Posted on 05/14/2009 12:59:02 PM PDT by TaraP
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. ..."
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Oh yes there is a “gay” gene! ...
... And it looks fabulous!
Edited for accuracy. /sarc
While this is a good start I should point out that psychologists have as much credibility in genetic studies as plumbers have in heart surgery.
I wonder if God gets sick of being right all the time....
Psychiatry is simply a way of trying to examine what is wrong with humans without addressing the effects of sin and disobeying God’s laws.
Sure they don’t mean “jeans”?
That looks like Senator Franken!
Pro-Lifers remained true to their beliefs and still wouldn't abort (good for you!). But there was quite a fight in liberal camps about it.... I'll look to see if I can find the data on it.
I caught this last night. Here is a post on the gay and lesbian response:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2250568/posts
No, but we do. :)
Good post.
There’s an article over at the Oprah website (my wife had seen a show on something that I was trying to check on so that’s why I visited) about women who, when they break up with their husbands, are increasingly choosing female partners. When I read it the one thing that stands out is that the article seems to state pretty clearly that these women are choosing a female rather than a male — even though they never,previously, had thought about same-sex alternatives.
There’s an article over at the Oprah website (my wife had seen a show on something that I was trying to check on so that’s why I visited) about women who, when they break up with their husbands, are increasingly choosing female partners. When I read it the one thing that stands out is that the article seems to state pretty clearly that these women are choosing a female rather than a male — even though they never,previously, had thought about same-sex alternatives.
There’s an article over at the Oprah website (my wife had seen a show on something that I was trying to check on so that’s why I visited) about women who, when they break up with their husbands, are increasingly choosing female partners. When I read it the one thing that stands out is that the article seems to state pretty clearly that these women are choosing a female rather than a male — even though they never,previously, had thought about same-sex alternatives.
Exactly!
Take the Stigma away, and people will be inclined to say
*I will try that*
How could there be? Wouldn’t it be selected out of existence, even if there was only a 0.1% chance that someone who has it as the dominant gene (i.e. someone gay) would not reproduce, and thereby pass the gene on?
Clearly, the answer is that such a gene would, over a sufficient number of generations (and there have been a couple thousand generations of humans since the appearance of Cro-Magnon Man), be selected out of existence. Which necessarily requires that the behavior in question is as a result of some outside, non-genetic influence. Even if it took some outside influence to activate or express the gene, a mere 0.1% failure-to-reproduce rate would phase such a gene out of existence (though more slowly than one that didn’t require an outside influence to activate it).
IOW, the whole concept of a “gay gene” is a bunch of horse poop.
And that is what the article said as well. I guess one coudl go there and search “lesbian” to read it.
The thing is...in the 1980s you couldn’t even feature two women kissing on a regular TV program. People considered any woman wo went for another woman to be neurotic or that she had flaws so she couldn’t get a man.
In the 1990s is surfaced (maybe due to the mainstreaming of porn) as kinda trendy. Of course, only certain social circles had much experimentation going on. It was still fringe behavior.
Now, in the 21st. Century, lesbianism is quite fashionable — at least bisexuality. So it’s no wonder more women are trying it out — and one wonders if males are mre likely to experiment when they see the culture going gaga over female-female sexuality.
There never was a gay gene... its a mental disorder folks, not a biological one. Does that mean there are not folks born with certain urges? Nope, not at all. However we are human beings, not animals, we all have urges, and sane rational adults know healthy ones from unhealthy ones and generally avoid unhealthy ones. They don’t engage repeatedly in unhealthy ones and ask the world to accept that they can’t help it.
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.