Can Homosexuality Spread Via Culture?

Chris

Administrator
Staff member
Can Homosexuality Spread Via Culture?
By Laurie Higgins

Much of what the homosexual community (i.e., those who choose to place their unchosen homoerotic desires at the center of their identity) claims is false, and increasingly they’re being forced to admit their claims are false. Some of these claims may have been born out of ignorance, others out of a deliberate strategy to deceive. For example, for decades the myth that homosexuals constitute 10 percent of the population continued to be disseminated by homosexuals and their ideological allies long after the statistic had been thoroughly discredited. It was used to promote implicitly the idiotic and destructive idea that the number of people engaging in an act or affirming an “identity” indicates something about the morality of the act or “identity.”

Perhaps the most destructive myth still being promoted has two parts, both false. The first part is that homosexuality is a fixed and heritable condition. The second part says that since homoerotic interest is fixed and biochemically determined, it cannot be transmitted via the environment. Only those born with the determinative biochemical factors will experience homoerotic attraction—or so the homosexual community asserts. This false belief resulted in homosexuals mocking conservatives for their concern that exposure to positive ideas about and images of homosexuality may result in an increase in homoerotic activity.

Now, however, we know there is no single gene for homosexuality. A “genome-wide association study” published in the professional journal Science on August 30, 2019 has made a big media splash for confirming what has long been assumed by scientists: There is no “gay” gene. Unlike skin color or biological sex, homoerotic desire is not biologically determined.

In fact, the researchers (apparently reluctantly) made two interesting admissions. First, they admitted that the genes that may influence same-sex attraction also influence other predispositions:

These aggregate genetic influences partly overlapped with those on a variety of other traits, including…. smoking, cannabis use, risk-taking, and the personality trait “openness to experience.”

Might cannabis-use, risk-taking, and openness to experience lead to experimentation with diverse forms of sexual deviance?

Second, they admitted the influence of environment:

Our study focused on the genetic basis of same-sex sexual behavior, but several of our results point to the importance of sociocultural context as well. We observed changes in prevalence of reported same-sex sexual behavior across time, raising questions about how genetic and sociocultural influences on sexual behavior might interact.

The prevalence of homosexuality in ancient Greece and Rome and in Japan during the Tokugawa period was not a function of an altered gene pool or other biochemical differences but, rather, of differences in cultural views.

Sara Reardon writing in Scientific American explained in layman’s terms more about what the research team did and what their study reveals:

They asked more than 477,000 participants whether they had ever had sex with someone of the same sex, and also questions about sexual fantasies and the degree to which they identified as gay or straight.

The researchers found five single points in the genome that seemed to be common among people who had had at least one same-sex experience…. But taken together, these five markers explained less than 1 percent of the differences in sexual activity among people in the study. When the researchers looked at the overall genetic similarity of individuals who had had a same-sex experience, genetics seemed to account for between 8 and 25 percent of the behavior. The rest was presumably a result of environmental or other biological influences.

Despite the associations, the authors say that the genetic similarities still cannot show whether a given individual is gay. “It’s the end of the ‘gay gene,’” says Eric Vilain, a geneticist at Children’s National Health System in Washington, D.C., who was not involved in the study….

The authors say that they did see links between sexual orientation and sexual activity, but concede that the genetic links do not predict orientation.

Here’s an odd bit of political rhetoric highlighted in the scientific study itself:

The topic explored in this study is complex and intersects with sexuality, identity, and attraction and potentially has civil and political implications for sexual minority groups. Therefore, we have… [e]ngaged with LGBTQIA+ advocacy groups nationally and within our local institutions…. We wish to make it clear that our results overwhelmingly point toward the richness and diversity of human sexuality. Our results do not point toward a role for discrimination on the basis of sexual identity or attraction, nor do our results make any conclusive statements about the degree to which “nature” and “nurture” influence sexual preference.

Why would politically neutral, objective hard science researchers engage with “LGBTQIA+” activists about their research at all? And why include references to intersectionality, “sexual minority groups,” “richness,” and “discrimination”? They explained that the reason for their momentary deviation from science was that “there is a long history of misusing genetic results for social purposes.”

I couldn’t agree more. The homosexual and anti-life communities have long misused genetic results and theories to advance their pernicious cultural agendas.

Many academicians, including homosexual scholars, also claim that the long-promoted notion that “sexual orientation” is fixed is false. Dr. Lisa Diamond, lesbian professor of psychology at the University of Utah (who received her degrees from Cornell University and the University of Chicago) is just one homosexual scholar who argues that “sexual orientation” is fluid. And “Queer Theory” has long affirmed the fluidity of “sexual orientation.”

But mainstream journalists either haven’t been aware of these ideas about “sexual orientation” or realized the political implications of them and feared the response from the tyrannical “LGBTQ” community if they exposed them.

We know that ideas and images can influence desire and volitional acts. Homosexuals have been wrong, and conservatives have not been concerned enough about the influence of pro-homosexual ideas and the pervasiveness of positive images of homosexuality in network and streaming shows, movies, advertising, newspapers, magazines, pornography, and government schools.

The misdirection or disordering of the sex drive can result from abuse as well as exposure to both ideas and images. The extirpation of the taboo against homoerotic acts opened the door to intellectual exploration of the desirability of homoerotic acts as well as experimentation. We will see more homosexual activity and relationships in “civilized” countries that have exalted subjectivism, radical autonomy, sexual libertinism, and rebellion against social norms, while undermining the nuclear family, theological orthodoxy, the notion of a common public good, and sexual taboos.

Let’s look at pornography for a better understanding of the effect of culture on the spread of body-, soul-, and family-destroying sexual deviance.

The National Center on Sexual Exploitation reports that:

Fraternity men who consumed mainstream pornography expressed a greater intent to commit rape if they knew they would not be caught than those who did not consume pornography. Those who consumed sadomasochistic pornography expressed significantly less willingness to intervene in situations of sexual violence, greater belief in rape myths, and greater intent to commit rape.

Men were not born with a biochemically determined predilection for rape. Men, like women, are born with a fallen nature that makes them vulnerable to all sorts of sinful desires and acts. Ideas and images can shape the direction of our sinful acts. The sex drive is a powerful impulse that can be misdirected toward diverse inappropriate objects and activities.

Now that the culture at large has embraced first homosexuality as an immutable “identity” that can’t be judged and then homoerotic activity as morally benign, it won’t easily relinquish the pleasures of hedonism when foundational lies that led to acceptance are exposed. That this anti-culture movement has flourished based on a foundation of lies won’t matter to a non-rational society.

https://www.raptureforums.com/politics-culture-wars/can-homosexuality-spread-via-culture/
 

antitox

Well-Known Member
That's why they are trying to silence us. Because as long as we hold the standard, they can't subdue everything with the lies. WE ARE the last man standing. The churches we have left are most likely going to get a direct assault more and more as time passes to keep us from standing together. That's what I see coming.
 

kathymendel

Well-Known Member
Only the truth teaching churches we have left.................... will face assault.

Many churches are already on board with the gay agenda. And, other sin. They are so watered down you would have to dig deep to find truth. And, even then, it would only be half-truths to "tickle the ears".
 

antitox

Well-Known Member
Yes, it's part of the breakdown. The push is going to be a real browbeater though, and probably false arrests, etc. At the same time Islamist influence has to increase if the penalty is going to be beheading, but I think there will be hatred between Islamists and LGBTQ's because the Islamists will have stark differences from the gay lifestyle.
 

depserv

Well-Known Member
I think people generally know instinctively that homosexuality is a disorder, and most people find male homosexuality repulsive. The Bible makes clear that our instincts on this matter are well founded. So it took a massive and very effective propaganda campaign to convince society that what they all know deep inside is a sickness, is instead normal and good. Widespread acceptance of the homosexual lie is testament to the power of masses of ignorant fools to be herded like cattle, to believe a big lie that they all know is a big lie.

As a martial artist I like to study how various weapons have been used in war over the years, and the weapons of psychological warfare are some of the most interesting. So how were these weapons used to lead masses of people to believe such a big conspicuous lie? I don't know this subject as well as others but I can point to a few things:

The word gay is a slogan and a lie. The lie is easily exposed by comparing the original meaning of the word gay with the realities of the so-called gay lifestyle. Why would being happy and fun-loving lead to a high suicide rate for example. Those who know the power in marketing are willing to pay huge amounts of money for good slogans, and gay is one of the most effective slogans of all time. The liberal cult knows it, and managed to make the word gay the official euphemism for homosexual. This by itself does much to sell acceptance of the sin the word euphemistically refers to as being gay.

There is also a massive lie by omission. Homosexuality is pushed in our face constantly, but it is very rare for the realities of that choice to be talked about. The liberal propaganda machines use this technique all the time: play up whatever good exists or can be imagined about something they are selling, while ignoring the bad. They do this in the selling of marxist ideology for example. A used car salesman does the same thing. Everything they want us to like or hate they do this with.

It's a variation of a doctrine followed by liberal media: newsworthiness is determined by propaganda effect; if it will promote the liberal agenda it is newsworthy, if it will detract from that agenda it is not. Play up anything that can be made to look good about what you are selling, while playing down or ignoring anything bad; this and the inverse of it runs like a thread throughout liberal propaganda. And it's a common part of the liberal indoctrination in the schools too.

This lie by omission is supported by deliberate and institutional suppression of the truth about homosexuality. Try speaking the truth about it on a college campus and see how long you remain enrolled there (if you survive the assaults by gangs of liberal thought police). When the truth is forbidden, selling a big lie becomes easy.

I think most of us are much more controlled by fear than we like to admit to ourselves. So in the right venue, it makes sense to go along with the lie. There is an old saying (falsely attributed to George Orwell) that goes like this: "in times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." Whoever originated this, it is commonly said because of the obvious and important truth it embodies. Most people simply do not want to commit a revolutionary act when they are in the presence of a mass of cattle who might be led to stampede by the truth being spoken in their presence. But they don't want to admit to themselves that they are cowards, so they tell themselves that they actually believe the lie. And in time they do. At least superficially.

This is how a minority managed to set itself up as the arbiters of morality over our society. I am convinced that minority had supernatural help from the god of this world. But these are the kind of tools it used. The liberal cult has been working to take control of the schools and most media since the early days of the cold war in the 1950s, and it has had massive success. This is how it managed to set itself up as a de facto official state religion. And as long as it holds that power, it doesn't matter how exposed one of its lies might be, masses of people will go along with the lie, even though on some level they know the truth.

As a side note, even if homosexuality, or the tendency to be homosexual, was shown to be something people are born with, that would not make it not a sickness. It is well known for example that the tendency to be an alcoholic is something people are born with, but alcoholism is still seen as a sickness. People with that tendency just need to stay away from alcohol. And the same thing applies to those who think they were born homosexual, because of the effects of that lifestyle, in this life and the next.

This of course is moot since we know that it is not something people are born with. It's a choice, but it's a choice to take into oneself a deadly sickness. I think those who make the choice like it because it's a sickness, a reversal of God's order, not in spite of it. And on some level deep inside they know it.
 
Last edited:

Endangered

Well-Known Member
I read a feadibility study for a New York bookstore specializing in LGBTQ? books. Any feasibility study has to determine how much population is located within the market area. This study said the percent of LGBTQ? was 3%. Remember this is New York and is a haven for gays.
If the percent is 3% in NY it is most likely less in most US states.
Also remember that gay males account for 65% of new HIV infections in the US according to the US CDC. So less than 3% of our population is responsible for 65% of new AIDS.
Funny you never hear numbers like this from the MSM.
 

Jonathan

Well-Known Member
I read a feadibility study for a New York bookstore specializing in LGBTQ? books. Any feasibility study has to determine how much population is located within the market area. This study said the percent of LGBTQ? was 3%. Remember this is New York and is a haven for gays.
If the percent is 3% in NY it is most likely less in most US states.
Also remember that gay males account for 65% of new HIV infections in the US according to the US CDC. So less than 3% of our population is responsible for 65% of new AIDS.
Funny you never hear numbers like this from the MSM.
Political correctness and PC culture are harming this country to no end, and have been, even by innocent people. I remember in my Junior Year in high school 20+ years ago, when the issue of AIDS came up, telling my English teacher (who wasn't on a rant, by the way, she was actually pretty cool), that the chances of heterosexual transmission of AIDS was roughly 1 in 100 as opposed to homosexual transmission which was much higher.

She chastised me saying that what I had said was very irresponsible. I am guessing/hoping that what she was saying was that EVERYONE should protect themselves. She could have been scolding me for citing a fact that put homosexuality in a bad light, but I'd like to think that she was worried that my true statistic would embolden my fellow, heterosexual classmates to throw caution to the wind.

The only thing I could think to say is "My father is a well respected ER doctor. I am pretty sure he knows what he is talking about."

Which was true. But she again questioned the truthfulness of my statement.

My point is, my English teacher meant no harm, but political correctness forces people to not own up to reality. Not acknowledging facts for fear of being politically incorrect is the truly irresponsible decision.

The truth is, outside of contaminated blood transfusions, AIDS is and has always been mostly a disease effecting gays and drug users who reuse needles, and to a lesser, but still very real extent, those who are very sexually promiscuous.

It's just the truth, and the compassionate thing is to tell people the truth.
 
Last edited:

Endangered

Well-Known Member
Political correctness is the antithesis of truth. PC requires one to ignore the truth if the truth conflicts with PC.
Islam is the religion of peace - a lie but conforms to PC.
Male homosexuals are responsible for 65% of new HIV infections - true statement but totally not PC.
All Christians are bigots - not true but conforms to PC.
Notice that the targets of PC are those that conform with God's expectations. More evidence PC is Satanic in origin.
 

antitox

Well-Known Member
Political correctness is the antithesis of truth. PC requires one to ignore the truth if the truth conflicts with PC.
Islam is the religion of peace - a lie but conforms to PC.
Male homosexuals are responsible for 65% of new HIV infections - true statement but totally not PC.
All Christians are bigots - not true but conforms to PC.
Notice that the targets of PC are those that conform with God's expectations. More evidence PC is Satanic in origin.
This is what's turning them all on the church. We are hated in the media just as much as they hate Israel. Satan wants that piece of land over there and wants to strip the US of it's power. We will be hated just for being around here.
 
Top