Homosexuality: The debate over genetic attraction

I don’t happen to buy that homosexuality is genetic. But let’s just pretend for a second, for the sake of argument only, that homosexuality is as the gay activist’s agenda claims, it’s something that gays were born with. We all agree that gays are “different,” different from the majority of people. They are sexually attracted to people of their same sex, most are acting on these abnormal sexual desires, they are marching around, holding banners, having parades, and lobbying in Washington D.C. for their rights, all for this difference.

So because we all agree that gay people are different, then if that difference was “genetic” we could categorize that as a genetic anomaly. An anomaly is defined by Webster’s to mean:

/əˈnɒməli/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-nom-uh-lee] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -lies.
1. a deviation from the common rule, type, arrangement, or form.
2. an odd, peculiar, or strange condition, situation, quality, etc.
4. an incongruity or inconsistency.
5. Deviation or departure from the normal or common order, form, or rule.
6. One that is peculiar, irregular, abnormal, or difficult to classify

So here we  have homosexuality as a condition that is a deviation from the norm, something odd and irregular abnormal and peculiar. Are gays convinced that their condition is a random mutation on their DNA? It often seems like they would like to take no responsibility.  What else classifies as a genetic anomaly?

Here’s a list of just a few:

Blindness, deafness, conjoined twins, dwarfism, congenital heart defects, skin conditions, infertility, and the list goes on and on.  The University of Kansas Medical Center has complied a more comprehensive list here.

With the exception of multiple births (twins, triplets) and medical conditions for which there are no cure, what do we as a society, medical professionals, researchers, pharmaceutical companies, parents and teachers do with a genetic anomaly? WE TRY TO FIX IT!

No parents or doctor would leave their child with an untreated heart condition. They would try to fix it. Deaf children learn sign language or have implants in hopes of restoring hearing and so they can communicate like normal, some people with dwarfism even have their bones stretched to increase their height, and they receive medical treatment for the other health problems that come with their condition.

So, why are we as a society not treating homosexuality the same way? It’s like some people want a blind acceptance, no questions asked, when we would never do that with anything else. Why should we ignore this alleged genetic anomaly with out trying to fix the problem? Fixing irregularities is standard practice in this country, why should it be any different for homosexuality? If they have a flaw in their DNA, shouldn’t they receive medical attention to make them normal just like everyone else who has a random “condition?” Shouldn’t they want treatment so they can assimilate back into main stream society rather then perpetuating their “outcast” complex?

Just some things to think about. We wouldn’t let any other anomaly go untreated, or at least with out attempting to treat it. We make our best effort to bring these anomalies back to as close to normal as possible. Researchers are hard at work trying to locate the “gay gene.” I don’t think they will find one, but what is their purpose in looking?Are they planning to “fix” same-sex attraction and make these people not gay? Why are we not encouraging individuals who suffer with same-sex attraction to seek treatment. There are programs available and they even work.

My Mom had a child in her 1st grade class last year who had been diagnosed with Autism. His parents insisted that he be in a regular class rather then going to special ed. He came to my Mom’s class everyday with a private tutor, who had to repeat everything my Mom said to him, because the child couldn’t focus enough to keep up with the lessons. He was a distraction to the other students (perks of public school and our tax dollars at work huh?) he wasn’t learning much and needed the specialized learning environment of a class suited for his needs. My Mom tried to convince the school administrators and the parents that her class was not the place for him, and finally after several months, they transferred him out. What was everyone trying to do in this situation? Make this child as “normal” as possible; assimilate him into mainstream education, fix his “problem” and socialize him. Which was the main reason his Mother had him in regular class anyway, so he could socialize with the other students. I say fine, go ahead, there’s nothing wrong with trying to correct an abnormal condition.

I think that the situation with homosexuality has gotten way out of control. Why should we have to accept all of their perverted deviations from common order and rule? They are trying to force their practices into a society that doesn’t want them. How crazy would it be if all parents and teachers of blind children were trying to educate all other children on how great it would be to be blind, behind their parents backs of course. (I don’t’ mean to offend anyone, I’m just using this example to show how silly the gay agenda is). Should we allow our children to associate with people like this and be indoctrinated with such destructive ideology? One could put any genetic anomaly into this scenario and even some conditions that aren’t genetic (teen pregnancy, drug use, anorexia) and the outcome would be the same. They are deviations from the norm and some are even dangerous, unhealthy and deserve the attention of medical researchers to can help to make individuals’ lives better.

Secular Heretic’s post on the subject of homosexuality and genetics points to some interesting evidence to support the non-existence of a gay gene. (Thanks for a great post Secular!)

Abbott points to studies that look at the sexual orientation of the offspring of gay people. “If homosexuality was caused by genetic mechanisms, their children would be more likely to choose same-sex interaction,” he says. “But they aren’t more likely, so therefore it can’t be genetic.”

I find this particularly interesting. It definitely supports the cultural and environmental theory as the causes for homosexuality. I presented additional evidence of the relation between homosexual parents and children being homosexual, in my post on homosexual parenting.

Let us know your thoughts in the comments below! Thanks for reading!


**The idea of homosexuality as a genetic anomaly, and that society tries to fix all other anomalies, came from my sister at our Thanksgiving family Prop 8 discussion. Thanks B for the blog topic!!!!

secularheretic-st.blogspot.com genetic-attraction-nature-vs-nurture

“Genetic and Rare Conditions Site,” Medical Genetics, University of Kansas Medical Center

Heather Has Three Parents// two lesbian mothers, one gay sperm donor father, and they are all fighting over her…

I'd be crying too if this crazy lot were my parents...

I'd be crying too if this crazy lot were my parents...

I found this shocking, but not-so-shocking, story over at the blog Jennifer Roback Morse. This is for the GLBT activists who think that their distorted versions of “families” are a benefit to society and children…

The tangled web of homosexual parenting has resulted in a Canadian court ruling that means a child could have three or four legally recognised parents. The players in the court case are a lesbian couple, a gay man (who is married to his partner), and the child born to one of the women using the man’s sperm. The man was known to the women and deliberately chosen as the donor. A contract was signed by the three adults before the child, a girl, was born in 2002, setting out his rights as a “co-parent” including regular access as well as full custody if both women were to die. It also included a promise to try for a “three-way” adoption, which was never followed through.

{Continue. . .}

This Brings a Whole New Meaning to the Word Sexting// do you know who’s texting your child?


Text messages: Enabling privacy for sex ed

As if parents don’t have enough to worry about these days, now states are sending sexually explicit text messages straight to your kid’s cell phone. So the cute football player is not allowed to send sex messages to your teenage girl, but the state can? Interesting….

Here’s just another way the government is trying to take control of America’s children and deprive parents of their rights to parent and teach their children according to their beliefs. Check this out:

“If you take a shower before you have sex, are you less likely to get pregnant?” asks one.

Another: “Does a normal penis have wrinkles?”

A young girl types: “If my BF doesn’t like me to be loud during sex but I can’t help it, what am I supposed to do?”

Within 24 hours, each will receive a cautious, nonjudgmental reply, texted directly to their cellphones, from a nameless, faceless adult at the Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Campaign of North Carolina, based in Durham.

And might I interject, with out the knowledge, or consent of these kids’ parents.

A few universities and hospitals set up blunt Web sites for young people, like Columbia’s Go Ask Alice! and Atlantic Health’s TeenHealthFX.com, allowing them to post questions online. More recently, researchers have explored how to reach teenagers through social networking sites like MySpace and YouTube.

Now, health experts say, intimate, private and crucial information can be delivered to teenagers on the device that holds millions captive: their cellphones.

Programs in Washington, D.C.; Chicago, Toronto and San Francisco allow young people to text a number, select from a menu of frequently asked questions (“What 2 do if the condom broke”) and receive automated replies, with addresses of free clinics. Last month, California started HookUp 365247, a statewide text-messaging service. The texter can type a ZIP code and get a local clinic referral, as well as weekly health tips.

And here goes their argument:

“Technology reduces the shame and embarrassment,” said Deb Levine, executive director of ISIS, a nonprofit organization that began many technology-based reproductive health programs. “It’s the perceived privacy that people have when they’re typing into a computer or a cellphone. And it’s culturally appropriate for young people: they don’t learn about this from adults lecturing them.”

Oh really? They think that children shouldn’t learn about sex from their parents? Why do they assume it’s always “from adults lecturing them.” First of all, from a responsible and concerned parents, it probably wouldn’t be a lecture. It is imperative and also appropriate for a parent to teach their child about sex in the home, and to teach them that sex has a place only with in the bonds of marriage. Parents don’t need the state’s agenda, disguised as helpful and responsible sex education, to undermine their efforts and authority when it comes to teaching their own children. For the unfortunate kids who don’t have conscientious and responsible parents, they know how to use the internet and the library, if they want privacy concerning their sex questions. They know where to get the info. Parent’s don’t need the state marketing sex to, and teaching, their children.

That lack of oversight is what galls Bill Brooks, president of the North Carolina Family Policy Council. “If I couldn’t control access to this information, I’d turn off the texting service,” he said. “When it comes to the Internet, parents are advised to put blockers on their computer and keep it in a central place in the home. But kids can have access to this on their cellphones when they’re away from parental influence — and it can’t be controlled.”

Just what the states want, an avenue to contact your children, indoctrinate them, and do it all behind your back. Clever. We have the ACLU or some other crazed organization to thank for the fact that people can access porn on public library computers, so if kids want unfiltered sex-ed info, they can also get it there, out of their parents control.

While some would argue that such programs augment what students learn in health class, Mr. Brooks believes that they circumvent an abstinence-until-marriage curriculum. “It doesn’t make sense to fund a program that is different than the state standards,” he said. (The State Legislature is now considering a bill permitting comprehensive sex education.)

I think these texting programs are offensive and completely unnecessary. If the states wanted to be so involved in a responsible sex education program, then they should focus more on the basics in classroom sex-ed, and less on gay day, homosexual and gender issues and everything else the GLBT community has gotten them to teach. It seems that public school sex ed programs have gotten so far off track that these kids are left with so  many questions, basic sex education questions that could easily be answered in a decent sex-ed program.

What’s wrong with caring teachers being allowed to really teach biology,  and parents being able to teach their own children without being sidelined by the state? Real teaching and parenting has done the trick for hundreds of years. I remember my high school biology class, and our reproductive unit. We had the coolest biology teacher, and one of the best, if not the best, teachers in the entire school. We knew she cared about us and she really wanted us to learn. She is an amazing teacher! After our reproduction/sex-ed unit, she devoted an entire class to our questions. Students got to write them down anonymously and put them in a box. She pulled them out and answered them. I still to this day remember some of the things she said in class that day. Thanks Miss O’Brien!

Although as disgusting as this government-advocated-sexting is, unfortunately it’s probably not any worse then the homosexuality,  gay days and other trash that is taught in public schools these days.  These texting programs are just more private, but their intent to indoctrinate and undermine parents is the same. Sounds like the states are just adding to their repertoire. {Click here to read the entire NY Times article}

What do you all make of this? How would you feel if these were your kids? What else don’t you know about your kids? Let’s hope that these state-employed-so-called-sex-educator-texters aren’t actually pedophiles in disguise…..

Thanks for reading. Comments are always welcome!

{p.s.} I am aware that the current definition of “sexting” doesn’t exactly include government forced sex-ed, however, doesn’t it seem like they are trying to get in on the action too?

Sources: NYtimes.com, mobilehealthnews.com

Consequences of Civil Unions and the Governmental Elevation of Same-sex Relationships// do you know what courts and legislators in the land of the free and the home of the brave have been up to?


Consequences of Civil Unions and the Governmental Elevation of Same-sex Relationships

This post is just to refresh everyone’s memories and shed some light on the subject for those who might still be confused about the horrific damaging effects of SSM… (the info was directed at the voters of Hawaii– letting them know of the chaos that has been plaguing the country with regards to SSM).

Negative Impacts on Families and Children

Intentionally denying children both a mother and a father elevates the wants of adults over the needs of children. The result of same-sex “marriage” to satisfy the desires of adults means that children no longer have a right to their parents. Instead, same-sex couples have a right to get children. It’s as though children are a commodity to have. “I want to have a car. I want to have a house. I want to have a child.”

{Click here to continue reading…}

{ Love Isn’t Enough: 5 Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage Will Harm Children }

Traditional Family--Father, Mother and then kids.......

Traditional Family--Father, Mother and then kids.......

This article is incredibly interesting. People who are confused about why children need both a Father and a Mother, a traditional family, need to do their research. I am one of the lucky ones, me and my 2 brothers and 2 sisters. We grew up with a Father and a Mother, who are still married by the way. My Mom, a school teacher by trade, stayed home and raised us, returning to work only when we were older, and my Father worked hard and supported our family. All of us are college graduates, (the youngest one to graduate in May), none of us have done drugs, we don’t drink, we didn’t have any kids out of wedlock and I am in a wonderful marriage. I’m the only one married so far, but the others are in dating relationships and trying to find someone that is right for them. All of us are heterosexual and were taught morality and values growing up. I know how blessed I am to have had it better then most kids. Family is important. Traditional families are important, and I believe that every child deserves to have what I had. A loving home, a loving Father and Mother and the best chance at a successful future. Dr. Trayce Hansen explains what can happen when this is not the case:

Love Isn’t Enough: 5 Reasons Why
Same-Sex Marriage Will Harm Children

By Trayce Hansen, Ph.D.

Proponents of same-sex marriage believe the only thing children really need is love. Based on that supposition, they conclude it’s just as good for children to be raised by loving parents of the same sex, as it is to be raised by loving parents of the opposite sex. Unfortunately, that basic assumption—and all that flows from it—is false. Because love isn’t enough!

All else being equal, children do best when raised by a married mother and father. It’s within this environment that children are most likely to be exposed to the emotional and psychological experiences they need in order to thrive.

Men and women bring diversity to parenting; each makes unique contributions to the rearing of children that can’t be replicated by the other. Mothers and fathers simply are not interchangeable. Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father.

So here are five reasons why it’s in the best interest of children to be raised by both a mother and a father:

First, mother-love and father-love—though equally important—are qualitatively different and produce distinct parent-child attachments. Specifically, it’s the combination of the unconditional-leaning love of a mother and the conditional-leaning love of a father that’s essential to a child’s development. Either of these forms of love without the other can be problematic. Because what a child needs is the complementary balance the two types of parental love and attachment provide.

Only heterosexual parents offer children the opportunity to develop relationships with a parent of the same, as well as the opposite sex. Relationships with both sexes early in life make it easier for a child to relate to both sexes later in life. For a girl, that means she’ll better understand and appropriately interact with the world of men and be more comfortable in the world of women. And for a boy, the converse will hold true. Having a relationship with “the other”—an opposite sexed parent—also increases the likelihood that a child will be more empathetic and less narcissistic.

Secondly, children progress through predictable and necessary developmental stages. Some stages require more from a mother, while others require more from a father. For example, during infancy, babies of both sexes tend to do better in the care of their mother. Mothers are more attuned to the subtle needs of their infants and thus are more appropriately responsive. However, at some point, if a young boy is to become a competent man, he must detach from his mother and instead identify with his father. A fatherless boy doesn’t have a man with whom to identify and is more likely to have trouble forming a healthy masculine identity.

A father teaches a boy how to properly channel his aggressive and sexual drives. A mother can’t show a son how to control his impulses because she’s not a man and doesn’t have the same urges as one. A father also commands a form of respect from a boy that a mother doesn’t––a respect more likely to keep the boy in line. And those are the two primary reasons why boys without fathers are more likely to become delinquent and end up incarcerated.

Father-need is also built into the psyche of girls. There are times in a girl’s life when only a father will do. For instance, a father offers a daughter a safe, non-sexual place to experience her first male-female relationship and have her femininity affirmed. When a girl doesn’t have a father to fill that role she’s more likely to become promiscuous in a misguided attempt to satisfy her inborn hunger for male attention and validation.

Overall, fathers play a restraining role in the lives of their children. They restrain sons from acting out antisocially, and daughters from acting out sexually. When there’s no father to perform this function, dire consequences often result both for the fatherless children and for the society in which these children act out their losses.

Third, boys and girls need an opposite-sexed parent to help them moderate their own gender-linked inclinations. As example, boys generally embrace reason over emotion, rules over relationships, risk-taking over caution, and standards over compassion, while girls generally embrace the reverse. An opposite-sexed parent helps a child keep his or her own natural proclivities in check by teaching—verbally and nonverbally—the worth of the opposing tendencies. That teaching not only facilitates moderation, but it also expands the child’s world—helping the child see beyond his or her own limited vantage point.

Fourth, same-sex marriage will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by young people. The implicit and explicit message of same-sex marriage is that all choices are equally acceptable and desirable. So, even children from traditional homes—influenced by the all-sexual-options-are-equal message—will grow up thinking it doesn’t matter whom one relates to sexually or marries. Holding such a belief will lead some—if not many—impressionable young people to consider sexual and marital arrangements they never would have contemplated previously. And children from homosexual families, who are already more likely to experiment sexually, would do so to an even greater extent, because not only was non-traditional sexuality role-modeled by their parents, it was also approved by their society.

There is no question that human sexuality is pliant. Think of ancient Greece or Rome—among many other early civilizations—where male homosexuality and bisexuality were nearly ubiquitous. This was not so because most of those men were born with a “gay gene,” rather it was because homosexuality was condoned by those societies. That which a society sanctions, it gets more of.

And fifth, if society permits same-sex marriage, it also will have to allow other types of marriage. The legal logic is simple: If prohibiting same-sex marriage is discriminatory, then disallowing polygamous marriage, polyamorous marriage, or any other marital grouping will also be deemed discriminatory. The emotional and psychological ramifications of these assorted arrangements on the developing psyches and sexuality of children would be disastrous. And what happens to the children of these alternative marriages if the union dissolves and each parent then “remarries”? Those children could end up with four fathers, or two fathers and four mothers, or, you fill in the blank.

Certainly homosexual couples can be just as loving as heterosexual couples, but children require more than love. They need the distinctive qualities and the complementary natures of a male and female parent.

The accumulated wisdom of over 5,000 years has concluded that the ideal marital and parental configuration is composed of one man and one woman. Arrogantly disregarding such time-tested wisdom, and using children as guinea pigs in a radical experiment, is risky at best, and cataclysmic at worst.

Same-sex marriage definitely isn’t in the best interest of children. And although we empathize with those homosexuals who long to be married and parent children, we mustn’t allow our compassion for them to trump our compassion for children. In a contest between the desires of some homosexuals and the needs of all children, we can’t allow the children to lose.