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 ...
How could it possibly be considered love. If you knew the very acts you perform with your partner would lead to serious medical issues, some of them recurring, some even deadly, would you do that with someone you love? I would guess not. It isn't about love, it is about having gradually sunk to ever lowering standards of depravity.
The book is written by Wright and Cummings who are (self identified) lifelong liberal activists. The above link is an Amazon link. Here's a review from NARTH: http://www.narth.com/docs/destructive.html.
The libertarian view is to live and let live. We don’t want people in our bedrooms, front yards, and gun cabinets.
Me, I am of the standpoint that it does not matter if being gay is a choice or not—so what if it is? As long as two consenting adults are keeping their behaviors in their bedrooms, hands-off as far as I’m concerned.
The government, and we, have no right to dictate what goes on in the hearts and minds—and between the bodies—of two consenting adults.
I am sorry but I don’t see how you can make a leap between extramarital sex, unwed mothers, porn, and homosexual sex. What you are attempting to described could be summarized with one word: hedonism. You also believe that part of the attraction is so that they can rebel against society.
I don’t have the time to go over the fallacies in your argument in detail, but having extramarital sex and wanting to look at naked women is quite natural. It would be fair to say that people (men) are born with these desires. Some men choose to control their desires. You then indicate that when people do these quite natural things they are prone to becomming homosexual. This makes no sense at all to those of us who don’t have an agenda. Sorry.
Actually, what gidget7 said was:
as people experiment with more and more forbidden pleasures, including drugs, they sometimes get introduced to homosexualityI'll expand on what I think gidget7 said: since there is no evidence of a gay gene, when men and women practice hedonism (your word) they can be introduced to same-sex sexual behavior.
Perhaps you disagree but you don't say why.
Then you say:
This makes no sense at all to those of us who don’t have an agenda
What agenda does gidget7 have? Please be specific.
bump
I said "since there is no evidence of a gay gene", and there isn't, "when men and women practice hedonism (your word) they can be introduced to same-sex sexual behavior.
That's like saying that hedonism leads to bestiality.
You're equating homosexuality with bestiality, not me. For what it's worth, I hope we haven't reached that low...
It's just not behavior that people fall into on a whim while they're seeking a good time.
But it's certainly a behavior some of those who practice hedonism can be introduced to. And I know people who have fallen into that exact behavior.
Her agenda, like yours, is that all homosexuals choose to be homosexual.
Earlier I asked you to read post 61 which if you had, you wouldn't have made the above statement. So go ahead and read post 61.
For some reason the idea that they are born this way insults your religious beliefs.
Just so you know, whenever somebody brings religion into the thread I point it out. And you brought religion into the thread, not me. My entire argument has always been based on science. Knowing that, what is my agenda?
As a former member of the APA before I quit in disgust, I know how to read their language. What they are actually saying is that despite substantial research efforts to identify a genetic factor, there has been no such factor identified.
You can't ever draw the conclusion that "there is no gay gene" because someday some bright researcher just might stumble across it. But so far and after years of searching, they haven't found it yet.
In the comparison to the previous edition of the brochure, this is a definite backtracking, and reflects lack of success in the "search for the gene." The rest of the stuff is about nature and nurture and is standard boilerplate.
Not for ALL homosexuals, but for some who seem to decide later in life, it can explain what happens. Others have been abused, or simply introduced to homosexual acts at a very vulnerable age, when their curiosity is peeked. Women (A lot of them!) are lesbians because they can seek pleasure without what they deem danger, of pregnancy. Some are what is called 4 year lesbians, through college.
Bottom line, there are many reasons they choose the lifestyle, it isn't as simply as why, but it is a behavior and a choice.
But they are NOT born that way.
Not quite. They're saying it's not any single factor, it's some complicated mixture of factors, of which genetics is probably a component. Nor can they isolate it to any other single factor -- such as "it's a choice".
Mr. Unruh, however, has no time for such subtleties. He, like WND in general, is more interested in his agenda.
Are you sure? You've certainly got an opinion on the matter, but if you ask a homosexual, he'll very likely tell you that he's always been that way, and at least some of those guys will be telling you the truth.
The question of "why" is probably far more complicated than you want it to be.
Well, at least it's an improvement over what it used to say.
A few years ago, looking for educational books about genetics to give to my children, I noticed many stated that there is a gay gene, as if the issue was settled and there was no doubt. At least the new statement is more balanced.
It has yet to be determined if you are being as dishonest as you claim them to be. We shall see.
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." Unruh's point is clear and obvious. Whether it's correct is another matter.
When Douglas Abbot says "caused by genetic mechanisms" he is referring to a one-to-one correspondence between genetics and, in this case, sexuality. There is no one-to-one correspondence between sexuality and genetics, therefore, in context, "it can't be genetic." It is really quite simple.
You're questioning WND as a source, but you also should question what someone tells you. Not even a person himself knows all of the factors involved in his own development. He may believe he was born-that-way, but that doesn't make it true; he himself probably doesn't know.
Doesn’t surprise me one bit. I had come to the personal conclusion years ago that homosexuality is a mental disorder, a form of narcissism due to injury in the object management phase of development. The core definition of narcissism is “falling in love with one’s own image”. What could be more that definition than homosexuality? We are a product of our thought process more than anything else IMHO. As goes the brain so goes the body. As far as a cure, some psychologists say you can cure adult narcissism but most also agree it is a job for only the truly masochistic.
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.