Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Really? Could you please name some of these "equally qualified professionals"?
Simple...anyone can find them.
You just type in the concept (like any other concept) as a "search" with any major "web browser". When the jillions of sites come up...link some of them. Like you did.
You can support or contest any subject/issue/matter imaginable that way.
It would be like asking a short person why they apparently have no power to choose to be tall.
Most Gay people have a different brain structure to straight people. They react differently to pheromones. There are a number of differences that are formed in-utero.
These are not things a person can "choose" to change.
You can look at it a different way. I'm an alcoholic and its not by choice. But me being sober is a choice. I choose to be sober every day but I don't have a choice in being an alcoholic. I'll always be one whether I'm sober or not.
Homosexuality is a learned behavior. It is a subconsicuosly acquired trait is the same way that individual likes within homo- or hetero- interests are. (such as preferring redheads, Orientals, blonds, etc.) No one CHOOSES to like a certain type of person but that does not mean they are born that way either. Prior to the mid 1980's psychologists accepted that it was a failure of one of the developmental stages of life "Identity Vs. Role Confusion". Revised psychological outlook no longer says there is a 'default' correct choice and, thus, there is no 'failure' in any stage of development. Still, the trait is learned in that stage and it appears that, like most learned conditions, it is extremely difficult and maybe impossible to unlearn.
Based on what we know about learned behaviors and how they will affect the individual for the rest of his/her life, we should do everything we can to ensure that the behavior learned is the one that will make life easiest for the individual. In this case, that is clearly heterosexuality. Therefore, we should encourage and model heterosexual behavior and should steer children away from expressing gender-inappropriate ttraits while they are still young and have not reached this life stage. Instead, the homosexual activists want to do the exact opposite. They want to tell children that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and encourage gender-neutral play and behaviors. Their goal is not the children's well being or self-esteam , as they claim. Their goal is to increase the number of homosexuals because they know that will give them more political clout. Note that I am talking about homosexual activists, not most homosexuals. Most don't care about political activism anymore than most heterosexuals do.
Here you go again. You still show a very poor understanding of Erikson's "Identity Vs. Role Confusion" stage and a very poor understanding of sexual orientation. Sounds like willful ignorance to me.
You just type in the concept (like any other concept) as a "search" with any major "web browser". When the jillions of sites come up...link some of them. Like you did.
You can support or contest any subject/issue/matter imaginable that way.
You can take it from here.
Sorry - the only places that would support your opinion is from the "junk science" found only on religious anti-gay sites like NARTH.
I've linked to studies that I have already read in reputable peer-reviewed journals.
So basically you can't back up your statement that there are "equally qualified" people who would dispute those studies?
You can look at it a different way. I'm an alcoholic and its not by choice. But me being sober is a choice. I choose to be sober every day but I don't have a choice in being an alcoholic. I'll always be one whether I'm sober or not.
busta
And what does that have to do with sexual orientation?
Nothing.
And what does that have to do with sexual orientation?
Because generally we are not discussing simply having an orientation, but what you do with it.
My Dad is pretty homophobic, but even he says if a person has those attractions and doesn't act on them than he doesn't care. I understand that for many gays it's not "about what we do", and they would emphasize a gay identity even if celibate, but for many/most the objection is about "what they do" not simply what they find arousing or desirable.
His alcoholism analogy is controversial, but quite relevant. Because it's about what you do with inborn or unchangeable desires.
Granted in the Evangelical Protestant world even the orientation itself can be deemed something that must be cured, but not all conservative Christians are Evangelical Protestants. For that matter I think some Evangelicals are even moving away from the idea they have to be "cured" and see celibacy as an option. (Although Evangelical Protestantism often leans toward the Orthodox Jewish line on celibacy so shifting on this is possibly complex for them)
Sorry - the only places that would support your opinion is from the "junk science" found only on religious anti-gay sites like NARTH.
I've linked to studies that I have already read in reputable peer-reviewed journals.
So basically you can't back up your statement that there are "equally qualified" people who would dispute those studies?
Yeah..."junk science"...the typical argument to dissenting viewpoints and theories.
Love those "reputable peer-reviewed journals" too....
I remember when I was young my mother telling me to "drink my milk" (whole milk @ 4% milk fat, of course), and her serving some kind of beef, pork, or other meat, a couple times a day...because "science" had "figured out" that is what was "good for you". MOF, this was what all those "reputable peer-reviewed journals" claimed their research had determined. This "theory" (a lot of milk and meat were good for you) stood for most of human history and viewed as "a given", without question.
Weeeeeeell...I had to take drugs for a time to lower the high cholesterol it caused, while I modified my diet so I wouldn't die from eating that food that had been "scientifically proven" to be so good and healthy for me. Some "given"!
Yet, in the face of things like this, "science" still holds up things as "a given"...when they know it could very well be just a matter of them not having figured out the "real deal"...and that they have been wrong all along.
Not that I'm different than anyone else...and tend to go with "the experts" most current determinations. Unless I've found my own "proof" from my own observation and study.
Bottom Line: Arguments like "the *gay* gene" and homos being "born that way" can not be trotted out like it is some "absolute infallible objective truth".
I know what I know from my personal experience of focused observation for over a quarter century. I've seen people be into all kinds of stuff. It was never anything more than their own personal preference. Being attracted to same gender persons is just another preference...and though it IS a true and verifiable preference, and many times a very strong leaning...I don't see it as being anything more than that.
I also have no problem with it...because it ISN'T a problem...except in the minds of the biased and intolerant.
Yeah..."junk science"...the typical argument to dissenting viewpoints and theories.
Love those "reputable peer-reviewed journals" too....
Yet, in the face of things like this, "science" still holds up things as "a given"...when they know it could very well be just a matter of them not having figured out the "real deal"...and that they have been wrong all along.
Not that I'm different than anyone else...and tend to go with "the experts" most current determinations. Unless I've found my own "proof" from my own observation and study.
Bottom Line: Arguments like "the *gay* gene" and homos being "born that way" can not be trotted out like it is some "absolute infallible objective truth".
I know what I know from my personal experience of focused observation for over a quarter century. I've seen people be into all kinds of stuff. It was never anything more than their own personal preference. Being attracted to same gender persons is just another preference...and though it IS a true and verifiable preference, and many times a very strong leaning...I don't see it as being anything more than that.
I also have no problem with it...because it ISN'T a problem...except in the minds of the biased and intolerant.
Thank you for sharing with us your personal theories, opinions and anecdotes about the nature of homosexuality, gender identity, and sexual orientation. It is refreshing to see someone boldly extrapolate on some of the mysteries of human nature with the outstanding background of 25 years of observation! Surely, 25 years of observation must give a person a superb degree of expertise on the subject.
Because generally we are not discussing simply having an orientation, but what you do with it.
My Dad is pretty homophobic, but even he says if a person has those attractions and doesn't act on them than he doesn't care. I understand that for many gays it's not "about what we do", and they would emphasize a gay identity even if celibate, but for many/most the objection is about "what they do" not simply what they find arousing or desirable.
His alcoholism analogy is controversial, but quite relevant. Because it's about what you do with inborn or unchangeable desires.
Granted in the Evangelical Protestant world even the orientation itself can be deemed something that must be cured, but not all conservative Christians are Evangelical Protestants. For that matter I think some Evangelicals are even moving away from the idea they have to be "cured" and see celibacy as an option. (Although Evangelical Protestantism often leans toward the Orthodox Jewish line on celibacy so shifting on this is possibly complex for them)
So it's fine that homosexuals are forced to be celibate and alone their entire lives, just because some religious fundies don't understand the Bible and feel like demonizing them, especially when they cause no harm?
Bottom Line: Arguments like "the *gay* gene" and homos being "born that way" can not be trotted out like it is some "absolute infallible objective truth".
It can by anyone that actually is gay, and knows how they've felt their entire life. And of course, they have an increasing amount of scientific evidence proving their real life struggles to be due to what they're born with.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
