Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Gay' Gene Claim Suddenly Vanishes
World Net Daily ^ | May 13, 2009 | Bob Unruh

Posted on 05/13/2009 7:07:43 AM PDT by conservativegramma

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-187 next last

1 posted on 05/13/2009 7:07:43 AM PDT by conservativegramma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma

It was all a cover anyway. The Sex Positive agenda doesn’t CARE about the cause, advocates only believe that there should be NO moral judgements over sexual pairings of ANY kind.


2 posted on 05/13/2009 7:10:04 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (If Liberals are so upset over torture, why did they mock John McCains stiff arms during the campaign)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma

Some of these scientists should persue the existance of such a gene, and determine whether its presence can ultimately lead to the organisms cells chemically transforming into Salt.


3 posted on 05/13/2009 7:11:06 AM PDT by C210N (A patriot for a Conservative Renaissance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

With prez Obeyme, there’s no longer a need to promote the gay gene scam.


4 posted on 05/13/2009 7:11:52 AM PDT by newfreep ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." - P.J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Drive a leftist nuts with this question:

Assume there is a “gay gene.” Would you support selective abortion based on whether the fetus has the gene?


5 posted on 05/13/2009 7:12:12 AM PDT by Boiling Pots (Barack Obama: The final turd George W. Bush laid on America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma

 


6 posted on 05/13/2009 7:12:53 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boiling Pots

I love it!


7 posted on 05/13/2009 7:13:09 AM PDT by MNDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma
As far as I can see it's either:

A) A chosen lifestyle
B) Genetic flaw
C) Mental illness

They tell me it's not a choice; now they tell me it's not a gene. So, we're back where we were 40 years ago -- homosexuals suffer from a mental illness and in many cases they can be cured. The biggest roadblock to curing these sick people is the current "sex positive" view of their malady.

8 posted on 05/13/2009 7:13:15 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (American Revolution II -- overdue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma

What crap, there are lots of gay gene’s......Gene Robinson for example.

Now that we have gender selection through abortion the gay gene advocates are starting to think its not such a good idea to promote the gay gene idea.


9 posted on 05/13/2009 7:13:43 AM PDT by HerrBlucher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma
includes an admission that there is no "gay" gene

Sorry, Bob. That's not what the statement actually says.

But then, it's WND, so what do you expect?

10 posted on 05/13/2009 7:14:35 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma

“The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion.”

Are these researchers government funded?

They, and all tax drainees, should all be fired and forced to pick lettuce as thier pennance.


11 posted on 05/13/2009 7:14:44 AM PDT by ChetNavVet (Build It, and they won't come!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma

I’ve wonder how genetics would account for lisping and swishing.


12 posted on 05/13/2009 7:14:46 AM PDT by Mad_Tom_Rackham (What did Obama's Teleprompter know, and when did it know it...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma

‘no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.’

Beige....yes, It must be beige with lavender trim and those shoes just must go...


13 posted on 05/13/2009 7:15:00 AM PDT by Leg Olam (TOP SECRET! Os plan, 1 invade Poland 2 annex Sudetenland...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma

Like we didn’t know this..the smart people of this country know there is no gay gene..more likely these poor fools were raped by a person when they were young..Watch your children folks the Queers are on the run..


14 posted on 05/13/2009 7:15:25 AM PDT by PLD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma

I wonder how genetics would account for lisping and swishing.


15 posted on 05/13/2009 7:15:57 AM PDT by Mad_Tom_Rackham (What did Obama's Teleprompter know, and when did it know it...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma

If homosexuality was genetic, would liberals favor abortions for babies with such a genetic structure or would they scream “genocide”?


16 posted on 05/13/2009 7:16:09 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma
There is no consensus among scientists..

Science can only be established by voter approved opinion.

Galileo was a fraud.

17 posted on 05/13/2009 7:16:15 AM PDT by laotzu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma
Committee for the Traditional Family BUMP.
18 posted on 05/13/2009 7:16:36 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (As fruit of principled action incrementalism is God's Hand. As strategy, it's the devil's playground)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
They tell me it's not a choice; now they tell me it's not a gene.

Well, actually, it's only WND telling you it's not a gene, so you can take it for what it's worth -- which ain't much.

What the APA is really, saying is that the causes of homosexual behavior are complicated, and that you generally cannot isolate it to any single factor.

Poor Mr. Unruh, however, apparently cannot be bothered with complexities when he's got a deadline and an opinion.

19 posted on 05/13/2009 7:19:23 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma
I thought he died several years ago...


20 posted on 05/13/2009 7:19:51 AM PDT by SonOfDarkSkies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Sorry, Bob. That's not what the statement actually says.

*********************

It doesn't?

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:

.. "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."

21 posted on 05/13/2009 7:21:23 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
I'm sticking with God's explanation for why there is homosexual behavior:

Romans 1:25-27 (NASV)

25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,

27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

In a real sense it is a choice: the choice to reject God and His laws upon which HE [God] then in turn punishes the offender. Its not a genetic flaw (as now proven) but is in fact exactly what the Scriptures have always said it is: SIN. And its not a mental illness. It is willful rejection of God, sin, and judgement.

Pardon me while I leave and put on my flame suit and get ready for the coming Christian concentration camp...........

22 posted on 05/13/2009 7:22:36 AM PDT by conservativegramma ((No taxation without constitutional representation!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

I opt for #1...
Kelly McGillis decided to “turn gay” after being married to a man,saying she was “done with men”. Although I have long thought that there must be a genetic defect with the Hollywood crowd,I still think homosexuality is a choice,not something one is born with.


23 posted on 05/13/2009 7:24:10 AM PDT by gimme1ibertee (For the sake of our Republic....RAISE HOLY HELL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

If it is not a choice, then how do these homosexuals marry for 10 years, sire kids, and then DECIDE they’ve been living a lie?

If they are repulsed by the idea of being intimate with someone of the opposite sex, they wouldn’t have been able to proceed for so long.


24 posted on 05/13/2009 7:24:14 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (What happened to the end of the politics of personal destruction that Obama claimed to be bringing?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma

Well that settles it. This guy will never win the Miss USA crown.


25 posted on 05/13/2009 7:24:18 AM PDT by ontap (Just another backstabbing conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gimme1ibertee

She was also raped and that may have contributed to her sexist view of men.


26 posted on 05/13/2009 7:24:52 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (What happened to the end of the politics of personal destruction that Obama claimed to be bringing?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma

It’s a choice after all.

So how does this affect the “gay marriage” issue?


27 posted on 05/13/2009 7:25:01 AM PDT by HighlyOpinionated (Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann in 2012 ~~ Two Women to Clean the House and the Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boiling Pots

I believe the correlation of homosexuality to sexual abuse as a child is much higher than any “genetic propensity”.


28 posted on 05/13/2009 7:25:48 AM PDT by MrB (Go Galt now, Bowman later)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: gimme1ibertee

Kelly McGillis is “done with men” because, if you’ve seen recent photos, men are “done” with her.

She was fired long before she quit.

Just sayin’.


29 posted on 05/13/2009 7:26:01 AM PDT by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher

You are absolutely correct. The moment a gay gene is isolated and identifiable there will be women who will abort in order not to have a gay child. After all, they already abort in order to determine the gender of a child. Can you imagine what would happen if women started aborting genetically gay fetuses? The gay population would shrink dramatically. That’s the reason there will be no more research into the possibility of a gay gene.

My question is if it’s not genetic it is a choice. That would ultimately mean the religious groups who claim to be able to “convert” gays might just be possible.

I happen to believe it is genetic. I also think the gene should be isolated and let the chips fall where they may.


30 posted on 05/13/2009 7:26:43 AM PDT by kedd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: trisham
It doesn't?

It doesn't. You're quoting Dr. Byrd, "a doctor who has written about the issue on the website of National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality."

Which is to say, Dr. Byrd has an agenda, and most likely an income, that depends on his saying such things. I tend to distrust such fellows.

The APA's statement says nothing more or less than that the underlying causes are complicated. They most certainly do not rule out a genetic component; they do say that it's a complicated issue.

31 posted on 05/13/2009 7:29:46 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

“And some were from the womb”

My observation is the Eunuchs have always coveted the thrones they were inbred to serve.

Regardless of the cause, there is absolutely no evidence that the associated dysfunctional behavior is beneficial to the social and biological fitness of a society that normalizes it.


32 posted on 05/13/2009 7:31:36 AM PDT by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Well, actually, it's only WND telling you it's not a gene, so you can take it for what it's worth -- which ain't much.

Byrd wrote. "The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion. There is no gay gene. There is no simple biological pathway to homosexuality."

33 posted on 05/13/2009 7:32:08 AM PDT by marbren
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
I think it's caused by a hormonal imbalance during the first trimester of pregnancy, when the hypothalamus is being formed. With stress, past birth control pill use, steroids, and all the hormones in meat and milk, it's very possibly the cause. It would be interesting, wouldn't it, if they one day discovered that hormone therapy would "cure" homosexuality?

Nah, what am I thinking? That research would never receive funding.

34 posted on 05/13/2009 7:32:10 AM PDT by ponygirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma

Mental Health professionals once again admit they are idiots.

Seriously, I’ve never met a shrink who wasn’t crazy. How are they gonna help anybody?


35 posted on 05/13/2009 7:32:26 AM PDT by Seruzawa (Obamalama lied, the republic died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Well, actually, it's only WND telling you it's not a gene, so you can take it for what it's worth -- which ain't much.

Byrd wrote. "The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion. There is no gay gene. There is no simple biological pathway to homosexuality."

36 posted on 05/13/2009 7:32:29 AM PDT by marbren
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma
Byrd wrote. "The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion. There is no gay gene. There is no simple biological pathway to homosexuality."

Dumb B@stard! I'm going to run into his office and tear his diploma right off the wall!

How dare he say that ! This guy has no right being a doctor, he must be dragged through the dirt in the media and hounded out of the medical profession immediately!!

I'm going to scream and scream 'til I'm sick!

So there!

37 posted on 05/13/2009 7:34:19 AM PDT by Wil H (The most destructive act of Muslim terrorism against the US was paying for 0bama's Harvard education)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kedd
I happen to believe it is genetic. I also think the gene should be isolated and let the chips fall where they may.

Could very well be genetic, however, I am opposed to abortion so even if they find and isolate the gene I would be opposed to murdering the child simply for having the gene.

38 posted on 05/13/2009 7:40:06 AM PDT by HerrBlucher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma
I posted this a couple of days ago:

Simon LeVay is a scientist who also happens to be gay. Here is what he said in 1996:

People who think gays and lesbians are born that way are also more likely to support gay rights.
LeVay makes an interesting statement. Yet: Since science doesn't support the born that way theory, why do so many people support gay rights? Why should homosexuals be given any rights based on sexual behavior alone?
39 posted on 05/13/2009 7:40:14 AM PDT by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marbren
FWIW, Dr. Byrd himself would probably qualify as an "activist researcher." He certainly doesn't speak for the APA. Mr. Unruh is merely quoting the opinion of an interested (and opposing) party, and falsely attributing it to the APA.
40 posted on 05/13/2009 7:44:21 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: C210N

Excellent!
(took me two read-throughs to get it though...)


41 posted on 05/13/2009 7:44:59 AM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: scripter

It’s one of the spearheads in the war on the family.


42 posted on 05/13/2009 7:46:16 AM PDT by MrB (Go Galt now, Bowman later)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
"As far as I can see it's either:

A) A chosen lifestyle
B) Genetic flaw
C) Mental illness

As a recovering alcoholic, I suspect homosexuality is a very similar pathology to alcoholism. The "nature vs. nurture" debate can be become quite contentious, but is of no value to the afflicted. If I believe that alcoholism is a genetic matter, I can justify continued drinking on the basis that "I was born this way" and my predisposition is not my fault, and simply part of who I am. If I come to believe that it's a strictly behavioral matter, then I can ultimately make the case that I can control my drinking by choice, and justify returning to the bottle. If I view it all as a mental illness, I can obviate my role in the matter, and embrace my *victimhood* while waiting on a purely clinical solution.

You leave out a fourth possibility, which is where I, and countless other alcoholics have found relief and sanity, and where I suspect homosexuals could find similar peace, and that is confronting it as a spiritual issue, where we have sought to fill a void with our deviant, self-destructive behavior.

43 posted on 05/13/2009 7:48:25 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma
It's an evolutionary dead-end. I love asking them that if they believe so strongly in evolution, biology, and genetics, how they can support such an obviously counter-evolutionary, genetically unsupportable theory as a "homosexual gene".

Even if "it" did exist, its very nature would preclude procreation and the passage of the carrier's genes. It could therefore only be a randomly occurring, unique genetic phenomenon of single-generation duration (per "carrier") - which is essentially a mutation. If it's genetic, it would be an anomaly. And genetic anomalies die off. Quickly.

So, maybe it's something else. Like Mommy/Daddy issues? Recruitment by a "Funny Uncle"? Middle School Gym Teacher (ladies, you all know who I'm talking about)? Low sales resistance, maybe? Whatever. Even after years of sitting on a therapist's couch trying to figure out why they are so profoundly unhappy with the rest of their lives, they refuse to even consider that maybe the fundamental basis of their identity might just be a psychological disorder. Because then that would make them admit that they are, like the rest of us, flawed beings. Self-awareness....??? Nope....can't have any of that. It just gets in the way of that spiraling hedonistic rush to self-destruction.

That usually either shuts them up, causes them to try to deflect the discussion to some ridiculous "homophobe" strawman (doesn't work on me - I don't fear 'em, I just don't particularly care about 'em), or enrages them (which is usually pretty amusing to watch).

44 posted on 05/13/2009 7:49:49 AM PDT by conservativeharleyguy (Democrats: Over 60 million fooled daily!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma

All those ex-gays created a problem for this controversial “fact”?


45 posted on 05/13/2009 7:49:59 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
includes an admission that there is no "gay" gene

Did they stop making Jordache? Oh, it "gene", not "jean"...sorry...
46 posted on 05/13/2009 7:50:58 AM PDT by BikerJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma

A gene provides the code for generally one (there are exceptions) protein. There are some appearances, conditions or illnesses which are the product of the presence or absence of a a particular protein. I think Albinism and Sicle Cell Anemia are examples of such conditions/illnesses. I cannot imagine that any behavior could be explained by the presence or absence of a single protein. I suspect that almost all behavioral traits are the product of many genes, nature, and one’s free will. I’ll take a wild guess that so many genes are involved that it is not currently practical to collect the data (study enough people) or have the computational power to map human behaviors to a particular set of genes. So yes, I don’t believe there is a single ‘homosexual gene’ but I believe there is a strong genetic component. I know I couldn’t suddenly ‘decide’ that I was no longer heterosexual.


47 posted on 05/13/2009 7:51:42 AM PDT by posterchild (Endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable rights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

Imho, it’s a distinction without a difference:

“What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?

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; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”

http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whatcauses


48 posted on 05/13/2009 7:51:44 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: r9etb; trisham

What is very clear is that APA is very significantly backing down from an aggressive position.

Byrd’s argument is not that that APA has released a statement to the fact that there is no gene but rather that the APA by it’s own actions is admitting that despite aggressive research (or I should just say “searching for”), NO GENE COULD BE FOUND.

The underlying premise is that APA would not have abandoned a 10 year old position statement after such heavy investment by vested interests unless theresults had been dissppointing at best and counter-conclusive at worst.

Hence, per Byrd, the APA by their ACTIONS have admitted that there is no gay gene. That may be a stretch but at a minimum, by their actions they have admitted there previous position statement was over the top and unsupported by any scientific evidence.


49 posted on 05/13/2009 7:52:08 AM PDT by GulfBreeze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

Excellent post!


50 posted on 05/13/2009 7:52:44 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (American Revolution II -- overdue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-187 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson