'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."

[Lucky Dog]

1) The term, sexual orientation, has no practical relevance to the debate on homosexual behavior. This term (sexual orientation) is an expression based exclusively on “feelings.” To contend that only “feelings” can categorically define a person is to maintain that “feelings of “lust” define one as a rapist or “feelings” of “anger” define one as a murderer or “feelings” of “greed” define one as a thief. Therefore, one’s “feelings” toward members of either sex are irrelevant to how one rationally chooses to behave with, or toward, another individual.

2) Homosexuality is defined in a practical sense only by behavior. The reason (genetic, childhood abuse, etc.) homosexual practitioners choose to behave as they do is purely an item of idle curiosity unless their behavior requires clinical intervention for modification. If behavior modification requires clinical intervention then the issue of psychosis (as in an irresistible, compulsive, mental disorder) is on the table.

3) If homosexual behavior is a psychosis, then it is validly subject to treatment and possible cure. Consequently, like other psychoses, its sufferers should be given curative therapy whenever possible. If these individuals refuse or reject curative therapy and represent a significant danger to themselves and/or serious disruption to public order, they should be humanely confined with other dangerous, mentally ill people until they accept and benefit from curative therapy.

4) Any mentally healthy (in the sense of not having some irresistible, compulsive, mental disorder) human being chooses his or her behavior.

5) Therefore, one is a homosexual purely by choosing to be so. Additionally, everyone bears the consequences for their decisions. That behavioral responsibility extends to the impacts, both, to themselves and to others.

Finally, if homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is/should be subject to the same types of societal behavioral regulations/norms/laws as is any other sexual behavior such as pedophilia, pederasty, prostitution, polygamy, polyandry, etc.

[r9etb]

I think it is all semantics really and feel that you are attacking the messenger.

In this case the messenger is being dishonest ... so, yeah, I'll attack him.

The fact is that APA has made fools of themselves, again, by referencing unproven, unrepeated, shoddy studies to promote an agenda (and vaguely without specific reference at that). They now have to back off what they did with another vague statement filled with generalities and undocumented “consensus” type verbiage.

As my mom used to say, "two wrongs don't make a right." Messrs. Unruh and Byrd are making similarly shoddy assertions.

If the APA was wrong, that doesn't make these two guys right. They can be dishonest as well -- and I believe that's exactly what they are.

[r9etb]

The term, sexual orientation, has no practical relevance to the debate on homosexual behavior.

Oh, pooh. That's just silly. Common sense says that you are more likely to act on the urges you do have, than on the urges you don't have.

The root cause of those urges is what's being discussed here. We can agree that homosexuality is an undesirable affliction; but we should at the same time be honest about its characteristics.

[Lucky Dog]

Common sense says that you are more likely to act on the urges you do have, than on the urges you don't have. [Emphasis added.]

You have refuted your point in your own statement, i.e., without an action it doesn't matter what urges you have.

[scripter]

You're changing the subject again and now using misdirection.

I asked you to support your statement in post 60 and you haven't. Here is what you said:

Unruh and Byrd to say there is no genetic component.

Again I ask: Where do you see Unruh and Byrd saying there is no genetic component?

[drjulie]

We certainly agree that there is a difference between orientation and behavior. However, I believe that orientation is relevant (i.e., someone is more likely to engage in homosexual activity if he/she is attracted to people of the same sex). If a person wants to be treated for an “orientation”, I have no problem with that, nor does the APA. However, evidence that such treatments work is pretty thin, in my assessment.

[r9etb]

You have refuted your point in your own statement, i.e., without an action it doesn't matter what urges you have.

If, however, you want to engage in a grown-up discussion about those actions, you would be well-advised to consider the basis for them, rather than pretending that they're random.

[r9etb]

What part of "no gay gene" do you not understand? For there to be a genetic component at all ... there's got to be a gene.

To say there is "no gay gene" says that homosexuality has no genetic component. It cannot be otherwise.

This is simple stuff, FRiend. Mr. Unruh and Dr. Byrd are saying something quite direct. You seem to want to avoid that. Why?

[scripter]

To say there is "no gay gene" says that homosexuality has no genetic component. It cannot be otherwise.

Um... no. But the above comment certainly explains your confusion.

[r9etb]

Explain to me how there can be a genetic component without genes?

[Lucky Dog]

If, however, you want to engage in a grown-up discussion about those actions, you would be well-advised to consider the basis for them, rather than pretending that they're random. [Emphasis added]

Don't you agree that petty insults are somewhat less that grown up.

To your point: I do not need to consider the basis for the actions of thief to know that they are wrong or that the perpetrator should sanctioned for such. Nor do I need to consider such bases to assess that there is a negative impact upon individuals and society from these actions. Furthermore, I do not need to pretend that these bases are random. Practically speaking, all that is needed is a way of deterring such.

If it can be said of homosexual behavior that there is a negative impact upon individuals and society from these actions, then the same logic applies.

[Lucky Dog]

We certainly agree that there is a difference between orientation and behavior.

If that behavior is manifestly and substantially detrimental to, both, the individual and society, then would you not agree that a deterrent sanction on those who willing perpetrate such is in order?

[scripter]

Explain to me how there can be a genetic component without genes?

It's indeed a complicated issue, which you said yourself. Perhaps your above question should be refined to: Since there is no gay gene, how can homosexuality have a genetic component?

My first post to you, post 61 (which you didn't reply to) provides some information you may find helpful. But if you still don't understand the differences after re-reading post 61, you should research the issue yourself.

[r9etb]

Don't you agree that petty insults are somewhat less that grown up.

It was not an insult, it was an observation. You're pretending that actions can be considered in isolation from motivations. Kids can get away with that kind of reasoning because they lack context. Grown-ups don't get that sort of free pass.

To your point: I do not need to consider the basis for the actions of thief to know that they are wrong or that the perpetrator should sanctioned for such.

We're not talking about theft. And even then, we can and often do make distinctions about theft based on the motives of the perpetrator. For example, the person who steals because he's starving, is in a different moral class from the person who steals because he likes to steal. Stupid kids who steal are different from career criminals, and are treated differently.

If it can be said of homosexual behavior that there is a negative impact upon individuals and society from these actions, then the same logic applies.

Here again, you are operating without context. I know homosexuals, both male and female, who are profoundly useful members of society; who are pretty private about their activities; and who don't spend a lot of time pushing their agenda on others. Aside from your attitude their behavior, what would make those particular folks "bad" for society?

It's not as simple as you would have it be.

[r9etb]

The link in Post 61 says that "many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles."

Nature, in this context, means there is a biological predisposition toward homosexuality; and that in turn implies something in the genetic makeup.

You, sir, are simply dancing around the point. It's not clear why.

[scripter]

Nature, in this context, means there is a biological predisposition toward homosexuality; and that in turn implies something in the genetic makeup.

You're close. Nature, in this context, means there is a genetic component, and genetic component means linkages and associations. What confuses people is how little linkages and associations play into the mix. But it doesn't imply a gay gene exists. Yes, it's complicated.

[r9etb]

Yes, it's complicated.

Not according to Unruh. For example, he drags out another "expert:"

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.

[GulfBreeze]

I don’t think so. To me you seem to be vested on one side of this. You are attacking someone over an overstatement, I don’t see dishonesty but whatever.

[The_Repugnant_Conservative]

Probably based on the Identical Twins research. They had to conclude that gene’s in and of themselves were not capable of being the sole cause.

Not surprisingly we are much more than just what our genes are coded for.

[r9etb]

To me you seem to be vested on one side of this.

I'm not. What I am "vested on," is honest discussion, of which this sadly typical WND piece is not an example.

You are attacking someone over an overstatement, I don’t see dishonesty but whatever.

The fact is that the APA says nothing close to what Mr. Unruh claims it said. His "overstatement" is deliberate and false. He is dishonest.