics given.
NCFamily.org? Again, the article references numerous journal articles as the sources of the statistics given.
Youtube? Alan Keyes's debate arguments are available on Youtube (note he is the source not Youtube). He argued as I claimed he did. But stick with the usual deflection scam and don't make an effort to actually address the actual arguements given.
Wikipedia? What's the big deal? I referenced a Wikipedia article but didn't cite it.
Lifesitenews- known religiously biased website that has ads for ending abortion on front page. That you dislike the work of Paul Cameron is not the point nor is it relevant. The study performed by him demonstrated similar results to another published study from Vancouver, British Columbia. Is every study that disagrees with your agenda dismissable on that basis alone?
Schumm WR? - If it is your wish to point out that a peer-reviewed journal article by Schumm or others may have had some criticism leveled at it then do so with details. Don't just arm-wave nebulously that such has happened without providing verifiable sources.
NCFamily is a biased source, use another source if you want anyone to take you seriously.
Alan Keyes is a politician, he has no credentials on sexual orientation or science.
Lifesitenews is a politically biased website. try again
Schumm WR is a baised scientist. and:
"If it is your wish to point out that a peer-reviewed journal article by Schumm or others may have had some criticism leveled at it then do so with details."
That "journal" was created by Dr, Cameron and other anti-gay "scientists." So not only is it biased beyond recognition. I cannot even accept your claims of "peer-review" as he is the one who made the journal!
Please, find a REAL peer reviewed article.
His butchering and your butchering of science for a political goal is sickening.
Please stop abusing the word science for your politically fueled propaganda.
It makes no difference that Keyes is or was a politician. What matters is the weight of his argument which you won't even address.
EJSSB, or Empirical Journal of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior, was created by Dr Cameron to post anti-gay propaganda masked as science after he was expelled by the American Psychological Association for refusing to cooperate with an ethics investigation. Statements issued by the American Sociological Association and Canadian Psychological Association have accused Cameron of misrepresenting social science research. The ASA even said "It does not take great analytical abilities to suspect from even a cursory review of Cameron's writings that his claims have almost nothing to do with social science and that social science is used only to cover over another agenda. Very little of his work could find support from even a bad misreading of genuine social science investigation on the subject and some sociologists, such as Alan Bell, have been 'appalled' at the abuse of their work."
Why trust a journal made by someone who butchered science?
And Alan Keyes has no weight, as he is not a scientist, a psychologist, a psychiatrist, or a sociologist. He has no credentials as he has no credibility.
And unlike you, I refuse to listen to people's arguments and would rather look at the facts and make my own conclusion. Being persuaded by an argument that thus causes you to bend and distort science to fit your opinions is not scientific, or open minded. It is morally repugnant, biased, and severely unscientific.
THAT is why almost all social scientists, sociologists, psychologists, and psychiatrists, as well as:
The American Medical Association
The American Psychiatric Association
The American Psychological Association
The American Psychoanalytic Association
The American Academy of Pediatrics
and
The National Association of Social Workers
Believe that homosexuality is not a choice, not unnatural, and should not be treated as a mental disorder, and oppose any attempts at conversion, or reparative therapy.
Other people that oppose reparative or conversion therapy are:
American Counseling Association
American Federation of Teachers
The Interfaith Alliance
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Secondary School Principals
National Education Association
New Ways Ministries
People for the American Way.
NARTH is the ONLY mental health organization that promotes reparative therapy.
So unless Dr. Cameron and his team of anti-gay hooligans know better than everyone else, I'll reject their arguments on the premise of biased, unscientific, non-empirical, butchering.
And that's before I add any emotional stigma into the debate.
Wanna try again?
So let's see. You easily see 'bias' in the work and opinions of Cameron but you fail to see the same kinds of bias in the laundry list of organizations that you list. You fail to recognize that much of academia is populated by atheistic thinking and the subsidiary groups you list are characteristically in the progressive camp. As such they are interested in adopting a society where mention of God is outlawed publicly and Government takes the place previously held by Deity. You naively believe that these organizations are operating without agenda in search of truth and it alone.
Further, on the subject at hand these so-called experts cannot tell us where same-sex orientation comes from though they admit that it is not primarily or even substantially genetic. They deny clear indicators that it's prevalence is influenced by environmental factors, and that it's pursuit and practice involves actual physical and societal risks. They ignore the biological truth that as eyes are made to see and hearts to pump blood, human reproductive organs are designed to interact with a complimentary set of organs provided only by an opposite-sex member. They refuse to consider that any such "natural" but rare trait would would tend to be eliminated genetically.
Because they don't know the cause they cannot demonstrate that such behavior doesn't manifest as an influence (thought undesirable by some) on others in the community. They completely diminish as unimportant 6000+ years of history that largely acknowledges the primacy of man-woman mating and it's importance to family structure [While it's true that some minority of same-sex families are stable, it is also true some drunk drivers don't cause accidents but such behavior is still not encouraged.]
They instead desire to establish same-sex marriage as a "right" on a level with race and gender despite the fact that in principle the issues involved are much different. They further deny the inescapable conclusion that same sex marriage if so established would then require polygamy and any other form of "marriage" to be equally respected. They extend to no one the right to disagree on any basis with their views and describe such views (no matter how honestly held) as "hatred". They hold this position despite the fact that in every state where this issue has been put to the voters it has been defeated. They are not satisfied to simply choose to not frequent businesses that disagree with them but instead accuse such businesses of hatred, commit acts of damage against them, and often speak all manner of vulgarity toward them.
They're only interested in the truth....yeah right.
And you bring up butchered history to go with your butchered science?
If you believe that humans should only have vaginal sex, I suggest you first work to ban the heterosexual practice of oral and anal sex, as well as all the "non traditional" sexual poses and fetishes.
Oh right, you would not be able to budge one inch in that debate, as whatever people who in their own house is their own right.
Ban divorce first, than I might take you seriously. Or better yet, end poverty.
All I see is your political opinion. No science, no facts, and butchered versions of what the LGBT is fighting for.
Ignorant bigotry is ignorant bigotry Mr. Ken. Why so hateful and ignorant? Why do you fear the majority?
Not one single shred of empirical evidence suggests that gay marriage will lead to "chaos and abasement." That sentence just proves your a conspiracy nut.
31 out of 31 states voted to keep modern marriage. As your "traditional marriage" goes against what marriage was when Jesus was alive. Your own argument is hypocrisy. But the people of the united states, influenced by religious propaganda, claiming homosexuals were pedophiles, voted against homosexuality in 31 states. Not educated people on the subject. No one is facts. Just a lot of bible thumpers.
In the line of fact, law, and science, there is no reason to ban gay marriage. You simply cannot accept that as a fact because it goes against your bible. But the bible has a major flaw. It is not allowed to be used for laws here in the united states any more than the wiccan religion, budhism, or confusism.
I follow science, fact, and natural morals. Not a 2000 year old book of twisted beliefs, hypocrisy, and children being stoned to death for backtalk, just because you believe your own personal god accepts it.
But I am done with this yoyo conversation. You have not made a single legit point in your argument. Not one.
Good luck being against the majority of psychologists Mr Ken. As you will get no where that way.
Many of them also kill their young. We humans (who do have a soul and possess the ability to make moral decisions) should know better but abortion statistics prove many do not.
In julie-land all opposing points are attacked and summarily ignored.
Unless you mean both this artical and that study are 100% incorrect and biased.
Acceptance of Homosexuality in Christianity-Ravi Zacharias
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIw6ngIqaD0&feature=player_embedded
How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sexrelationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study
http://www.scribd.com/doc/96719068/Regnerus-Study
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Monogamy-Exclusivity-and-Permanence/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580
I feel very bad for those who fight this problem and just wish God would have zeroed in on this particular problem and not allowed it to exist :)
I can't imagine any scientist in practice that would consider animals carrying out physically destructive activities that would try to pass them off as normal.
The disease and bowel/gas problems resulting from this unnatural act are a result for people trying to involve themselves in activities that are NOT normal. The increased threat to their lives is amazing. We have the President giving the OK to Homosexuals & their encouragement for children to be given choices. What would he say if we overfed our children or smoked around them. Ahh! Speaks for itself, doesn't it?
For people to disregard these truths is despicable. To try to prevent parents from trying to put their child back on the 'normal' road is very selfish. That is like saying anorexia is just a choice. People feel better staying thin & the parents need to get off the kids back and let them do what they want irrespective of the mental, spiritual and physical effect on the child.
Again, thank you. I am so sorry for the heart break that surrounds this issue.
There was one point that you made that brought to light another aspect of the societal view of this issue, and that was this...
As Christians we know and can and ought to speak into the culture other insights. We are not surprised that science reinforces the agreement and consistency implicit in the words “the laws of Nature and of Nature's God”. We are aware that our spiritual enemy uses deception to confuse and discourage us. If someone thinks their situation is fixed and unchangeable then they are more likely to surrender to it. The resultant resignation (even if warranted and especially if false) harms the individual and impacts their other relationships and future. When that resignation is applied to forcing public policy then everyone is harmed.
I enjoyed reding your entire article Ken. It is the best message I have seen in Gather lately. Standing and clapping.