Skip to comments.'Gay' Gene Claim Suddenly Vanishes
Posted on 05/13/2009 7:07:43 AM PDT by conservativegramma
click here to read article
They will side-step the issue. They will retain support for abortion, but oppose the development or use of any prenatal TEST for gay potential as a "hate crime". Any doctor that administers such a test, and any lab that processes such a test, would be at risk of vandalism and violence.
BINGO. I also believe its a spiritual issue. Its not a choice, not genetic, and not a mental illness. You are exactly right. It goes straight back to Romans 1:25-27 again.
Its interesting that those who have identified the spiritual dimension have reversed course. There are a growing number of 'ex-gays' reaching out in ministry to the gay community. They are usually reviled and hated, but the numbers are growing nonetheless. Excellent analysis.
Your personal experience or belief does not rise to the level of proof.
Has a shrink really ever cured anyone? I’m asking about the type who have the patient get on a couch like in “What about Bob”?
The illusion that the homosexual lifestyle is a normal way of living has been successfully propagated by promoting a “victim” image for homosexual persons, and by the pseudo-science alleging a gay” gene.
Of the reports alleging, or promising soon down the road, a “gay” gene, not a single one has survived scientific peer review. There is no “gay” gene.
On the other hand, the evidence does show that homosexual persons are indeed victims — but overwhelmingly of their own behavior, not that of others.
Typical homosexual behavior includes regular contact with fecal matter from oneself and from sexual partners, tragically reversing several centuries of learning about cleanliness, and thus several centuries of growing lifespan. Homosexual behavior makes no more sense than playing in the toilet.
All available evidence indicates that the lifespan of practicing homosexual persons is drastically shortened by their behavior. No reliable study indicates otherwise. The lifespan topic is taboo among homosexual advocates because the evidence is so damaging to their case.
Good question. I see news articles and read claims about how many people get helped, yet I know dozens of people under treatment and they are all worse off than ever. Several people have told me how much better they feel since they stopped seeing counselors and got off the drugs. Something ain’t right.
They need to drop this since the logical next step would be a gene-therapy “cure”.
But that's not even close to what they're actually saying.
I'm not certain, but I don't believe the APA ever said that homosexual behavior was completely determined by genetics. They may well have gone too far in that direction, and if so this correction -- saying that it's a complicated process -- is a good one.
However, that correction does not provide grounds for Messrs. Unruh and Byrd to say there is no genetic component. Such a statement is just as unscientific and unjustified as the "genetics only" crowd on the other side of the coin.
They're just as bad as the folks they oppose -- both sides would be "lying for a good cause," if you will.
I don't know a single credible scientist who disagrees. It is indeed complicated.
They most certainly do not rule out a genetic component
I don't know a single credible scientist who disagrees. But what is meant by component? By component, scientists mean linkages and associations. What confuses people is how little linkages and associations play into the mix.
Credible scientists say environment is a key factor in how same-sex attractions originate.
A summary of the scientific evidence is that homosexuals are not born with their same-sex attraction, but neither the vast majority choose their same-sex attraction.
What does this mean? That is, if same-sex attraction isn't genetic nor chosen, from where does it originate? To repeat what the APA has said, it's complicated.
To believe a gay gene exists that causes same-sex attraction is to believe something based on nothing.
Click here for the APA's updated pamphlet.
As with most FR posts, it wasn’t intended as ‘proof’ but merely a speculation and an anecdote.
Where do you see Unruh and Byrd saying there is no genetic component?
Perhaps, but even though you have found relief from your alcoholism through spirituality, you are and always will be an alcoholic. The same can be said about gay people: Even if they are able to find relief from their affliction through religion, they are and always will be homosexual even if they no longer engage in homosexual behavior.
From my personal experience with the one pathology, I’d have to say that you’re most likely correct.
What else would they mean when they say "there is no gay gene?"
Indeed! The growing ex-gay population continues to erode the born that way theory.
Here are some links on the subject:
You’re correct. Researchers in this area have never claimed that sexual orientation is purely genetic, only that there could be a genetic component. I believe there is more evidence to support this in males than females (last time I reviewed the research). There are many misconceptions regarding the role of nature/nurture, which, by the way, accounts for most behaviors. It is rare that a behavior is determined solely by one or the other. We are born with undeveloped brains and our environments contribute to further development throughout childhood. For this reason, we can’t say that a behavior or predisposition that is caused mostly by nurture is easier to change than one that is mostly nature. That is a common misconception.
Also, another misconception is that a behavior determined by nurture is equivalent to “choice”. If sexual orientation is determined primarily by nurture that doesn’t mean that it is a choice.
Finally, sexual orientation is probably not a choice. I think this makes sense, if nothing else, based on our experience. However, sexual behavior, (i.e., what we do) is a choice. Usually, we behave sexually in ways that are consistent with our orientation, but not always. An example is the high rate of homosexual behavior in prisons. Many of these men behaved as heterosexuals before they went to prison and they will likely behave as heterosexuals when they are out. This is one reason why “orientation” is difficult to study. Some people may have a particular orientation but simply choose to behave in ways that don’t reflect their orientation.
Let me substitute one word “demonstrated” for “admitted”.
“Hence, per Byrd, the APA by their ACTIONS have demonstrated that there is no gay gene.”
Just as you might refer to a set of inanimate objects and the facts around them as “saying” something, the use of “saying” or “admitting” simply indicates what is demonstrated by the APA’s change given the set of facts surrounding it.
I think it is all semantics really and feel that you are attacking the messenger. 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.
It doesn't matter whether its Byrd or anyone else that points it out, that is the fact of what is happening. It is only natural for people who have been marginalized as “narrow minded” and “unscientific” to want to crow a bit when they see one of the references used against them for so long be reversed or rescinded. Especially when by definition it is rescinded to the incompetent manner in which it was placed into the lexicon of thought and discussion to begin with.
People are willing to pay money for answers, thus shrinks are there to take the money. If you ask me there are no answers, or magic words that can make things better, other than common sense. I do not know any one who was helped.
You changed the subject.
Here is what you said:
Unruh and Byrd to say there is no genetic component. Such a statement is just as unscientific and unjustified as the "genetics only" crowd on the other side of the coin.and now you're saying:
What else would they mean when they say "there is no gay gene?"A genetic component is not a gene so don't equate the two.
Perhaps Unruh and Byrd are more familar with the subject than you realize.
LOLOL!! I have seen recent photos of her,and she is no goddess,to be sure, but she’s no Helen Thomas either.
That's a really good thing to keep in mind. While homosexuals are people, too, some people appear to forget or overlook this fact.
Occasionally we have ex-gays and gays struggling with their same-sex attraction on FR. And I cringe at some of the posts we have here and when I look back at some of my posts years ago, I realize I could have said worded a sentence or two very differently.
There are battered women who give up on men and then discover that lesbians can be physically abusive too.
I wonder when they might mention again that it is a mental issue? It is learned behavior afterall? Like any other compulsion and should be treated as such.
Nope. You're just defending a stupid statement.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
Um... no. But the above comment certainly explains your confusion.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 dont 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.