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.
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/summary.pdf
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm
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
Senior Editor
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 judge’s ruling declaring Florida’s 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 Lederman’s 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 doesn’t obstruct the section’s ability to do something. . . .
“I call to the court’s 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 section’s subject matter jurisdiction, was not unduly divisive, and was outside the board’s 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 I’m 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 there’s 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.
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.