R
RoC-eX
Guest
Re: Annoying Homosexuals
I know you all said let's get back on Fable 2, but I can't help but interject my thoughts. I had to write a paper on this very issue last year in an English Comp class, and it seemed to turn alot of heads. It's fairly lengthy, and if you choose not to read it, that okay, but don't criticize me unless you have taken a look at it.
I know you all said let's get back on Fable 2, but I can't help but interject my thoughts. I had to write a paper on this very issue last year in an English Comp class, and it seemed to turn alot of heads. It's fairly lengthy, and if you choose not to read it, that okay, but don't criticize me unless you have taken a look at it.
Born Gay?
* *Many experts will say that being born gay is the only way to find truth and reason in the uprising of homosexuality in today’s society. Studies have found this statement to not be one hundred percent accurate. In reality, no decision has yet to be conclusive as to the ultimate deciding factor in a person’s sexuality. After looking at the evidence, however, how can one not believe that a person chooses how they want to live their life? In the following paragraphs I have included hard evidence that I have come across in my research on this topic. Read the information, analyze it, and draw your own conclusions as to which side you will place you loyalty with.
* *For strangers of the “Born Gay” argument I will fist explain their view. In today’s society you have no doubt witnessed homosexuals and seen on television how they are trying to fuse themselves into the mainstream commonality that is the norm of heterosexuals. These homosexual individuals know they are in a controversial minority and are struggling to bring light to their façade. One way in doing so is by introducing their “Born Gay” theory. This theory states that the behaviors and same-sex attractions exhibited by homosexuals are purely genetic, just as hair color and eye color. They argue that they simply cannot think differently that they are doomed by their genetic make-up to operate in this way.
* *The purpose of this argument is to use it as an excuse so these individuals do not appear to be “perverted” or “weird”. This argument reinforces the idea that homosexuals are as normal as you and me, they were just born with a genetic defect. By supporting this idea, gays hope to use it as a foothold to the acceptance of homosexual behavior; otherwise, their actions would be widely rejected. Sadly, people that buy into this ridiculous ideas are giving the gays exactly what they want, sympathizers to their cause. Thus, they are slowly earning their way into the limelight causing our young people to believe that gay is okay.
* *However, if you look into the issue and research the arguments as I have, you will seldom, if ever, find facts to back up these radical claims. Homosexuals arguing these ideas generally hide behind generalities such as, “Many experts say…” and, “Current research shows…” without ever being able to say which experts or which research they are talking about. They use these generalities in hopes that people won’t question them farther, and most of the time, people do not, once again fueling their fire and allowing them to pollute our minds with this garbage.
* *Just for a minute, lets investigate why it is so easy for uninformed people to believe and side with this radical “Born Gay” theory. When a child is conceived, they receive forty-six chromosomes (twenty-three from the contributing male and twenty-three from the contributing female). Within these chromosomes lie dominant and recessive gene “codes”, if you will, that combines to write the genetic make-up of that individual. These dominant and recessive gene codes are directly inherited from the adult contributors. An example of this would be a dominant brown eye gene code would automatically negotiate brown eyes, regardless of what the recessive eye color gene code was.
* * First, we must understand the difference between two key words, inherited and heritable. Inherited refers to genes and traits that are passed down directly from parent to offspring with no choice. Like the description above of the gene codes, inherited traits are determined by the dominant and recessive genes of parent sand cannot be altered with today’s technology, making them unchangeable. Heritable means events that could potentially take place due to the influence from inherited traits. Shaq’s son inheriting his athletic ability does not mean that his son will become a basketball player, that choice is left up to the influence of his environment.
* *Now let me provide an example not related to homosexuality that would represent the same misconception, it is known as the “Born Basketball Player” theory. This theory states that even though an individual can be born with a genetic make-up that could allow them to be pre-disposed to a certain activity or lifestyle, it does not necessarily mean that the individual will choose to follow this path. For example, a child receives dominant genes from its parents that include immense strength, flexibility, agility, speed, and height. All of these inherited traits are present in most basketball players. However, say this same child is raised in an environment that does not place strong emphasis on activity or sports, will this child grow up to become a basketball player then? Most likely not because his influences as a child did not point him in that direction, so even though he has the ability, he is not pre-determined to become a basketball player later in his life. On the other hand, if the same child was brought up in a house where his dad was a good basketball player and his dad pushed him to follow in his footsteps, then his inherited traits would make it all to easy for him to follow that path.
* *The exact same situation can be altered to refute the “Born Gay” argument. A child that receives dominant genes such as tendency to anxiety, shyness, sensitivity, intelligence, and aesthetic ability (all of which are traits found in most homosexual individuals, but do not have to be present) has an easier chance of becoming gay, but is not pre-determined to be that way. If this same child is raised with homophobic influence, does it make sense that it would grow up and adopt a lifestyle that it has learned to hate? I think not. Furthermore, if this child were male and raised in a family of four sisters where there was no present father, it would only be that much easier for the child to accept and adopt homosexual behavior simply because he had not been negatively exposed to the subject as a child.
* *Despite the strong evidence destroying their theory, gay activists still continue to preach this theory to the world hoping to gain acceptance. Why, then, do they continue to do this even when the evidence against them is so strong? The answer is because they have little, if anywhere, left to turn. By getting people to believe that being gay is a genetic defect, a stigma on the gay individual, they gain sympathetic support and rally pro-gay views. Homosexuals, like heterosexuals, aren’t accepting of ridicule or scorn. They want to be considered normal just like everyone else, and not be labeled for their perverse lifestyle.
* *A very noteworthy doctor on this matter, Dr. Charles W. Socarides of Albert Einstein College of Medicine, has this to say:
Homosexuality, the choice of a partner of the same sex for orgastic satisfaction, is not innate. There is no connection between sexual instinct and the choice of sexual object. Such an object choice is learned, acquired behaviour; there is no inevitable genetically inborn propensity toward the choice of a partner of either the same or opposite sex. (Medinger 1)
* *I feel the need to point out once again, that supporters of the “Born Gay” theory have failed to point out researches and sources that support their claims. This fact only weakens their arguments that much more.
* *Another strong attack against the “Born Gay” theory cleverly uses genetics to disprove the idea that genetics can cause homosexuality. If homosexuality was truly determined by genetic traits, wouldn’t it make sense then that the gay gene would have died out by now (Pruden 1). Let’s think about this. It is a fact that two homosexual males (and two homosexual females) cannot naturally fornicate in a manner that can produce offspring. This being the case, how do homosexual couples have a way to pass on their dominant homosexual gene? They don’t. The dominant gay gene (if there was one) would die with its host and could not be passed on to a child, therefore ending that gay strand of DNA with the dead host. If the gene is not passed on it dies, simple as that. Some people would argue that artificial insemination has the potential to pass on a sperm cell containing a gay gene from a gay adult to an unfertilized egg therefore giving the child a dominant gay gene. This idea doesn’t work because gay people have been around for centuries, even when artificial insemination wasn’t possible, but somehow the gay gene survived? Or did the people just choose that lifestyle on their own all along? Which conclusion seems more probable to you?
On the other hand, if there really were a gay gene, why would gay individuals want to spread that kind of vital information to the general public? Once science progresses to the level that it can identify homosexuality early enough, would it not make sense to eliminate it just as it would with other genetic defects that it can control, like is being done today with Downs Syndrome and DiGeorge Syndrome? This just proves that gay activists aren’t even informed on the idea that they are supporting. I do not think the point they are trying to make is that homosexuality is a disease, a birth defect just like other genetic abnormalities, but yet that is exactly what they are saying. It just doesn’t add up for me. There are just too many questions surrounding their arguments and whenever you answer one, more arise, ultimately getting you nowhere close to understanding their side of the argument.
Finally, a major contender against homosexual behavior and theories, but also maybe one of the most widely ignored, religion. In no religion I have come across in my years on this earth have I ever found one that openly acknowledges homosexuality as a virtuous, un-sinful way of life. That’s not to say that some churches do not accept gay members, because they do. These churches have sadly fallen under the influence of the “Born Gay” theory and simply aim to support the homosexual individuals in their times of need and comfort. Myself, being a Christian, know the views of God on the subject of homosexuality. So if you share the same religious preference as me, listen up.
* *In the Old Testament, one of the biggest signs of God’s hatred toward homosexuality occurred with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Dobson 116). These two sister cities had fallen deeply into homosexual practice (Note: Without having artificial insemination to pass on gay genes, imagine that). Most probably know the story, but for those that don’t, let me tell you. God destroyed both cities. He called down fire from heaven to burn the cities to the ground and eradicate their perverse population of homosexuals. None of them survived except a God fearing family that God had warned and told to leave before the event took place since they did not participate in homosexual behavior. If that isn’t an eye opener I don’t know what is.
* *Why am I bringing this up you might ask? Well if God was so against homosexuality that he would go so far as to destroy two entire cities, why then would he create or allow a gay gene to survive and circulate through the population of the current world? Why would he make it possible for those practices to go on if he hated them so much? I think the answer to these questions is evident, he wouldn’t. Once again, proving that gay behavior must be learned. However, I understand that Christianity really bears no scientific evidence to the matters being discussed in this paper, but for those that look to religion for answers, I felt it necessary to provide evidence from the Bible to support my ideas.
In closing, I would like to leave you with a little dose of common sense. All human beings are born with gender specific sexual organs. DNA specifically tells your body what type a sexual organ to produce. (Sorba 1). The sexual feelings and needs of an individual are programmed into those organs and compliment the sexual organs of the opposite sex. Just as a key fits into a lock, so the male sex organs are designed to interact with the females. One sex developing attractions for a member of the same sex, therefore, does so by means contrary to their natural provision. A person with perfectly functioning eyes will see, just as a person with perfectly functioning ears will hear. Those two organs aren’t any different from reproductive organs in that they are designed and programmed for one specific natural purpose.
