'Gay' Gene Claim Suddenly Vanishes

World Net Daily ^ | May 13, 2009 | Bob Unruh

[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."

[a fool in paradise]

If the men only get erections for other men, how do some get married and have kids and wait 30 years to decide that was all a “lie”?

[a fool in paradise]

It may not be scientific, but the courts have taken homosexuality to be as immutible as skin color.

False. Courts rule all the time that when a person "changes" his or her sex (through hormone treatments and visual alteration of secondary sex traits) the courts bestow all sorts of protections against discrimination under their "new" identity (including the right to enter the restrooms and dressing rooms of members of the opposite sex).

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

I have no idea. Maybe they are bi-sexual? I guess you’re saying that after 30 years they make a choice that they’d rather suck on d-—s? Makes total sense to me (/sarc).

[scripter]

So you think there are men who choose to get erections for other men?

Well, there is http://queerbychoice.com. But the vast majority? No. Please read post 61. See my profile for more info.

[wagglebee]

Homosexual Agenda and Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[a fool in paradise]

Clearly they decide that it means more to them than people the professed to love, including their own offspring.

[r9etb]

You don’t know it’s a malfunction? What did you think it produced?

You misunderstand. You introduced a new term into the discussion, and then referred to it as being self-evident according to some "definition" that you failed to provide. I was asking you to provide that definition. And unfortunately, your definition misses the point.

Gay sex is a total malfunction of the reproductive act. It produces nothing but disease, justified shame, and social breakdown.

Well, ok ... I will agree about the disease, shame, and social breakdown; and I'll agree that there's more to it than that.

But I'd point out that the question under discussion is what makes a person behave that way in the first place. What is the cause of the malfunction? You're not addressing the point.

BTW, it's not a "total malfunction," in the usual sense of the term; i.e., that nothing works as it should. My understanding of the mechanics of homosexual behavior is that the equipment itself is apparently fully functional; what's different about it, is that it's just employed in an aberrant pursuit. And again, the question is what would motivate a person to behave in that manner.

As an aside, that aberrant pursuit does not prevent a homosexual from normal procreation -- I know and know of practicing homosexuals who nevertheless have kids that were conceived in the usual way.

[r9etb]

I read it. I quoted the relevant portion from the APA statement.

And you're still dancing rather than answer the question. Should we play a waltz, or is a nice two-step more your style?

Or maybe you're just afraid to answer the question. Which is, just to remind you:

Do you believe that a person's genes play a role in determining his sexual orientation?

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

I am not going to argue with you because I really don’t care either way. Sorry.

[scripter]

For the last time: Your question uses incorrect terms. Rephrase using the correct terms which will demonstrate you understand the question.

[scripter]

I wouldn’t consider pointing you to more information as arguing, but I can understand your position.

[Enoughofthissocialism]

OK, sorry.

No, I didn't mean it was a physical malfunction. But it is biologically malfunctional to use the reproductive organs the way the sickos do.

Thus, homosexuality turns out to be a biological reproductive malfunction.

Nevertheless: the claim that their malfunctional predilection is of genetic origins is ridiculous because they are based around a reproductive malfunctional practice, and such things do not reproduce.

Bottom line is that it's not genetic in origin, but a recruited sickness.

We are probably on the same page here, but talking past each other without intending to.

[r9etb]

Let's compromise, Mr. Expert. You can provide any definition of "genes" you want.

Just answer the question:

Do you believe that a person's genes play a role in determining his sexual orientation?

Yes or no?

[manc]

agreed

I would go with the mental disorder caused by a sexual confusion on how to be satisfied

either way they should not be allowed to have a marriage based on a sexual turn on and should not be allowed to have kids though foster or adoption

Now I do not go north many times but for some reason many white collar elitist folk up in the north east seem to think it is cool being seen with a homo

is it in the water there or are they like the rest of the left who only go with what they are told to think

[r9etb]

But it is biologically malfunctional to use the reproductive organs the way the sickos do.

Careful of the terminology -- that could be a reference to a genetic predisposition, which is the topic under discussion.

Nevertheless: the claim that their malfunctional predilection is of genetic origins is ridiculous because they are based around a reproductive malfunctional practice, and such things do not reproduce.

That's not a logically sound statement. People can be genetically predisposed to a lot of things, and will not necessarily manifest those traits unless some other triggering event takes place (e.g., cancer or Type I diabetes). Or, such genetic predispositions may never manifest themselves, for various reasons.

If we hypothesize that homosexual behavior has a genetic component, we would place it in the same class as the above: the genetic aspect might not, in itself, be fully determinative of homosexual behavior, but in conjunction with other factors could make itself known.

And, for that matter, there is no need to assume that a person is "fully homosexual." As I noted above, I know or know of a number of practicing homosexuals who have children that were conceived in the normal way. If there is a genetic component to homosexuality, a genetic predisposition could be passed on.

It's a complicated situation -- I don't believe there is any one cause. However, I do believe that many homosexuals have had a predisposition toward it from birth; that there's something in their genetic makeup that makes them lean the way they do.

And because it's complicated, I would go so far as to say that there are probably people who are considered heterosexual who have the same predisposition, that just hasn't been triggered in the same way.

[manc]

I lived up in MA for some time, had to unfortunately and WOW it seemed many folks went to see a shrink so I decided to see what all the fuss was and made an appointment

This woman was out of her head, I thought I was helping her when sitting there. She was completely fried in the brain especially when I said things like what do you mean white trash, why would you say that, if I said black trash you would call that racist.

I swear I did this all of the appointment and she was glad to see the back of me as she had no answers but just liberal left wing loon speeches and slogans

Later that year I saw her going into an office I was visiting to see a shrink

LOL

[Enoughofthissocialism]

Thanks for the clarification. I guess we ARE in disagreement.

I do not believe there is any genetic predisposition to self-genocidal behavior.

One has to choose to be that kind of sicko.

As another poster put it, what the pillow-biters REALLY want is for there to be no judgment of their disgusting actions. Too bad. Even little children find them disgusting. It's just natural. They will NEVER have full acceptance.

[manc]

LOL

I ask them before we get into the debate so they do not know where I will come from and then say well if you believe in Nature and Darwin then surely we are here to reproduce to keep our species going and alive for another generation and with that why didn’t nature make it so for homosexuals to reproduce.
Isn’t that the an unnatural act

the usual answer is dur dur dur and then go off on the talking points with no direct answer to what I have said

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Do you believe that a person's genes play a role in determining his sexual orientation?

Just butting in here, but would you consider the statement "a person's genes play no known role in determining his sexual orientation" to be valid, based on the APA paper?

[scripter]

I side with what science says on the matter, post 39:

• no credible scientist will state gays are born with their same-sex attraction
• there isn't a single credible study supporting the born that way theory
• the ex-gay population is growing
• environment is a key factor in all studies on same-sex attraction

From post 102:

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.

Homosexuality is not inherited.

What is meant by genetic component? By genetic component, scientists mean linkages and associations. What confuses people is how little linkages and associations play into the mix as those who don't understand the science take linkages and associations to mean causation. Scientists know they don't.

There is no such thing as a gay gene.

No ifs, ands or buts about it, science is quite hostile to the born that way theory of homosexuality.

A summary of the scientific evidence is that homosexuals are not born with their same-sex attraction, but neither do the vast majority choose their same-sex attraction.

Here's a primer on the subject: How Might Homosexuality Develop? Putting the Pieces Together

An interesting article: "Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired," Concludes Dr. Francis S. Collins, Head Of The Human Genome Project

How would you summarize the above?