Skip to comments.'Gay gene' theory dealt a knockout punch
Posted on 05/14/2009 11:26:07 AM PDT by mikelets456
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."
(Excerpt) Read more at onenewsnow.com ...
The APA is not a body of physicians which is why they have shifted countless diagnoses and treatments over the years to comply with liberal dogma.
The APA declaring what and what isn’t a gene is largely meaningless until and unless a medical organization like the AMA chimes in.
They aren’t born that way.
But the majority of them are introduced to that behavior when they are still young, effectively rewiring their emotional/physical connections.
That’s why homosexuality is like a cancer. One cell infects others, which in turn infects others.
Gee? Who would've thunk? One of the pillars of the pink mafia just fell over.
Of course, their relentless recruiting and propogandizing didn't help either. Because if it was something people were born with, why would they work so tirelessly to recruit?
It’s really too bad that there isn’t a gay gene.
It would have seriously great popcorn time to see the abortionists vs. the homosexuals when people started to abort their gay gene babies.
A Scientific Look at Sexual Orientation.
My Genes Made Me Do It is one of the most comprehensive and easily-read books in the popular market today on science and homosexuality. It is an objective review of more than 10,000 scientific research papers and publications from all sides of the debate.
In simple and clear terms, by analysis of the science, it shows homosexuality cannot be biologically innate, or fixed - leaving the only other possibility: a complex individual response to familial, peer, social and cultural environments.
actually it may be VERY relevant because homoactivists use the “born that way” meme in courts.
In fact the FL Bar, OVER THE OBJECTIONS OF MEMBERS, recently ENDORSED a group of homosexual activists in the name of the Bar, submitting an amicus brief in favor of allowing homosexuals access to children in adoption.
Court hears arguments on gay adoption amicus brief
By Jan Pudlow
How far should the Florida Supreme Court go in micromanaging day-to-day decisions of The Florida Bar Board of Governors involving sections, those voluntary subgroups that take bolder positions than the entire Bar?
That question from Justice Fred Lewis set the stage at oral arguments April 22 in Liberty Counsel v. The Florida Bar Board of Governors (case no. SC09-363), involving whether the Family Law Section should be allowed to file an amicus brief in support of a trial judges ruling declaring Floridas gay adoption ban unconstitutional.
Certainly, this court does not want to or should not get involved in micromanaging the Bar. On the other hand, this court is the administrative head of the Bar, answered Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, which describes itself as a nonprofit public interest law firm with a mission of restoring the culture one case at a time by advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life, and the traditional family.
As administrative head of the Bar, the high court should grant injunctive relief, Staver urged, and prohibit the section from filing an amicus brief supporting 11th Circuit Judge Cindy Ledermans November 25, 2008, decision to declare F.S. §63.042(3) unconstitutional and to allow a homosexual foster parent to adopt two brothers he had nurtured for four years.
When the Board of Governors voted on January 30 to allow the Family Law Section to file the amicus brief, Staver argued, the Bar violated its own standing policy and impermissibly injected itself into a political, controversial issue that has the potential to cause deep division among substantial members of a segment of the Bar.
The Board of Governors knew it was a divisive issue, Staver argued, because in 2004 and 2005 the board had denied allowing the Family Law Section to both lobby to repeal the anti-gay adoption law that sets Florida apart in the country, and to lobby that some homosexual foster parents should be allowed to adopt.
In both instances, Staver noted, the Board of Governors cited Rule 8.10-A(3), codification of the Schwarz decision, where the Florida Supreme Court established standards for spending Bar resources on legislative activity to avoid, to the extent possible, those issues which carry the potential of deep philosophical or emotional division among the membership of the Bar.
Barry Richard, outside counsel for the Bar, countered: I believe this court should not become involved in telling the sections what they can or cannot lobby on. The Board of Governors can never violate anything as long as it doesnt obstruct the sections ability to do something. . . .
I call to the courts attention the fact that this was a unanimous decision of this board. There was one recusal, but there was not a single dissent from this, which strongly suggests there was not any divisive issue here.
Dominating the questioning was Justice Barbara Pariente, who noted the Keller, Schwarz, and Frankel decisions cited by Staver did not involve activities by a voluntary section, and in Frankel, the justices said: Please, let the sections do these things that the whole Bar cannot.
In addition, never has this court become involved in whether or not a section of the Bar should or should not be able to file in a case pending in an appellate court, Pariente said.
Staver responded: Even though this is the first time this court has addressed the issue of the sections, in this case, the way the sections are set up, they are essentially extensions of the Bar.
Justice Charles Canady said: If we were to agree with you that the Bar erred in approving this because it is inconsistent with [standing board policy, 8.10-A(3)], how would you deal with the argument that the Bar can waive those policies anyway?
Canady noted that bylaw 2.9-2 provides that any standing board policy may be waived by a two-thirds vote of those present at any regular meeting of the Board of Governors.
Staver answered that waiver cannot be done implicitly. Further, because this case involving the gay adoption will no doubt come before this court, Staver said it puts judges who are members of the Family Law Section in essential conflict or an uneasy position.
But Richard maintained that membership in the Family Law Section is entirely voluntary and that the Florida Supreme Court has recognized that sections can engage in political ideology that the Bar cannot.
The Board of Governors, he said, did not endorse and took no action on behalf of the entire Florida Bar when it voted not to stand in the way of the Family Law Section filing an amicus brief.
Rather, Richard said, to comply with the cautionary language in Schwarz, the Bar took the default position by finding the issue was within the sections subject matter jurisdiction, was not unduly divisive, and was outside the boards purview. Then it takes no position, and the section is permitted to act under those circumstances.
Pariente commented: If this was in the 50s, school integration would have carried deep philosophical or emotional division, and the Bar, the way they set up their standing policies, would have stifled the sections from being able to get involved in controversial issues.
Richard replied: I can tell this court that the Bar is really not suggesting to this court that it should not take a position, if it desires to do so, on something being divisive. The Bar is comfortable with that.
If this court wants to impose a rule, which in fact the Bar will probably adopt anyway after this, that says, You must take a separate vote whether or not it is divisive, the Bar is completely comfortable with that.
All Im suggesting to this court is that it should not place restrictions on the ability of the voluntary sections to take positions, because the effect of that would be to turn the Bar into a sterile organization and to drive those people in the sections out into a myriad of independent organizations that would be bad for all of us.
In addressing a comment from Justice Lewis that theres really not much distinction between sections and the Bar, and a section files its brief with the imprimatur of the Bar Richard said it would open a real can of worms involving First Amendment rights.
Because how far do we go? When the president of The Florida Bar makes a statement, it is not reported in the press as being an individual statement; it is reported as a statement of the president of the Bar. The same is true of a member of the board. Are we next going to tell those officers that they cannot personally speak out because individuals in the public may associate it as a position of the Bar? . . .
I suggest that the answer to that is a recurring theme that we see in United States Supreme Court decisions on the First Amendment, which is that we cannot apply the First Amendment based upon the assumption that members of the public are not capable of thinking for themselves.
People understand that when an organization takes a position, it is not necessarily the belief of every member of the organization.
People understand that when the president of the Bar says something, or a member of the board says something, or a section of the Bar says something, that is not necessarily the position of every other section of the Bar itself or every member of the Bar. . . .
This court has established a wonderful balance that enables the Bar to include, within its umbrella, voluntary groups, self-funded, that can speak out on issues that those groups decide are important.
But at the same time, this court has said that that aspect of the Bar that is compulsory, which you must belong to, which you must support financially, is restrained, by the way, more than most of the unified bars in the United States are, Richard continued.
The Florida Bar is first when it comes to the narrowness of the restraints on what the Bar itself can do. That balance has served us well since 1949, or at least the mid-50s when the sections were created. I would urge the court to retain it.
If "Gayness" IS genetic, then we must assume that it has survived in the gene pool because of societies stigma against homosexuality, which has forced people with the gay gene into heterosexual relationships, thus allowing them to reproduce the gay gene.
Then wouldn't the entire gay pride/gay marriage movement essentially destroy homosexuality in a few generations?
Actually that’s kind of too bad. Were homosexuality to be proved genetic and that gene could be tested for, one of two beneficial outcomes would likely arise. Either abortions would have to be outlawed to prevent Eugenic elimination of the disorder from society or Homosexuality would be at least greatly reduced.
LOL like 90X!!!
They say they are merely helping people to understand their true selves. Statistically homosexuality is probably in the 1-2% range. The Left claims 10%. Homosexual “activists” accept 10% but every single person they see anywhere is obviously in that 10% and must be helped to “come out.”
To be fair, just because there is no single specific gene does not mean that there isn’t a genetic basis for the phenotype.
There is no “black” gene or “Asian” gene or “Jewish” gene, but a child is clearly born black or Asian or Jewish. Rather than a single gene controlling the phenotype (such as with eye color), the genetic basis for ethnicity is a collection of genes that occur with varying degrees of frequency within a demographic.
Likewise, it’s very unlikely that there would be a single gene that would render a child homosexual, but varying combinations of genes could still theoretically predispose a child one way or the other. For example, there are several genes apiece that control the releases of hormones such as testosterone, estrogen, oxytocin, vasopresin, and other hormones that are generally sex-differentiated. Having unusually high or low levels of such hormones could cause sex-role-anomalous behavior.
For example, low testosterone combined with a very sensitive amygdala could make a boy instinctively scared of aggression displays; his fight-or-flight response would prompt him to flee rather than fight, and as such he probably would develop a dislike for toy weapons or sports. He’d be more likely to entertain non-threatening hobbies like arts-and-crafts or musical theater, where these gay predispositions would be socially reinforced.
This just sounds fruity to me ;-)!
My husband has a theory that homosexuality may be caused by a virus
Well played sir, well played indeed....
It probably happens in utero, and most likely due to chemical pollutants. BPA in a lot of plastics and just about everywhere in the mother’s environment, and a lot of other estrogenic chemicals. Some of the worst is found in chemical sunscreens, and as you can see yourself by googling toxic and sunscreens, the estrogenic chemicals will cause feminization in the brain and problems in the sex organs in males, cancer and infertility in women.
This feminization effect is most pronounced when the exposure to these chemicals is at a very young age, either in utero or as a young child. Mothers are told to wear sunscreen when pregnant and to slather it on their babies as of 6 months old. It goes from the skin straight into the bloodstream and crosses the placenta.
Baby bottles routinely were made out of BPA plastics in the past 30 years. There is a lot of exposure otherwise as well.
For decades we’ve studied the sexual deformation and changes in sexual behavior in other animals as their habitats have become polluted. We shouldn’t be surprised now at the high rate of both male homosexuality, and babies born with mild deformations of the penis (usually hypospadias or undescended testicles).
Go to Pfox’s site and you’ll see many thousands have changed from a “homosexual” lifestyle to a Heterosexual lifestyle. If there was a “gay gene” there would be no chance of being gay then straight! People are pre-disposed to all sorts of “battles” in their life. Gosh, I struggle with “worry”, does that mean I was born that way? My buddy struggles with womanizing...can he explain to his wife that he was born that way? Now we are justified in our actions? Now kids have to accept worry and womanizing and learn in school that it’s their right to act like that? Make sense? Come on, we all have our “secrets” we need to battle and this “anything goes mentality is total BS. People there are rules, etc or societies social and moral fabric will suffer!! Look it up...every country that falls loses all morals and values.
For the most part, the ex-gays I have spoke to all have similar stories of sexual or verbal abuse. Loneliness, despair and hopelessness drove them to homosexuality.
I have often heard it said, that people can’t help how they are born. They just trigger on the same sex, and that’s not their fault.
Then you get a 50 year old husband or wife that all of a sudden swaps teams. (if you catch my drift)
If the ‘trigger’ mechanism is genetic, then this shouldn’t happen. At least for males, if you don’t get sparks in the attic, there’s no juice in the basement.
I certainly can’t say this is true in all cases, but the evidence proves beyond a doubt, that the genetic theory is a bogus deflection of guilt in at least some cases. I suspect it is in most cases.
Will every guy grow up to be as virile as Tom Selick? No. That’s okay. It doesn’t mean that those who aren’t, are homosexuals and can’t function on the heterosexual field of play.
From what I’ve read and heard about anecdotally, most male homosexuals were sexually abused as children. If that’s true the only way homosexuals have to reproduce themselves is to molest little boys.
You are correct about there being no one “gene” for being “black” or “asian” in appearance. Children who have a black parent and a white parent can display physical characteristics along a continuum between the parents.
This is an interesting article on the subject of whether there is a “gay” gene.
“Bocklandt has collected DNA from two groups of 15 pairs of identical twins. In one group, both twins are gay. In the second, one twin is gay, and the other is straight. Identical twins have the same DNA, but the activity of their genes isnt necessarily the same. The reason is something called methylation.
“Methylation turns off certain sections of genetic code. So even though we inherit two copies of every geneone from our mother, one from our fatherwhether the gene is methylated often determines which of the two genes will be turned on. Methylation is inherited, just as DNA is. But unlike DNA, which has an enzyme that proofreads both the original and the copy to minimize errors, methylation has no built-in checks. It can change from one generation to the next and may be influenced by diet or environment.”
Then there is also a theory that exposure to hormones in the womb influences sexual orientation.
Where is you scientific proof?
Homosexuality cannot be genetic — otherwise the gene would die out in only a few generations. Homosexuals do not reproduce fast enough to sustain existence.
Homosexuality is likely a chemical problem leading to a mental disorder. That it is likely a medical problem does not absolve its practicioners from responsibility — it merely offers and explanation as to why most people don’t have the temptation, while a some do. Resisting our immoral temptations — whether they are heterosexual, homosexual, theft, or murder — is the responsibility of each individual.
Your last paragraph deals with predispositions to activitivies, not the issue of attraction to certain types of sex.
It would be remarkable to find that there was any genetic predisposition to want to put a penis in an anus rather than a vagina.
Two guys loving each other is just two guys having love for one another. I can see any male having the ability to “fall in love”, meaning to develop a loving, nurturing relationship, with any other human being, whether they are male or female.
But “homosexuality” is simply about what parts you use to satisfy sexual urges.
Which is why heterosexual men have “gay sex” in prison — the gay rights activists aren’t stupid enough to suggest that most criminals are gay men, so they have to admit that “gay sex” has nothing to do with inate attractiveness to other humans.
And it is also why a man can be sexually attracted to another man if that other man simply puts on a wig and pretends to be female. If sexual attraction was built into genes and was hormonal, the male heterosexual would inately be able to tell that the person they were with was not of the sex they were attracted to.
But in fact, sexual attraction is largely about desiring sexual gratification, and years of training in what is supposed to be “sexually attractive”.
So if you grow up in a society where women hide their faces, you get aroused by seeing a face. Grow up nudist, and your arousal is built on some other factor. Grow up being told that other men are attractive, you will find other men attractive. If society teaches that heavy women are desirable, people will want to have sex with heavy women, if we say that thin girls are the thing, people go after thin girls.
We allow homosexual activists to steal the argument when they mix raw physical sexual urges with the concept of love and relationships.
Something you should have included, is that the media and government have decided to feminize males. The media can’t seem to find a plot for males that doesn’t include some major women’s traits somewhere along the way. I realize that there are action movies that seem to skirt this view, but if you’ll watch closely, the men in these genres are often out-thought by their female sidekicks. Thus the man becomes a mindless brute, while the woman is a brilliant strategist and so much more the real power behind the success of the mission.
Of course our courts have essentially made men into slobbering mindless goons, as they in all too many cases are removed from the decision making processes regarding their children, have only 15% or so of access to their children, and the paternal side of the family has their influence on the child essentially eliminated.
In today’s culture, the male is expendable. As long as he performs as a donor and provides that income stream, he’s done his job. At times even the donor party isn’t a requirement.
Gay gene or no gay gene doesn’t prove that “gayness” is normal. Down Syndrome people are born that way. Does that make them normal? No denigration of Down Syndrome people intended. It’s just reality.
It’s just ‘queerness’, noone understands it!
My comments were not about morality or judgment. I don’t really disagree with you; no reason to get defensive. :)
It may very well be true that homosexuality has genetic components. That statement is scientifically verifiable. That statement is also completely independent of whether to regard homosexual behavior as a normal expression of one’s natural self, or to regard the underlying predisposition as a chronic disease to be overcome.
I have a genetic predisposition for high blood pressure and obesity. This does not mean I let myself get as much weight as I can and eat the greasiest foods I can find. Quite the contrary, it means I must work that much harder to stay healthy and in shape.
As always, your genetic predisposition does not need to determine your behavior. Being predisposed to obesity does not mean you must be fat. Being predisposed to womanizing does not mean you must cheat on your wife. Likewise, being predisposed to homosexuality does not mean you must [CENSORED].
(Though personally, to be honest I really don’t care.)
The AMA . . .
and that exclusive club of paragon moralists who have been
sooooooooooooooo generous in approving, supporting, defending, and getting rich off of . . .
You’re suggesting I’d do better having THEM advise me?
ROTFLOL—TO THE MAX!
Agreed, with one minor point of disagreement...
“If society teaches that heavy women are desirable, people will want to have sex with heavy women”
I don’t see that happening.
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
In other words, aberrations and perverts are made, not born! Well thanks a lot, Mr and Mrs Frank!
The comment was about the APA vis-a-vis medical expertise, specifically genetics.
I’m not saying the AMA are angels - far from it. But they ARE physicians.
And what an unfortunate name for the author...
I’m all for turning their arguments against them.
I believe someone once said that despite the ‘gay is gay and it will never change’ militant outlook that they really don’t want a gene found if it in fact exists for a whole host of reasons.
How would you like to be a conjoined twin (sharing a body from the waist down) in this sceniaro? Date night for your brother could be a royal pain in the ass.
I'd tend to agree though I've read credible sources where it might be as high as 3%. At any rate, probably no more than one-third are what I would consider hard-core incurable, including those which would not want to be cured.
I've had so many problems with these perverts (don't know if they are homo or not, but suspect that may be the cast) remarking on my privates since I am large in that area, that I go to great lengths to avoid any exposure in places like public dressing rooms .
Meanwhile, I lived in Japan nearly 14 years where I'd look like Godzilla by comparison and never got these remarks or stares one single time under the exact same circumstances. So, though I doubt that the percentage of homos between our countries is all that different, the militancy is definitely like night and day different.
Sorry, but they ain’t born that way. If they were there would not be this flip flopping from male to female to both. Of course there is NO GENE because it’s a choice. There is no “choice” gene! Just like cheating on your spouse, lying, doing drugs, etc....there is no gene!
Everyone wants to blame their “differences” on something instead of taking responsibility! The drunk blames it on his Dad, the worrier on his Mom and so on. Gosh, just fess up that you have a problem and change it! Don’t force people to accept your “choices”. If you want to be gay, so be it...it’s your choice. But don’t expect me to endorse it or let you tell young kids it’s OK and lead them on to “be GAY”! Don’t FORCE society to accept your perverted desires....remember acceptance goes both ways.
BTW, I am not pointing this post directly at you...just in general.
We can only hope. SEeing as how they seem to be winning.
Well, I am in the biosciences and have always believed that for male homosexuals, a very strong genetic component exists. Here's the reasoning:
--Some individuals evidence pre-homosexual traits very early on, e.g., some little boys play with dolls and not guns, they always want to perform, dress in mommy's clothes, etc
--Why, if it indeed were a choice, would any guy choose a lifestyle that marginalizes him, gets the tar beat out of him at times and just makes life tougher?
--Something that is SO important to the survival of a species, i.e., successful coupling with the opposite sex, how could nature (or God) leave that to chance?
--Humans are very visual-cue oriented when it comes to sex; it would be, I believe, an impossible task to talk a gay guy into being turned on by breasts and women's behinds as it would be to talk you or me into liking a guy's hairy butt
And there's more from biology, but I will spare you. As far as your point about controlling their urges, well, sex is a pretty strong urge and while some can no doubt control that aspect of their behavior, for many it would undoubtedly be tough.
And while I do beieve what I have said here, I in NO WAY support their collective political agenda (gay marriage, grade school gay education, etc.).
The funniest post ever!!!
Too quick, too funny.
Only thing missing is Waylon and Madame.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Yes . . . and they have their proper turf, as well.
Though the UCSD Doc who taught my psychoactive drugs class said that he taught us what—25 hours or more such material beyond what he was able to teach the UCSD psychiatrists.
I’ve known a lot of fine MD’s—even some fine psychiatrists! LOL. And a surprising number of arrogant, self-serving, seemingly ignorant jerks.
And a surprising number of arrogant, self-serving, seemingly ignorant jerks.
—to be fair, I can say the same about some psychologists.
Absent, harsh, cold, distant, abusive, cruel, NONaffectionate fathers . . .
and/or smothering and/or absent, harsh, cold, distant, abusive, cruel mothers . . .
produce the most homosexuals . . .
Homosexual abuse of some significance at a critical age for that individual can easily result in such. Not implying that any such is not significant. However, not all such abuse results in homosexuality, by far.
Women who in the first trimester are carrying sons and who have a LOT of stress in their lives will have 20% above average numbers of homosexual sons, as a group.
Brothers who have a lot of older brothers have a higher incidence.
In one study, in 50% of the cases where one identical twin was homosexual, the other twin was homosexual. I don’t think the study was able to comment on environment vs genetics.
This is boot camp. All is grist for the mill.