Page 1 of 16 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 151
  1. #1 "The American Psychological Assn.:There is No 'Gay' Gene,It's A Choice Folks !" 
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    'Gay' gene claim suddenly vanishes 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."

    Byrd said the APA's documents both new and old "have strong activist overtones," but the newer document "is more reflective of science and more consistent with the ethicality of psychological care."

    "On the question of whether or not therapy can change sexual orientation, the former document offered a resounding 'no,'" Byrd wrote. "However, the current document is much more nuanced and contains the following statement: 'To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective.'"

    A spokesman for NARTH said the change in statements, although not new, is considered significant for the organization. The APA declined to return a WND call requesting comment.

    Byrd questioned whether the APA now plans to study the effectiveness of a variety of therapies for homosexuality.

    "Many are entirely without validation, yet practitioners regularly receive Continuing Education credits for teaching these same therapies through APA-approved courses. Perhaps it is time for APA to hold all therapies and all therapists to the standard which they advocate for reorientation therapy," he said.

    But he wrote that the changes are substantial, with even a change in the APA's recommendations for additional information.

    "Most intriguing are the recommended resources for further reading. The former brochure referred readers to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; to Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, and to Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), all activist groups," Byrd wrote. "The current brochure refers readers to the American Psychological Association, Mental Health America, and the American Academy of Pediatrics."

    NARTH documents other evidence of a lack of a "gay" gene, too.

    For example, Douglas Abbott, a University of Nebraska professor, concluded, "If homosexuality was caused by genetic mechanisms, their children would be more likely to choose same-sex interaction. But they aren't more likely, so therefore it can't be genetic."

    NARTH also rebuts some of the advocacy positions taken by homosexual proponents.

    "The term 'homophobia' is often used inaccurately to describe any person who objects to homosexual behavior on either moral, psychological or medical grounds," NARTH explains. "Technically, however, the terms actually denotes a person who has a phobia or irrational fear of homosexuality. Principled disagreement, therefore, cannot be labeled 'homophobia.'"

    WND has reported on those who have left the homosexual lifestyle, and the opposition they face, including when a homosexual advocate attributed the crime of rape to the "sickness" of the ex-"gay" movement.

    Among other recent developments in the ongoing argument over the 'innateness" on homosexuality:


    A New England organization reports members of a transgender lobby promised to shadow grandmothers and others who will be collecting petition signatures on a traditional marriage amendment.

    Actions by members of the homosexual community prompted the American Psychiatric Association to cancel what was to be a discussion of the lifestyle.


    And prominent leaders of the homosexual community have stated that only they benefit from hate crimes laws, laws that enhance a penalty for crimes already covered by other statutes based on the thoughts that accompany the criminal act.

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=97940
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    If I was a lesbian, I'd applaud this new stance. After all, if there was a "gay gene", I'd be aware that most of my pro-choice sisters would be clamoring for a prenatal test and then would act accordingly. If women are willing to abort in order to get the right sex, they would have little trouble aborting to get the right sexual inclination.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member FeebMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    1,008
    Choice or biology. Does it matter?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,203
    I do believe that there are some cases where someone was born with the wrong body but those are rare. The reason for this belief is that if there are people who are born with both organs there has to be an instance when a someone with female tendencies were born with a man's body. But for the most part it is a choice. Look no further than Hollywood. You mean to tell me that George Takai, Kelly McGillis, and David Ogden Stires went their entire lives as heterosexuals only to one day wake up and realize they're gay?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Pleasant Valley
    Posts
    639
    Quote Originally Posted by FeebMaster View Post
    Choice or biology. Does it matter?
    Only to those who love to stick their noses in what is not their business.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Gingersnap View Post
    If I was a lesbian, I'd applaud this new stance. After all, if there was a "gay gene", I'd be aware that most of my pro-choice sisters would be clamoring for a prenatal test and then would act accordingly. If women are willing to abort in order to get the right sex, they would have little trouble aborting to get the right sexual inclination.
    I have a feeling that most lesbians wether by chioce or by dependancy are miserable with their choice and wouldn't want any of their offspring,if any, to be in the same boat !It must be a strained,unnatural artificial life pretending to be a natural one.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tmhf...ture=related:D
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    12,773
    Psychology is not biology. If the American Psychiatric Association (the guys who publish the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) were to make a similar statement, it would be a better argument, as psychiatry encompasses biology and psychology. A psychiatrist has an MD or DO, a psychologist doesn't.

    I really don't care whether people are gay or straight, or what makes them that way. Someone else's sexuality is not something that affects me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8 Biology and Sexual Orientation 
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    1,003
    A well written Wiki article with many references.

    The WorldNetDaily article posted on this board tried to play on peoples limited understanding of genetics--as if every trait, physical and personality, were a function of one gene per trait. This article covers the current theories as to the many biological factors--genes, prenatal hormones and brain structure.

    Biology and sexual orientation is the subject of research into possible biological influences on the development of human sexual orientation. No simple cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, and there is no scientific consensus as to whether the contributing factors are primarily biological or environmental. Many think both play complex roles. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have both stated that sexual orientation probably has multiple causes. Research has identified several biological factors which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual orientation. These include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure. Conclusive proof of a biological cause of sexual orientation would have significant political and cultural implications.
    There is a wealth of great info in this article with many links to the most recent studies done in behavioral science and pediatrics. The article also does mention the contrarian viewpoint:

    The perceived causes of sexual orientation have a significant bearing on the status of sexual minorities in the eyes of social conservatives. The Family Research Council, a conservative Christian think tank in Washington, D.C., argues in the book Getting It Straight that finding people are born gay "would advance the idea that sexual orientation is an innate characteristic, like race; that homosexuals, like African-Americans, should be legally protected against 'discrimination;' and that disapproval of homosexuality should be as socially stigmatized as racism. However, it is not true." On the other hand, some social conservatives such as Reverend Robert Schenck have argued that people can accept the "inevitable... scientific evidence" while still morally opposing homosexuality.
    I understand that Christian think tanks would like to continue the 'choice' belief, but if someone could explain how you can reconcile accepting Homosexuality as a hard-wired personality trait and still argue that is immoral. (re: Rev. Schenck statement in bold)

    Doesn't morality deal with things that are a matter of freewill and choice? If we accept that a gay person had no choice in the matter of his sexual orientation, then how does morality become an issue?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,000
    Wikipedia articles are not trusted sources of information.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    11,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Jfor View Post
    Wikipedia articles are not trusted sources of information.
    And WorldNetDaily is? :p
    "Today, [the American voter] chooses his rulers as he buys bootleg whiskey, never knowing precisely what he is getting, only certain that it is not what it pretends to be." - H.L. Mencken
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •