Um, Maybe you should think for yourself for once, instead of blindly swallowing the pablum fed to you?
Yet another article in the news that militates against the "born gay" lie.
http://www.aarp.org/home-family/sex-intimacy/info-2014/gay-lesbian-sexual-preference-schwartz.html
Can Sexual Preference Change With Age?
Research shows attraction can be fluid when love is involved
by Dr. Pepper Schwartz, AARP, June 13, 2014
En español | Sometimes a person's life undergoes such a radical transformation that the change was inconceivable before it occurred. One such gobsmacking event happens when you unexpectedly fall in love with someone who never would have pinged your "relationship radar" before. If a homosexual (or heterosexual) thought has never crossed your mind, for example, it can be doubly astonishing when — wham! — you suddenly find yourself attracted to someone of an entirely new gender.
That may sound unlikely, but as researchers are discovering, a person's sexual orientation is not carved in stone. In her influential book Sexual Fluidity, psychology professor Lisa M. Diamond chronicled her research on 80 nonheterosexual women over a period of 10 years. During that time, Diamond discovered, a significant number of the women had reported changing their sexual orientation. The most frequent cause for the U-turn? The "switchers" had fallen in love with a member of the opposite sex.
These women were not unhappy being lesbians, but love, it seems, really can conquer all — including a person's lifelong sexual orientation up to the moment when she falls hard for someone of a previously ignored gender.
The research on men shows somewhat less flexibility. But Diamond and other researchers have compiled numerous case studies of gay men who spent years feeling (and acting) fully and comfortably homosexual, only then to fall unexpectedly in love with a heterosexual woman.
Recently, I interviewed two people who went through this sexual upheaval late in life themselves. Both said they had never even considered falling in love with someone of the same — or opposite — gender until they reached their 50s or 60s. Only at that relatively late stage in life did they undergo startling 180-degree turns in their sexual orientation. (While the facts of each case are accurate, I've used pseudonyms at the subjects' request.)
Violet — a tall, striking woman of 60 with snow-white hair — had never married, but she had enjoyed major love affairs with men. Intensely dedicated to her career, she became a TV executive at age 40. After her last relationship with a man ended in her 40s, Violet says she "gave up on love."
Then she met Susan.
A marketing expert, Susan was in a pleasant but not passionate heterosexual marriage at the time. She valued her extended family — husband, two children and their spouses, and four grandchildren — more than anything else. Susan had never been unfaithful. She had never been attracted to another woman. But from the moment she and Violet began working together on a project, sparks flew, shocking both women. A physical relationship of 12 years ensued.
Anne Heche relates how she never had a gay thought in her life until she met Ellen Degenerate:
Anne Heche (who's dad is gay, who grew up knowing WTF gayness was) said she never had a gay urge until she met Ellen. I quote from the Oprah show
( you can look it up yourself with a simple Google search):
Anne Heche (who's dad is gay, who grew up knowing WTF gayness was) said she never had a gay urge until she met Ellen. I quote from the Oprah show
( you can look it up yourself with a simple Google search):
Anne Heche relates how she never had a gay thought in her life until she met Ellen Degenerate:
Anne Heche (who's dad is gay, who grew up knowing WTF gayness was) said she never had a gay urge until she met Ellen. I quote from the Oprah show
( you can look it up yourself with a simple Google search):
i would say there are cases when people choose but there are so many scientific studies on this and some say genetics at a major role. I think the gay bashing or calling them "sickos" is just a way to use anything to his bigotry and for you, you often use religion to hide it. cause use your head, you never chose and neither did I. I watched the price is right at a young age and it wasn't because I enjoyed the games.
so in other words there could be a day when you or I will have to fight the gay urge. I mean some guy may come around and then that urge may take over. laughableAnne Heche relates how she never had a gay thought in her life until she met Ellen Degenerate:
Anne Heche (who's dad is gay, who grew up knowing WTF gayness was) said she never had a gay urge until she met Ellen. I quote from the Oprah show
( you can look it up yourself with a simple Google search):
Most of them are sickos, which is why the APA classified homosexuality as a mental disorder for decades, until the militant gay lobby bullied them into changing it. Fact.
[h=1]Statistics on sexual promiscuity among homosexuals[/h] by Matt Slick
- Promiscuity
- 28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners: "Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
- 79% of homosexual men say over half of sex partners are strangers: "The survey showed 79% of the respondents saying that over half of their sexual partners were strangers. Seventy percent said that over half of their sexual partners were people with whom they had sex only once. Bell and Weinberg pp.308-309." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
- Modal range for homosexual sex partners 101-500: "In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
- 1978 study, 78% of gay men ad more than 100 partners, 28% more than 1000: "A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984." (catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html)
- There is an extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men as compared to married heterosexuals. Among married females 85% reported sexual fidelity. Among married men, 75.5% reported sexual fidelity. Among homosexual males in their current relationship, 4.5% reported sexual fidelity. (Sources:Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, "Extramarital Sex," 170. This is extracted from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02)
You see, when you let the deviants and the liberal "progressives" change basic judeo-christian foundational mores, this is what it leads to:
March 12, 2015 [h=1]“Progress!” The World’s First Three-Way Gay Marriage[/h] Paul Kengor
Three homosexual men have “married” each other in Thailand in what is being billed as the world’s first three-way same-sex “marriage.” This was, of course, inevitable. It’s inevitable in every country that redefines marriage as anything but one man and one woman. When the culture’s only standard for “marriage” is that the parties love each other, then all sorts of novel configurations are possible. Look for this to come soon to a country near you.
Under the banner of the gay-rights rainbow, the new cultural revolutionaries are not only redefining marriage but also, to borrow from the popular term of 1960s radicals, “smashing monogamy.” What’s to stop these three non-monogamous married men from taking on added spouses? If three is fine, why not four? Or five?
This is, of course, a blatant I-told-you-so moment. This is what we gay-marriage opponents have been warning about. But it’s especially revealing of something else I’ve warned about for a while.
Those of us opposing same-sex “marriage” for reasons like this were told by gay-marriage advocates that we were nuts. Our claims that the redefining of marriage would lead to polygamous marriage and other arrangements were ridiculed. We were denounced as homophobes and bigots who simply hate. We were not just cold-hearted but hysterical. They shouted at us that they would never advocate arrangements like these. We were crazy to even suggest they would support anything but two gay people marrying one another.
But we know better. Those of us who have studied the ideological train-wreck called “progressivism” know better. We’ve watched how progressives “progress.” The only thing you really know about progressives, and that they know about themselves, is that they’re always changing, evolving. Where they stand now, on any given issue, is, by progressivism’s own definition, subject to change.
I often give the example of Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood. It was launched in the 1920s as the American Birth Control League, with Sanger’s interests being birth control and eugenics. Sanger insisted that she and her organization were against abortion. “It is an alternative that I cannot too strongly condemn,” she wrote in January 1932. “Some ill-informed persons have the notion that when we speak of birth control we include abortion as a method. We certainly do not.”
Yet, for progressives, what began as birth control needed only a few decades to snuff out life after conception. They “progressed” to where Sanger’s organization rapidly became America’s largest abortion provider. And where do “pro-choicers” stand today on abortion? Now they tell you that you must not only support its legalization but pay for it. If you disagree with them, they smear you as favoring a “war on women.”
This is their “progress.” As for those of us who have not changed with them, who even favor positions that progressives themselves once held, we are deemed the extremists. Where progressives start is never where they finish. They can never tell you their ultimate end-goal because their goalpost is always moving. They cannot tell us where they will stand on issues X and Y in 20 years. They will tell us when they get there.
But we do know this much: what is seemingly inconceivable to all of us right now, including to progressives themselves, can become the dogmatic position of progressives in a generation. The once-unimaginable absurdities become reality, and when they do, the progressive shrugs and then shouts—at you. If you suggest that a certain impossible position might become progressives’ position in, say, the year 2035, they will laugh, insisting they could never hold such an intolerable stance. Alas, when they arrive at that position in 2035, they will tell you that you are the crazy one; more than that, you are the vile extremist for disagreeing with their newfound, enlightened position. And they will attempt to force your compliance under the coercive power of the state.
They’ve done this with abortion and are doing the same with marriage. Give progressives the power to redefine marriage—once the province of nature and nature’s God—and there will be no end to the redefining. The definition will always be in a state of progression.
Worse, in the ultimate tragedy, this progressive rot, this dangerously addled “thinking,” is now pervading a larger secular world that has lost God and lost its dedication to moral absolutes. “When God does not exist,” said Dostoyevsky, “everything is permissible.”
That brings me back to what happened in Thailand. As soon as I saw the article on the man-man-man marriage, published in Britain’s Daily Mail, I immediately went to the readers’ comments (i.e., popular perception) to confirm my worst expectations of modern humanity. Yes, it would be wonderful to go to the comments and find serious mea culpas, “Wow, the conservatives are right! Our support of gay marriage is leading to this craziness! OMG!” or “I hate to admit it, but opponents of SSM were right all along. This is going to make a mess of marriage and the family.”
No, sorry. That is not how these minds operate. Remember: When they finally “progress” to the state they once swore impossible, and had once attacked you for even suggesting they’d arrive there, expect no apologies or reevaluating. No, expect them to be on board for the latest permutation. Expect them to applaud the next destination in the cultural train-wreck. And, of course, expect them to (yet again) denounce you as an uncaring brute.
Anyway, to that end, here were some of the readers’ comments posted at the Daily Mail article:
The first, ironically, came from a Puerto Rican man named Elijah, who is indeed a prophet for our times. He wrote of the new three-person couple: “I’m happy for them. I hope the day comes when we can all love as freely as we can and be recognized by our world laws.”
Here’s a comment from someone named Louis in South Africa, another herald of the times, who is inspired to give thanks to the Creator who made them male and female: “Thank God for these people—the world needs more love. All the best to them and many, many years of happiness. They make a beautiful marriage. May they experience God’s favour in their lives every day of their lives and I hope they have a big family one day to share in their love!”
From Nicky in Australia: “Good luck to them hope they r happy
”
From another person Down Under: “The heart wants what it wants. I hope they’re happy together.”
And note this assessment from Laura in the UK, whose ambivalence gives way to the it’s-okay-if-they’re-happy standard that now defines marriage: “I’m all for gay marriage … but 3 people getting married to each other? I just don’t understand how that can possibly work. And how you could love two people equally as passionately as you would if you were to marry one person. If it works for them and they’re happy then fair enough but [it’s] all very bizarre!”
Spot on, Laura, that’s the progressive spirit!
Those examples are pulled from only the first roughly dozen comments. I didn’t look for more. It’s too depressing.
But, in short, there you go. They’re on board. All aboard the exhilarating train of progress! No apologies, no regrets.
What’s the next stop in this three-way same-sex “marriage?” What’s the next progression? It will be the adoption of children. And if you object to that, then you will be excoriated as an intolerant obscenity of a human being.
After all, proponents will insist, why can’t three married men raise kids just as good as a married man and woman? They can put a roof over the kids’ heads, take them to soccer practice, make them dinner, wash their dishes, get them out of bed and on the bus, pay their college, and on and on. And if you object that a three-married-man trifecta is not an ideal model of virtue, morality, chastity, purity, parenthood, fatherhood, motherhood, and, dare I say, manhood, then you will be judged a loathsome creature.
This, my friends, is secular progressivism. It is at long last coming to full fruition in an increasingly post-Christian world. Thailand today, America tomorrow. Welcome to its glorious train-wreck. Let the cultural carnage commence.
March 12, 2015 [h=1]“Progress!” The World’s First Three-Way Gay Marriage[/h] Paul Kengor
Under the banner of the gay-rights rainbow, the new cultural revolutionaries are not only redefining marriage but also, to borrow from the popular term of 1960s radicals, “smashing monogamy.” What’s to stop these three non-monogamous married men from taking on added spouses? If three is fine, why not four? Or five?
This is, of course, a blatant I-told-you-so moment. This is what we gay-marriage opponents have been warning about. But it’s especially revealing of something else I’ve warned about for a while.
Those of us opposing same-sex “marriage” for reasons like this were told by gay-marriage advocates that we were nuts. Our claims that the redefining of marriage would lead to polygamous marriage and other arrangements were ridiculed. We were denounced as homophobes and bigots who simply hate. We were not just cold-hearted but hysterical. They shouted at us that they would never advocate arrangements like these. We were crazy to even suggest they would support anything but two gay people marrying one another.
But we know better. Those of us who have studied the ideological train-wreck called “progressivism” know better. We’ve watched how progressives “progress.” The only thing you really know about progressives, and that they know about themselves, is that they’re always changing, evolving. Where they stand now, on any given issue, is, by progressivism’s own definition, subject to change.
I often give the example of Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood. It was launched in the 1920s as the American Birth Control League, with Sanger’s interests being birth control and eugenics. Sanger insisted that she and her organization were against abortion. “It is an alternative that I cannot too strongly condemn,” she wrote in January 1932. “Some ill-informed persons have the notion that when we speak of birth control we include abortion as a method. We certainly do not.”
Yet, for progressives, what began as birth control needed only a few decades to snuff out life after conception. They “progressed” to where Sanger’s organization rapidly became America’s largest abortion provider. And where do “pro-choicers” stand today on abortion? Now they tell you that you must not only support its legalization but pay for it. If you disagree with them, they smear you as favoring a “war on women.”
This is their “progress.” As for those of us who have not changed with them, who even favor positions that progressives themselves once held, we are deemed the extremists. Where progressives start is never where they finish. They can never tell you their ultimate end-goal because their goalpost is always moving. They cannot tell us where they will stand on issues X and Y in 20 years. They will tell us when they get there.
But we do know this much: what is seemingly inconceivable to all of us right now, including to progressives themselves, can become the dogmatic position of progressives in a generation. The once-unimaginable absurdities become reality, and when they do, the progressive shrugs and then shouts—at you. If you suggest that a certain impossible position might become progressives’ position in, say, the year 2035, they will laugh, insisting they could never hold such an intolerable stance. Alas, when they arrive at that position in 2035, they will tell you that you are the crazy one; more than that, you are the vile extremist for disagreeing with their newfound, enlightened position. And they will attempt to force your compliance under the coercive power of the state.
They’ve done this with abortion and are doing the same with marriage. Give progressives the power to redefine marriage—once the province of nature and nature’s God—and there will be no end to the redefining. The definition will always be in a state of progression.
Worse, in the ultimate tragedy, this progressive rot, this dangerously addled “thinking,” is now pervading a larger secular world that has lost God and lost its dedication to moral absolutes. “When God does not exist,” said Dostoyevsky, “everything is permissible.”
That brings me back to what happened in Thailand. As soon as I saw the article on the man-man-man marriage, published in Britain’s Daily Mail, I immediately went to the readers’ comments (i.e., popular perception) to confirm my worst expectations of modern humanity. Yes, it would be wonderful to go to the comments and find serious mea culpas, “Wow, the conservatives are right! Our support of gay marriage is leading to this craziness! OMG!” or “I hate to admit it, but opponents of SSM were right all along. This is going to make a mess of marriage and the family.”
No, sorry. That is not how these minds operate. Remember: When they finally “progress” to the state they once swore impossible, and had once attacked you for even suggesting they’d arrive there, expect no apologies or reevaluating. No, expect them to be on board for the latest permutation. Expect them to applaud the next destination in the cultural train-wreck. And, of course, expect them to (yet again) denounce you as an uncaring brute.
Anyway, to that end, here were some of the readers’ comments posted at the Daily Mail article:
The first, ironically, came from a Puerto Rican man named Elijah, who is indeed a prophet for our times. He wrote of the new three-person couple: “I’m happy for them. I hope the day comes when we can all love as freely as we can and be recognized by our world laws.”
Here’s a comment from someone named Louis in South Africa, another herald of the times, who is inspired to give thanks to the Creator who made them male and female: “Thank God for these people—the world needs more love. All the best to them and many, many years of happiness. They make a beautiful marriage. May they experience God’s favour in their lives every day of their lives and I hope they have a big family one day to share in their love!”
From Nicky in Australia: “Good luck to them hope they r happy
”From another person Down Under: “The heart wants what it wants. I hope they’re happy together.”
And note this assessment from Laura in the UK, whose ambivalence gives way to the it’s-okay-if-they’re-happy standard that now defines marriage: “I’m all for gay marriage … but 3 people getting married to each other? I just don’t understand how that can possibly work. And how you could love two people equally as passionately as you would if you were to marry one person. If it works for them and they’re happy then fair enough but [it’s] all very bizarre!”
Spot on, Laura, that’s the progressive spirit!
Those examples are pulled from only the first roughly dozen comments. I didn’t look for more. It’s too depressing.
But, in short, there you go. They’re on board. All aboard the exhilarating train of progress! No apologies, no regrets.
What’s the next stop in this three-way same-sex “marriage?” What’s the next progression? It will be the adoption of children. And if you object to that, then you will be excoriated as an intolerant obscenity of a human being.
After all, proponents will insist, why can’t three married men raise kids just as good as a married man and woman? They can put a roof over the kids’ heads, take them to soccer practice, make them dinner, wash their dishes, get them out of bed and on the bus, pay their college, and on and on. And if you object that a three-married-man trifecta is not an ideal model of virtue, morality, chastity, purity, parenthood, fatherhood, motherhood, and, dare I say, manhood, then you will be judged a loathsome creature.
This, my friends, is secular progressivism. It is at long last coming to full fruition in an increasingly post-Christian world. Thailand today, America tomorrow. Welcome to its glorious train-wreck. Let the cultural carnage commence.
[SUP]18 [/SUP]For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. [SUP]19 [/SUP]For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. [SUP]20 [/SUP]For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[SUP][g][/SUP] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. [SUP]21 [/SUP]For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. [SUP]22 [/SUP]Claiming to be wise, they became fools, [SUP]23 [/SUP]and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
[SUP]24 [/SUP]Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, [SUP]25 [/SUP]because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
[SUP]26[/SUP]For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; [SUP]27 [/SUP]and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
[SUP]28 [/SUP]And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. [SUP]29[/SUP]
[SUP]24 [/SUP]Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, [SUP]25 [/SUP]because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
[SUP]26[/SUP]For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; [SUP]27 [/SUP]and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
[SUP]28 [/SUP]And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. [SUP]29[/SUP]
