Posted on 05/13/2009 7:07:43 AM PDT by conservativegramma
I don't know a single credible scientist who disagrees. It is indeed complicated.
They most certainly do not rule out a genetic component
I don't know a single credible scientist who disagrees. But what is meant by component? By component, scientists mean linkages and associations. What confuses people is how little linkages and associations play into the mix.
Credible scientists say environment is a key factor in how same-sex attractions originate.
A summary of the scientific evidence is that homosexuals are not born with their same-sex attraction, but neither the vast majority choose their same-sex attraction.
What does this mean? That is, if same-sex attraction isn't genetic nor chosen, from where does it originate? To repeat what the APA has said, it's complicated.
To believe a gay gene exists that causes same-sex attraction is to believe something based on nothing.
Click here for the APA's updated pamphlet.
As with most FR posts, it wasn’t intended as ‘proof’ but merely a speculation and an anecdote.
Where do you see Unruh and Byrd saying there is no genetic component?
Perhaps, but even though you have found relief from your alcoholism through spirituality, you are and always will be an alcoholic. The same can be said about gay people: Even if they are able to find relief from their affliction through religion, they are and always will be homosexual even if they no longer engage in homosexual behavior.
From my personal experience with the one pathology, I’d have to say that you’re most likely correct.
What else would they mean when they say "there is no gay gene?"
Indeed! The growing ex-gay population continues to erode the born that way theory.
Here are some links on the subject:
The Ex-Gay Story in the Pop Music World
Venus Magazine
Michael Glatze ‘Comes Out’ of Homosexuality: former ‘Young Gay America’ Magazine Co-founder
You’re correct. Researchers in this area have never claimed that sexual orientation is purely genetic, only that there could be a genetic component. I believe there is more evidence to support this in males than females (last time I reviewed the research). There are many misconceptions regarding the role of nature/nurture, which, by the way, accounts for most behaviors. It is rare that a behavior is determined solely by one or the other. We are born with undeveloped brains and our environments contribute to further development throughout childhood. For this reason, we can’t say that a behavior or predisposition that is caused mostly by nurture is easier to change than one that is mostly nature. That is a common misconception.
Also, another misconception is that a behavior determined by nurture is equivalent to “choice”. If sexual orientation is determined primarily by nurture that doesn’t mean that it is a choice.
Finally, sexual orientation is probably not a choice. I think this makes sense, if nothing else, based on our experience. However, sexual behavior, (i.e., what we do) is a choice. Usually, we behave sexually in ways that are consistent with our orientation, but not always. An example is the high rate of homosexual behavior in prisons. Many of these men behaved as heterosexuals before they went to prison and they will likely behave as heterosexuals when they are out. This is one reason why “orientation” is difficult to study. Some people may have a particular orientation but simply choose to behave in ways that don’t reflect their orientation.
Let me substitute one word “demonstrated” for “admitted”.
“Hence, per Byrd, the APA by their ACTIONS have demonstrated that there is no gay gene.”
Just as you might refer to a set of inanimate objects and the facts around them as “saying” something, the use of “saying” or “admitting” simply indicates what is demonstrated by the APA’s change given the set of facts surrounding it.
I think it is all semantics really and feel that you are attacking the messenger. The fact is that APA has made fools of themselves, again, by referencing unproven, unrepeated, shoddy studies to promote an agenda (and vaguely without specific reference at that). They now have to back off what they did with another vague statement filled with generalities and undocumented “consensus” type verbiage.
It doesn't matter whether its Byrd or anyone else that points it out, that is the fact of what is happening. It is only natural for people who have been marginalized as “narrow minded” and “unscientific” to want to crow a bit when they see one of the references used against them for so long be reversed or rescinded. Especially when by definition it is rescinded to the incompetent manner in which it was placed into the lexicon of thought and discussion to begin with.
IMHO
People are willing to pay money for answers, thus shrinks are there to take the money. If you ask me there are no answers, or magic words that can make things better, other than common sense. I do not know any one who was helped.
You changed the subject.
Here is what you said:
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.and now you're saying:
What else would they mean when they say "there is no gay gene?"A genetic component is not a gene so don't equate the two.
Perhaps Unruh and Byrd are more familar with the subject than you realize.
LOLOL!! I have seen recent photos of her,and she is no goddess,to be sure, but she’s no Helen Thomas either.
That's a really good thing to keep in mind. While homosexuals are people, too, some people appear to forget or overlook this fact.
Occasionally we have ex-gays and gays struggling with their same-sex attraction on FR. And I cringe at some of the posts we have here and when I look back at some of my posts years ago, I realize I could have said worded a sentence or two very differently.
There are battered women who give up on men and then discover that lesbians can be physically abusive too.
APA Has No Disagreement With the Treatment of Unwanted Homosexual Attraction
I wonder when they might mention again that it is a mental issue? It is learned behavior afterall? Like any other compulsion and should be treated as such.
Nope. You're just defending a stupid statement.
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.