Johns Hopkins: People are not born homosexual or transgender

[Dawg]

So, this means Priest are born Pedophiles...…..

 

[EatTheRich]

I'm not sure I agree with the findings. When I was 12-years-old, there was a boy in my neighborhood who was very efiminate. He hung around the girls and played the same games they play and pretty much acted like a girl. He walked in an exaggerated manner and had very efiminate body movements. We called him a sissy because, at that time, we didn't know what a homosexual was.
I have no doubt now that the kid was gay. And I don't think he just sat down one day and decided that he wanted to be gay. I think he was born that way. I've seen other young kids who demonstrated obvious homosexual behavior, kids for whom I dont know for sure if it was a personal choice or not.
I think many, perhaps most, people who are gay, choose to be that way but I can't say that all of them are like that. Either way it is still something they have to bear and, like adultery, lying, cheating, stealing, or any other offense against God or their fellow man, it is a sin and something they have to be delivered from.

It’s clearly not a choice but I think it’s still an open question how much of the cause is environmental.

 

[EatTheRich]

History is replete with documented episodes of the climate changing. But only a total moron thinks human activity has anything to do with it.

And somehow those “total morons” are a majority in every scientific body from the National Academy of Sciences to the American Medical Association.

 

[EatTheRich]

So homosexuality is not s choice. Then we agree. And there are plenty on your side of the aisle that say it is. I’m glad you know better.

Nobody who has a job thinks homosexuality is a choice. We correctly believe it is a mental illness. And by the way, the same APA, who used to think it was a mental illness and then changed its mind is now saying that Pedophelia is no longer a mental illness and should be mainstreamed.

Normal people do not choose homosexuality because it is a sick and unnatural lifestyle. It would be like someone choosing cancer. Normal parents do not want their children to be homosexual, any more than they would want the kids to be born with any other birth defect. That why I maintain that if science ever did discover a homosexual gene, then homosexuals would be come very rabid pro-lifers.

Is it nature or nurture then, that’s the question we have open.

Is ANY mental illness nature or nurture.

But no matter what my environment, I know I would be straight. There has to be some kind of predisposition to want to have sex with somebody of the same gender. I can’t say that environment has no impact, I don’t know that.

One of the things that caused my college psychology professor to get so mad at me that she almost threw the DSMIV book at me was my question about how anyone could possibly base a career on a branch of alleged science with so many flaws and wrong conclusions. Maslow, Freud, these people were pervs. Nobody is an expert on psychology because the science of the human body is still centuries away from being fully understood. Doctors today are lucky to get anything right, and the profession still kills 2 million people a day. And psychology is the least understood.

Personally, I believe the APA made a mistake in going the politically correct route and downgrading homosexuality from a mental illness to an entitled class.

The APA didn’t do it because if political correctness, they did it because it was shown that they couldn’t distinguish sexual orientation on the basis of clinical reports as they could with any bona fide mental illness.

 

[Nutty Cortez]

And somehow those “total morons” are a majority in every scientific body from the National Academy of Sciences to the American Medical Association.

They aren't total morons.

They know where their bread is buttered for grant money. If you were getting a 10 million dollar grant to research how dry water is , you would be doing it.

 

[now_what]

Molesters worldwide thank you, I suspect.

Honestly, I don’t care who is gay. But a carte Blanche shrugging off of all appetites is bad societal math. Everything isn’t ok.

It isn’t okay and I don’t think anybody believes it’s okay.

 

[JackDallas]

It’s clearly not a choice but I think it’s still an open question how much of the cause is environmental.

I'd say in most cases, it's a choice.

 

[now_what]

There's no question that people are wired. But where does the wiring take place? Does it take place during conception, when all the genetic codes are passed and placed into the creation of life? (Understand I'm not saying that a homosexual gene does not exist. Just because Johns Hopkins doesn't think humans are born with this trait doesn't mean scientists know everything. Scientists only THINK they know everything.)

Or does it take place during the childhood years in a dysfunctional household where there is a weak father and an overbearing mother?

In Crime and Delinquency class, we were give the theory that homes with an absentee father 8 times out of ten created criminals, drug dealers, murderers.

Ted Bundy was a product of abuse, and of never knowing his father. He was the textbook sociopath. In class we were told that one characteristic of sociopaths is their childhood killing of animals. Somehow their environment did something to their wiring. In fact, Bundy as a college graduate was able to identify the traits of a sociopath.

If environment can create a criminal, a mass murderer, etc, is it totally beyond the realm of possibility that environment couldn't create a homosexual, a pedophile or some other mental case?

Of course “nurture” is a factor of what actions a person could carry out, or the likelihood of it. But that really isn’t the same thing. Somebody loving somebody of the same gender doesn’t have any victims. A “good” person can be gay.

Criminality is something different. The ability and willingness to harm others is an extremely negative trait. This is true for sexual and non-sexual crimes. It’s so closely correlated that people that are abused as children grow up and abuse their children.

I just don’t see the two things as the same, or even similar.

Good post though, I see where you are coming from.

 

[now_what]

I'd say in most cases, it's a choice.

Homosexual feelings are not a choice, acting on them are. The same way that acting on heterosexual feelings is a choice.

 

[JackDallas]

Homosexual feelings are not a choice, acting on them are. The same way that acting on heterosexual feelings is a choice.

Fair point.

 

[JackDallas]

The earlier theories about homosexuality (one source of those theories being "Men And Marriage" by George Gilder) claims a home environment of a weak or absentee father and a dominating mother creates homosexuals. The "home environment theory" has been around a lot longer than the "Bruce was born with it" notion.

Again, this thread is NOT about whether someone chooses activity that most humans would find repulsive. This is about it NOT being an inborn trait.

I understand that and I just believe that in some cases I've seen evidence that convinces me some individuals are born that way. I know that enormous societal problems can be caused in a person by an absentee father and/or a dominering mother but I've seen homosexuals come out of what I perceived as stable family environments. I don't believe that, in every single case, those kids made an intelligent, well thought out decision to be gay.

 

[reason10]

All genetic characteristics develop while in the whom. What’s the issue with that?

If that's the case, you liberals really need to abandon the Margaret Sanger model and reject abortion, (the Second Holocaust). Like I said, the actual discovery of a homosexual gene will convert hundreds of thousands (and that's probably the entire number) 0f homosexuals to become pro-lifers.

If it is a life, (and it certainly sounds like you believe it) then killing it is murder.

 

[reason10]

“If you believe it’s a choice to be gay (assuming you are straight), you would have the ability to choose to be sexually attracted to men (assuming you’re a male)?”

Moral imperative on “choosing” tastes as basis of evaluation.

Please don’t waste my time.

It is the view of responsible (read, not liberal or politically correct) science that homosexuality is not a choice because no sane person would choose it, any more than a healthy human would choose cancer.

The whole point of these anti-family statutes is an attempt to shove a perverted lifestyle down our throats and force us to accept unnatural behavior. And John's Hopkins' findings represents an unbelievable, politically incorrect turd in their punch bowl.

 

[reason10]

Fair point.

Actually, acting on heterosexual urges is nature. Attraction to the same sex is unnatural. And it looks like Johns Hopkins just might be the first U-turn on the path towards sanity and truth.

 

[reason10]

I understand that and I just believe that in some cases I've seen evidence that convinces me some individuals are born that way.

You've seen infants who have sexual urges of any kind? A baby rejects the mother's breast? If there is a case that homosexuality is an inborn trait, it ranks right up there with Downs Syndrome, as far as birth defects. There are children born with spina bifida. There are those born Siamese.

I know that enormous societal problems can be caused in a person by an absentee father and/or a dominering mother but I've seen homosexuals come out of what I perceived as stable family environments.

The thing that humiliates scientists, especially psychologists and sociologists is the exception to the rule curse. Ruins their stats and messes up their golf game.

I don't believe that, in every single case, those kids made an intelligent, well thought out decision to be gay.

If there is one point I've attempted to make in this thread it is the fact that homosexuality, lesbianism, pedophelia, necrophilia, gender dysphoria, etc are not choices, any more than any other mental illness. No one chooses to get cancer, schizophrenia, etc. They are all diseases.

Diseases, at least the tendency thereof, can be genetic. So far, Johns Hopkins' best theorists say no.

 

[reason10]

And somehow those “total morons” are a majority in every scientific body from the National Academy of Sciences to the American Medical Association.

Makes you really want to question science, when so many hacks embrace political correctness over nature.

 

[reason10]

It’s clearly not a choice but I think it’s still an open question how much of the cause is environmental.

George Gilder's science comes closes to reality. He maintains that an infant, a child, is basically a barbarian, a dangerous animal, especially if male. Living without a normal set of loving parent means that child will most likely grow up to be a monster, (with certain exceptions here and there.) Without a strong father to tame the barbarian, show the boy how to be a man, the son will be a criminal, a violent monster terrorizing the neighborhood. We've already seen plenty of evidence of that.

Without a loving set of parents providing an example of normal male female interaction, the child grows up in a vacuum, with sexual urges off the charts and no logical path for them to steer. There are boys who turn homosexual because they believe the path to normal sex is unavailable to them for whatever reasons: Their unattractive appearance, their strange ways, etc. These boys, or I should say their environment, passes this sick judgment on them before they reach puberty.

How does a priest wind up molesting boys? This again comes directly from the Gilder template. An adult man who has been told to completely reject all earthly urges, particularly sexual ones but nevertheless still feeling them, will become the monster that seeks out vulnerable boys to molest. Yes, the lifestyle of the priest (EVEN WITH YEARS OF SEMINARY INSTRUCTION ON GOOD AND EVIL) could lead to pedophelia. And the Catholic Church protected these monsters for many years, so there's no point in believing in organized religion to solve this problem.

And just when you think it couldn't get any more confusing, Gilder believes that lesbians are created in a completely different fashion.

 

[RickWA]

I think you read that into his comment.

It is not there and you failed to quote where he said it.

Yep, it’s there...but lefties CANNOT be honest...ever.

 

[RickWA]

It isn’t okay and I don’t think anybody believes it’s okay.

Good answer. The logic you invoked in that prior
post works to explain away/justify ANY BEHAVIOR on the basis that such appetites are natural to a given actor.

To be honest, according to my Christian value system, homosexual behavior is sinful in exactly the same way that ANY sexual behavior outside of man/woman marriage is sinful. That is what the Bible says. On a somewhat related note, I have a buddy I grew up with who is a “celibate” homosexual. He is a pastor who has chosen to be single and not act on what would normally be his tastes in that regard. He’s a fantastic person and I admire him quite a bit.

God loves all of us - gay or straight - in precisely the same measure. He works through our broken-ness and we should do the same.

 

[RickWA]

It is the view of responsible (read, not liberal or politically correct) science that homosexuality is not a choice because no sane person would choose it, any more than a healthy human would choose cancer.

The whole point of these anti-family statutes is an attempt to shove a perverted lifestyle down our throats and force us to accept unnatural behavior. And John's Hopkins' findings represents an unbelievable, politically incorrect turd in their punch bowl.

I’d just say that whether or not a behavior is a choice is diluting the question of whether that behavior is proper, correct, moral, and healthy. Its “choosing” is irrelevant to its assessment.

Laser-like focus and clarity seem to be a lost art these days.