Well, actually, it's only WND telling you it's not a gene, so you can take it for what it's worth -- which ain't much.
What the APA is really, saying is that the causes of homosexual behavior are complicated, and that you generally cannot isolate it to any single factor.
Poor Mr. Unruh, however, apparently cannot be bothered with complexities when he's got a deadline and an opinion.
Byrd wrote. "The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion. There is no gay gene. There is no simple biological pathway to homosexuality."
Byrd wrote. "The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion. There is no gay gene. There is no simple biological pathway to homosexuality."
As a former member of the APA before I quit in disgust, I know how to read their language. What they are actually saying is that despite substantial research efforts to identify a genetic factor, there has been no such factor identified.
You can't ever draw the conclusion that "there is no gay gene" because someday some bright researcher just might stumble across it. But so far and after years of searching, they haven't found it yet.
In the comparison to the previous edition of the brochure, this is a definite backtracking, and reflects lack of success in the "search for the gene." The rest of the stuff is about nature and nurture and is standard boilerplate.