Posted on 05/13/2009 7:07:43 AM PDT by conservativegramma
American Psychological Association revises statement on homosexuality
A publication from the American Psychological Association includes an admission that there is no "gay" gene, according to a doctor who has written about the issue on the website of National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality.
A. Dean Byrd, the past president of NARTH, confirmed that the statement from the American Psychological Association came in a brochure that updates what the APA has advocated for years.
Specifically, in a brochure that first came out about 1998, the APA stated: "There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."
However, in the update: a brochure now called, "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality," the APA's position changed.
The new statement says:
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. ..."
"Although there is no mention of the research that influenced this new position statement, it is clear that efforts to 'prove' that homosexuality is simply a biological fait accompli have failed," Byrd wrote. "The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion. There is no gay gene. There is no simple biological pathway to homosexuality."
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Excellent!
(took me two read-throughs to get it though...)
It’s one of the spearheads in the war on the family.
A) A chosen lifestyle
B) Genetic flaw
C) Mental illness
As a recovering alcoholic, I suspect homosexuality is a very similar pathology to alcoholism. The "nature vs. nurture" debate can be become quite contentious, but is of no value to the afflicted. If I believe that alcoholism is a genetic matter, I can justify continued drinking on the basis that "I was born this way" and my predisposition is not my fault, and simply part of who I am. If I come to believe that it's a strictly behavioral matter, then I can ultimately make the case that I can control my drinking by choice, and justify returning to the bottle. If I view it all as a mental illness, I can obviate my role in the matter, and embrace my *victimhood* while waiting on a purely clinical solution.
You leave out a fourth possibility, which is where I, and countless other alcoholics have found relief and sanity, and where I suspect homosexuals could find similar peace, and that is confronting it as a spiritual issue, where we have sought to fill a void with our deviant, self-destructive behavior.
Even if "it" did exist, its very nature would preclude procreation and the passage of the carrier's genes. It could therefore only be a randomly occurring, unique genetic phenomenon of single-generation duration (per "carrier") - which is essentially a mutation. If it's genetic, it would be an anomaly. And genetic anomalies die off. Quickly.
So, maybe it's something else. Like Mommy/Daddy issues? Recruitment by a "Funny Uncle"? Middle School Gym Teacher (ladies, you all know who I'm talking about)? Low sales resistance, maybe? Whatever. Even after years of sitting on a therapist's couch trying to figure out why they are so profoundly unhappy with the rest of their lives, they refuse to even consider that maybe the fundamental basis of their identity might just be a psychological disorder. Because then that would make them admit that they are, like the rest of us, flawed beings. Self-awareness....??? Nope....can't have any of that. It just gets in the way of that spiraling hedonistic rush to self-destruction.
That usually either shuts them up, causes them to try to deflect the discussion to some ridiculous "homophobe" strawman (doesn't work on me - I don't fear 'em, I just don't particularly care about 'em), or enrages them (which is usually pretty amusing to watch).
All those ex-gays created a problem for this controversial “fact”?
A gene provides the code for generally one (there are exceptions) protein. There are some appearances, conditions or illnesses which are the product of the presence or absence of a a particular protein. I think Albinism and Sicle Cell Anemia are examples of such conditions/illnesses. I cannot imagine that any behavior could be explained by the presence or absence of a single protein. I suspect that almost all behavioral traits are the product of many genes, nature, and one’s free will. I’ll take a wild guess that so many genes are involved that it is not currently practical to collect the data (study enough people) or have the computational power to map human behaviors to a particular set of genes. So yes, I don’t believe there is a single ‘homosexual gene’ but I believe there is a strong genetic component. I know I couldn’t suddenly ‘decide’ that I was no longer heterosexual.
Imho, it’s a distinction without a difference:
“What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whatcauses
What is very clear is that APA is very significantly backing down from an aggressive position.
Byrd’s argument is not that that APA has released a statement to the fact that there is no gene but rather that the APA by it’s own actions is admitting that despite aggressive research (or I should just say “searching for”), NO GENE COULD BE FOUND.
The underlying premise is that APA would not have abandoned a 10 year old position statement after such heavy investment by vested interests unless theresults had been dissppointing at best and counter-conclusive at worst.
Hence, per Byrd, the APA by their ACTIONS have admitted that there is no gay gene. That may be a stretch but at a minimum, by their actions they have admitted there previous position statement was over the top and unsupported by any scientific evidence.
Excellent post!
They will side-step the issue. They will retain support for abortion, but oppose the development or use of any prenatal TEST for gay potential as a "hate crime". Any doctor that administers such a test, and any lab that processes such a test, would be at risk of vandalism and violence.
BINGO. I also believe its a spiritual issue. Its not a choice, not genetic, and not a mental illness. You are exactly right. It goes straight back to Romans 1:25-27 again.
Its interesting that those who have identified the spiritual dimension have reversed course. There are a growing number of 'ex-gays' reaching out in ministry to the gay community. They are usually reviled and hated, but the numbers are growing nonetheless. Excellent analysis.
****************
Your personal experience or belief does not rise to the level of proof.
Has a shrink really ever cured anyone? I’m asking about the type who have the patient get on a couch like in “What about Bob”?
The illusion that the homosexual lifestyle is a normal way of living has been successfully propagated by promoting a “victim” image for homosexual persons, and by the pseudo-science alleging a ‘gay” gene.
Of the reports alleging, or promising soon down the road, a “gay” gene, not a single one has survived scientific peer review. There is no “gay” gene.
On the other hand, the evidence does show that homosexual persons are indeed victims — but overwhelmingly of their own behavior, not that of others.
Typical homosexual behavior includes regular contact with fecal matter from oneself and from sexual partners, tragically reversing several centuries of learning about cleanliness, and thus several centuries of growing lifespan. Homosexual behavior makes no more sense than playing in the toilet.
All available evidence indicates that the lifespan of practicing homosexual persons is drastically shortened by their behavior. No reliable study indicates otherwise. The lifespan topic is taboo among homosexual advocates because the evidence is so damaging to their case.
Great post!
Good question. I see news articles and read claims about how many people get helped, yet I know dozens of people under treatment and they are all worse off than ever. Several people have told me how much better they feel since they stopped seeing counselors and got off the drugs. Something ain’t right.
They need to drop this since the logical next step would be a gene-therapy “cure”.
But that's not even close to what they're actually saying.
I'm not certain, but I don't believe the APA ever said that homosexual behavior was completely determined by genetics. They may well have gone too far in that direction, and if so this correction -- saying that it's a complicated process -- is a good one.
However, that correction does not provide grounds for Messrs. Unruh and Byrd to say there is no genetic component. Such a statement is just as unscientific and unjustified as the "genetics only" crowd on the other side of the coin.
They're just as bad as the folks they oppose -- both sides would be "lying for a good cause," if you will.
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.