Posted on 05/14/2009 2:45:33 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there's no homosexual "gene" -- meaning it's not likely that homosexuals are born that way.
For decades, the APA has not considered homosexuality a psychological disorder, while other professionals in the field consider it to be a "gender-identity" problem. But the new statement, which appears in a brochure called "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality," states the following:
"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...."
That contrasts with the APA's statement in 1998: "There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."
Peter LaBarbera, who heads Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, believes the more recent statement is an important admission because it undermines a popular theory.
"People need to understand that the 'gay gene' theory has been one of the biggest propaganda boons of the homosexual movement over the last 10 [or] 15 years," he points out. "Studies show that if people think that people are born homosexual they're much less likely to resist the gay agenda."
Matt Barber with Liberty Counsel feels the pronouncement may have something to do with saving face. "Well, I think here the American Psychological Association is finally trying to restore some credibility that they've lost over the years by having become a clearly political organization as opposed to an objective, scientific organization," he states. (Hear audio report)
With the new information from the APA, Barber wonders if the organization will admit that homosexuals who want to change can change.
Matt Barber"It's irrefutable from a medical standpoint that people can leave the homosexual lifestyle," he argues. "Homosexuality is defined by behavior. Untold thousands of people have found freedom from that lifestyle through either reparative therapy or through -- frankly, most effectively -- a relationship with Jesus Christ."
LaBarbera agrees. "Change through Christ is possible -- and it's one of the most heartwarming aspects of the whole gay debate," he shares. "Many men and women have come out of homosexuality, mostly through a relationship with Jesus Christ. The fact that these professional organizations will not study that, will not acknowledge that, shows how 'in the tank' they are for the homosexual movement."
LaBarbera stresses that even though elites will not recognize the change, that does not mean the change does not exist. In fact, both Barber and LaBarbera believe that God changes people through Christ -- regardless of the sin.
As a research psychologist for over 20 years, I am not aware of this publication. (It is a PC area that I will never get involved with). I am interested in the citation. Does anyone have it?
I suspect that people are misreading this, but I don’t have the article. IMHO, homosexual behavior is probably like “intelligence”. Some of it is learned. Some of it is genetically influenced (mostly at the extreme ends). The question is “how much influence does genetics have?”
Over time, the role of genetics in intelligence seems to have increased (while the lefties work furiously at redefining “intelligence”). I suspect that over time, the influence of genetics on homosexuality will be far lower than many topside estimates (10-15%). But, we simply don’t know.
There’s not enough acid in my car battery to cleanse my eyes of that.
The author is confused. Genetic factors are not the only ones that cause a person to be "born that way."
There are als non-genetic biological factors. A good example is the uterine environment. This IMO is where one sees the most promising research on this issue.
I am loathe to proclaim any characteristic free of any biological influence. It is exceedingly unlikely.
First, the APA has become very political and I doubt they would intentionally claim there’s no proof of genetic homosexuality.
I feel certain that -*for some*- (at least), it is not genetic at all. In today’s society, it has even become chic and I feel some have chosen to be gay because it has become a societal identifier, not because it is a sexual proclivity.
My liberal brother became one and, while he will deny it, I am certain he was not “born gay”. He hid Playboy magazines in his bedroom as a teen just like the other boys in our house.
But I feel there were two major issues that led him into homosexuality. One is that he found he wasn’t in much demand by girls. And as he socialized, he found he was welcomed by gays. Naturally, he gravitated to the group where he found acceptance.
Secondly, he’s become more liberal. As liberal dogma preaches that hetero white males are the source of all evil in the world and the “oppressor class”, he found he couldn’t do anything about being white or male but he *could* do something about being hetero - so, in this way, he could move psychologically from oppressor to oppressed, from victimizer to victim, which allows him to be a member in good standing with his liberal friends.
Some of you probably think I am nuts for believing this but he once confided that he wouldn’t have turned out gay if he’d only found the “right girl”.
So while I could be persuaded that some homosexuals may have a genetic trigger that makes them that way, I believe many more are that way because of social conditioning, including the lunacy of liberal dogma that puts everyone in a group and then assigns blame or exoneration of people based on which group they are in.
Congress votes to protect pedophiles against ‘hate speech’
Canada Free Press | May 13, 2009 | Andrew Walden
Posted on 05/14/2009 2:26:43 PM PDT by DesertRenegade
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2251100/posts
Homosexual Group Admits Health Risks of Homosexual Behavior
Dakota Voice | May 14, 2009 | Bob Ellis
Posted on 05/14/2009 2:19:06 PM PDT by DesertRenegade
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2251094/posts
Frank wants broad limits on exec. pay for all firms
[all publicly held companies.......]
The Hill
Posted on 05/14/2009 10:21:07 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Edited on 05/14/2009 2:09:16 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2250927/posts
Chairman Frank Succeeds in Funding ACORN (Barney Frank & ACORN)
Michelle Bachmann | May 8, 2009 | Staff
Posted on 05/14/2009 10:25:53 AM PDT by yoe
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2250933/posts
“My liberal brother became one and, while he will deny it, I am certain he was not born gay. He hid Playboy magazines in his bedroom as a teen just like the other boys in our house.”
Excellent post, thanks. Sorry about your brother - I am certain that society is the major factor for gay guys. For lesbos, it is the only factor (i.e., that’s the only way a lesbo can show she’s a real feminist). We need society to discourage this garbage and make gays feel unwelcome...as that will reduce the number of them, and result in a healthier society overall.
So how long will this take to get into the text books?
Thanks. We added a link to our article about this new info:
http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/gay-rights
Much ado about nothing here.
BTTT!
“An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there’s no homosexual “gene” — meaning it’s not likely that homosexuals are born that way.”
One does not follow the other.
Regarding change and the right to treatment, lesbian activist Camille Paglia offered the following observations:
"Homosexuality is not 'normal.' On the contrary it is a challenge to the norm...Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction...No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous...homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait.....
"Is the gay identity so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may not wish to be gay? Sexuality is highly fluid, and reversals are theoretically possible. However, habit is refractory, once the sensory pathways have been blazed and deepened by repetition-a phenomenon obvious in the struggle with obesity, smoking, alcoholism or drug addiction....helping gays to learn to function heterosexually, if they wish, is a perfectly worthy aim.
"We should be honest enough to consider whether homosexuality may not indeed be a pause a the prepubescent stage where children anxiously band together by gender....current gay cant insists that homosexuality is 'not a choice,' that no one would choose to be gay in a homophobic society. But there is an element of choice in all behavior, sexual or otherwise. It takes an effort to deal with the opposite sex; it is safer with your own kind. The issue is one of challenge versus comfort."
Source Paglia, C., Vamps and tramps. New York: Vintage Books. 1994, pp. 70, 72, 76, 77, 78, 91
Pulled from: http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html
“We need society to discourage this garbage and make gays feel unwelcome...as that will reduce the number of them, and result in a healthier society overall.”
Good luck with that. Even if you succeed, all you’re doing is reducing the number of open homos. The number of closet cases will increase.
Excellent thinking. Come to think of it, my beautiful stylish friend is as shallow as they come. Though intelligent, her entire focus is on surfaces.
Interesting.
That may explain some men and women I have known who have done a 180 in middle age, and "embraced" a homosexual identity.
In the case of women, there is even a strange change in physical appearance.
He had to find another role to play that made him "heroic", so he became gay.
No?
Then it must have become an acquired taste for Perez and Barney.
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.