"What are you saying...?"
Posted on 05/13/2009 7:07:43 AM PDT by conservativegramma
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."
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
True ... but if we attempt to discount the effect of our genetic makeup, as Mr. Unruh would apparently have us do in this case, we are lying to ourselves.
Second, you are clearly not familiar with the actual meaning of the terms genetic component, gay gene and genetics.
There is no evidence or research that claims homosexuality is genetic. There is no genetic test, experimental or otherwise that can determine one's sexual orientation.
Actually, it does say that. They admit hey have not found a gay gene. I guess you read a different article.
Would I sanction what two consenting adults do in private? No. One could argue that adultery, particularly when children are involved, is far more detrimental. I would be more inclined to sanction the latter than the former.
Unruh's words speak for themselves.
Second, you are clearly not familiar with the actual meaning of the terms genetic component, gay gene and genetics.
Oh, OK. Sure. Whatever.
There is no evidence or research that claims homosexuality is genetic. There is no genetic test, experimental or otherwise that can determine one's sexual orientation.
And are you therefore claiming that there is no genetic component -- nothing in a person's genes that predisposes him to a particular sexual orientation? Because that's what you seem to be saying right here.
Actually, it doesn't say that. Mr. Byrd says that -- but he's not the APA.
Unruh's words speak for themselves.
Yes, they do. But your misrepresentations of his words do not. Because you do not understand the terms, you do not understand what was said.
And are you therefore claiming that there is no genetic component -- nothing in a person's genes that predisposes him to a particular sexual orientation? Because that's what you seem to be saying right here.
This question demonstrates you don't know the subject matter.
I am not misrepresenting his words. His meaning is clear, and I have accurately stated it.
This question demonstrates you don't know the subject matter.
Actually, this question demonstrates my request for you to provide a clear and unambiguous answer to my question.
Do you believe that genes play a role in determining a person's sexual orientation?
That's a yes or no question. You refuse to answer it. Why?
Huh? What's your definition of "reproductive malfunction?"
Explain to me how there can be a genetic component without genes?What's truly sad is you don't even understand the question you're asking because you don't understand the terms. Get back to me when you can define the terms.
No, what's truly sad is you holding yourself out as some kind of expert, but you won't even answer a simple yes or no question.
Do you believe that a person's genes play a role in determining his sexual orientation?
Simple question. Dancy prancy scripter won't answer -- he just dances and prances. I wonder why?
Gay sex is a total malfunction of the reproductive act. It produces nothing but disease, justified shame, and social breakdown.
You don’t know it’s a malfunction? What did you think it produced?
It may be true but every single court case that determined anything in favor of homosexuals assumed the “born that way” meme.
It may not be scientific, but the courts have taken homosexuality to be as immutible as skin color.
perhaps it was a really really really really bad marriage with a really really really really bad marital sex life. It was so bad that...
Using the above and other posts from me as raw material, ask another question but use the correct terms or you'll, again, demonstrate you don't understand the question. Once you're able to ask the question using the correct terms, you'll realize you already know my answer. Well, I can hope.
I don’t think the behaviors can compare becaue one is an actual drug interation with the body. The other is a behvior on the body.
Perhaps it is more akin to not having another tattoo on the body. Not one more piercing.
regardless, homosexual advocates did it to themselves because their entire lifestyle is defined by a recreational sex act.
Indeed. And those on the left and some freepers have bought the born that way lie. The good news is we have the facts on our side. The bad news is nobody seems to care about the facts.
So you think there are men who choose to get erections for other men? It makes total sense to me that it is something they can be born with. I didn’t make a conscious choice to be attracted to the opposite sex, but I am. I can easily believe they are no different. All kinds of people are born with abnormal traits. This is not any different.
"What are you saying...?"
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.