Posted on 03/14/2007 9:42:16 AM PDT by EveningStar
Come on, it's totally obvious on their home page - homosexuality is wrong and evil and the poor wretches mnust be saved. They're perfectly entitled to that opinion of course but that's all it is, opinion, and you won't get a clear picture of the science through them. Similarly I am very distrustful of those with the opposite opinion. Neither side is interested in finding the truth because they know it already. Both will gloss over problems in studies that don't support their side but will nit pick the other kind.
What, specifically, on the NARTH web page gives you that impression? Is there something on their About page or something on their Positions Statement page?
One other thing. I hope you're not under the impression that I think homosexuality is normal or healthy, I don't. I'm opposed to "gay marriage." The behavior disgusts me very deeply in fact (and I doubt very much that this is a choice on my part). But that is a completely independent question from whether or not there is a genetic component to the behavior. If we can discover it, we might be able to "fix" this illness.
However, there is a definite Blank Slatist bias as, e.g. when [NARTH says] "there is no such thing as a 'gay gene.'" ... For the life of me I don't see why, given the track record, that a rational person wouldn't expect there to be a genetic component to a complex human behavior like sexuality.
I think you might be mixing some terms. Sometimes in my rushing around I'll use the term gay gene when I mean component and component when I mean gay gene There really is no evidence of a gay gene and no credible scientist states otherwise. But when using the term genetic component we must understand linkage and association.
I mentioned this in post 234 because it's key to understanding what is meant by component. I think you'll find Satinover's The Gay Gene? interesting. In the conclusion/summary, he has a question/answer section which includes the following:
Q: Isn't homosexuality heritable?I'm under the impression NARTH agrees there's a genetic component to homosexuality so I'm hoping you'll see they're not that far off from what you've already said. But, the key is understanding what is meant by the term. As Satinover said, 'Yes, but "component" is just a loose way of indicating genetic associations and linkages. This will not make sense unless you understand what, and how little, "linkage" and "association" really means.'
A: Yes, significantly.Q: So it is inherited?
A: No, it is not.Q: I'm confused. Isn't there is a "genetic component" to homosexuality?
A: Yes, but "component" is just a loose way of indicating genetic associations and linkages. This will not make sense unless you understand what, and how little, "linkage" and "association" really means.Q:What about all the evidence that shows that homosexuality "is genetic"?
A: There is not any, and none of the research itself claims there is; only the press and, sadly, certain researchers do-when speaking in sound bites to the public.
Of all the evidence on same-sex attraction, one huge piece that many overlook is the growing number of ex-gays. I don't know of any credible scientist that denies environment is a major factor.
You referred to sexuality as a complex human behavior and you're right, it's extremely complex.
Did you get a chance to read that article about Dr. Collins (head of the Human Genome Project) I referenced in post 232?
Do yourself a favor and read The Blank Slate by Pinker. You'll find it annoying in part but very worthwhile.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.