https://winteryknight.com/2023/09/21/new-study-same-sex-attraction-isnt-fixed-4/
Damn that research.
We have "conclusive proof" that same sex attraction isn't fixed, but the same folx who have been telling us that it is are also telling us that the "gender identity" of children is so fixed at a young age that we must encourage them to perform permanent changed to their bodies as the primary means of dealing with dysphoria.
11 comments:
So, your source notes that sexual orientation can be (isn't always but can be) fluid and not as FIXED as some might think and this is not news to anyone on our side of the aisle. Indeed, it's your side that says orientation SHOULD be fixed and it SHOULD be heterosexual, period. Am I correct?
Your wintry knight then, after reading this information, concludes...
it turns out that homosexual behavior is a lot more related to free choices than it is to innate, fixed dispositions. That’s what the science says.
And he concludes COMPLETELY incorrectly based upon the science he just cited. That is, he reads the research and still draws an incorrect or at least unproven conclusion.
The science doesn't say "it's a lot more related to free choices..." it just notes the reality that people's orientation is fluid. Early in life, one might be heterosexual and later, they may be bisexual or homosexual. Unless I missed it, it didn't mention anything about "free choices." That is the conservative reading into the text what the text didn't say.
As with gender, sexual orientation is best understood - according to the research and real life realities of lived experience - as on a continuum. Some folks are solidly and consistently heterosexual. Some are solidly and consistently homosexual and some bisexual. For many of us, it remains fixed. For some, it can change. So what? I suspect that conservatives are reading this and thinking "A ha! We CAN now engage in 'conversion therapy!'" and that would be a poor conclusion to reach.
The better conclusion is: Life is fluid. Big deal. Mind your own business and be kind and supportive.
Just for what it's worth.
Don't you know? It can't be legit if it comes from a conservative source. WK is a conservative source.
"So, your source notes that sexual orientation can be (isn't always but can be) fluid and not as FIXED as some might think and this is not news to anyone on our side of the aisle. Indeed, it's your side that says orientation SHOULD be fixed and it SHOULD be heterosexual, period. Am I correct?"
This is interesting, as your side has been arguing for years that sexual orientation is fixed while now arguing that gender is fluid. Which is the point. That y'all will cling to anything that smacks of scientific support for your political/social positions, with little regard to consistency.
"Your wintry knight then, after reading this information, concludes..."
He's not mine.
"it turns out that homosexual behavior is a lot more related to free choices than it is to innate, fixed dispositions. That’s what the science says. And he concludes COMPLETELY incorrectly based upon the science he just cited. That is, he reads the research and still draws an incorrect or at least unproven conclusion."
Oh, because you have such an iron grip on the science he cites that you can state objectively that his conclusion is wrong. Yet, you cite absolutely zero evidence to prove your claim.
"The science doesn't say "it's a lot more related to free choices..." it just notes the reality that people's orientation is fluid. Early in life, one might be heterosexual and later, they may be bisexual or homosexual. Unless I missed it, it didn't mention anything about "free choices." That is the conservative reading into the text what the text didn't say."
Which is your interpretation, near as I can tell. What it sounded like to me was that the science tells us that a lot of young people "experiment" with SSA for a brief period of time, then move on from that "experimental" phase. Ever since Kinsey y'all have been identifying this group as homosexual, regardless of how people live the majority of their lives.
"As with gender, sexual orientation is best understood - according to the research and real life realities of lived experience - as on a continuum. Some folks are solidly and consistently heterosexual. Some are solidly and consistently homosexual and some bisexual. For many of us, it remains fixed. For some, it can change. So what? I suspect that conservatives are reading this and thinking "A ha! We CAN now engage in 'conversion therapy!'" and that would be a poor conclusion to reach."
Y'all are the ones who kept/keep insisting that sexual orientation and gender are so fixed that children can choose a course that is irreversible before puberty.
"The better conclusion is: Life is fluid. Big deal. Mind your own business and be kind and supportive."
Then, by all means, let's be supportive by not encouraging permanent, life altering, irreversible decisions based on a temporary feeling of fluidity.
"Just for what it's worth."
It's not worth shit, as usual.
Art,
Dan's problems with this are-
1. He's focused more on what WK concludes than on the study he cites.
2. He wants it both ways.
Everyone is born heterosexual. Homosexuality/bisexuality is always a choice.
If one was born homosexual/bisexual, then God must make mistakes when he condemns such behavior.
Indeed. What Dan ignores, or is too stupid to understand (either is likely), is that with science providing evidence of this "fluidity", then free choice is more in play. All homosexuals and "gender confused" could indeed choose to resist their compulsions in favor of what indeed SHOULD be fixed as hetero but isn't. We conservatives recognize that nothing about our behavior is fixed. We can choose to act against our nature or allow it to dictate our behavior, regardless of the moral state of our natures (which leans toward sin as all honest people realize).
The most damning aspect is that those like Dan have less to back up their support for that which isn't beyond resisting and never was...just like we've always affirmed. And in his desperation, he continues to cite bad science which is nothing more than activism for the cause dressed up as "sound science". But those like Dan who are so of the world will cling to anything they can put up as confirmation of the perversions and deviancy they favor.
Here's the only common ground between us: both sides recognize people have compulsions which drive and/or tempt them. The difference is that Dan's side uses compulsions as a basis for their "morality", while our side uses morality as a basis for determining which behaviors to promote or discourage.
Glenn,
Of course if Naturalism/Materialism/Darwinian theory are correct, then homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end. Which seems like a problem.
If, as I suspect you believe, we are to follow YHWH's command to be fruitful and multiply, then heterosexuality is the only possible way to fulfill that.
Art,
I think you make an excellent choice. If sexual orientation is now "fluid" then one must definitely choose where they are on the continuum, and what sexual orientation they live out each day.
My problem with this whole things is the hypocrisy of pushing minor children into making major, irreversible life altering (body altering) decisions about something that they will likely flow out of at some point.
They're pushing the agenda at the expense of children. All leftism requires pushing kids away from their parents and families toward service to the state. The modern progressive is Satanic in their ideology and agenda.
Wintery Knight presented yet another post on the fallacies of the LGBTQ+ agenda related to the one you cited for your post:
https://winteryknight.com/2023/09/25/new-study-there-is-no-gay-gene-that-causes-homosexuality-5/
I saw that.
It's interesting that, for decades, the "gay gene" was the holy grail for the pro-gay folx. They were determine that it must exist and that it raised homosexuality to the level of race as an immutable characteristic of humans. Now they've jumped on the fluidity train, without understanding the problems inherent in that position. Especially when so much data shows that many "homosexuals" go through a phase then settle down to heterosexual lives. They desperately want to count those folx as solidly homosexual to bolster their numbers. The very notion of fluidity simply eliminates the alphabet distinctions that they're so proud of.
Post a Comment