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 previous 1-5051-100101-150151-187 next last
To: Boiling Pots
Assume there is a “gay gene.” Would you support selective abortion based on whether the fetus has the gene?

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.

51 posted on 05/13/2009 7:53:37 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money -- Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
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.

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.

52 posted on 05/13/2009 7:53:58 AM PDT by conservativegramma ((No taxation without constitutional representation!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: posterchild
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.

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

Your personal experience or belief does not rise to the level of proof.

53 posted on 05/13/2009 7:54:42 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 47 | View Replies]

To: Seruzawa

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”?


54 posted on 05/13/2009 7:57:54 AM PDT by Mark was here (The earth is bipolar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GulfBreeze
Well said. Excellent analysis.
55 posted on 05/13/2009 7:58:28 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 49 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma

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.


56 posted on 05/13/2009 8:00:34 AM PDT by Bullpine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

Great post!


57 posted on 05/13/2009 8:05:35 AM PDT by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Mark was here

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.


58 posted on 05/13/2009 8:05:36 AM PDT by Seruzawa (Obamalama lied, the republic died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: trisham

They need to drop this since the logical next step would be a gene-therapy “cure”.


59 posted on 05/13/2009 8:06:36 AM PDT by epluribus_2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GulfBreeze
Hence, per Byrd, the APA by their ACTIONS have admitted that there is no gay gene.

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.

60 posted on 05/13/2009 8:09:27 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
The APA's statement says nothing more or less than that the underlying causes are complicated.

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.

61 posted on 05/13/2009 8:16:00 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 31 | View Replies]

To: trisham

As with most FR posts, it wasn’t intended as ‘proof’ but merely a speculation and an anecdote.


62 posted on 05/13/2009 8:17:47 AM PDT by posterchild (Endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable rights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Unruh and Byrd to say there is no genetic component.

Where do you see Unruh and Byrd saying there is no genetic component?

63 posted on 05/13/2009 8:24:44 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 60 | View Replies]

To: posterchild
Then it succeeded.
64 posted on 05/13/2009 8:25:35 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 62 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
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.

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.

65 posted on 05/13/2009 8:26:57 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos

From my personal experience with the one pathology, I’d have to say that you’re most likely correct.


66 posted on 05/13/2009 8:30:30 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: scripter
Where do you see Unruh and Byrd saying there is no genetic component?

What else would they mean when they say "there is no gay gene?"

67 posted on 05/13/2009 8:32:57 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
All those ex-gays created a problem for this controversial “fact”?

Indeed! The growing ex-gay population continues to erode the born that way theory.

Here are some links on the subject:

The Ex-Gay Story in the Pop Music World
Venus Magazine
Michael Glatze ‘Comes Out’ of Homosexuality: former ‘Young Gay America’ Magazine Co-founder

68 posted on 05/13/2009 8:33:00 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 45 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

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.


69 posted on 05/13/2009 8:37:00 AM PDT by drjulie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Well I think it is exactly what Byrd was saying. (I pointed out what I thought was his overstatement though).

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.

IMHO

70 posted on 05/13/2009 8:40:43 AM PDT by GulfBreeze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Seruzawa

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.


71 posted on 05/13/2009 8:46:05 AM PDT by Mark was here (The earth is bipolar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
What else would they mean when they say "there is no gay gene?"

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.

72 posted on 05/13/2009 8:47:03 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 67 | View Replies]

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

And that is the crux of the whole matter. It is not about whether we can prove that a gay gene exists, no more than it is about whether or not we can prove that man came from monkeys. The whole crux of the problem we face is that, the left will do anything they can to destroy Christianity.

Satan has a war going on, and his soldiers are now out in full force with the left doing all it can to destroy any who claim to put their faith in God through Christ. Now, Satan even has his man in the oval office.

The only fence that will be built in the future by the leftist controlled government of America will be the one that is built around the concentration camps holding the radical Christians who would dare tell someone that morality matters.

The one thing that really gets me all fired up even more than the way the left is attacking us, is the way our fellow conservatives are helping the left by minimizing the Christian right's influence upon the Republican party. If the Democrats continue winning elections it will be because of those who are pushing us Christians out the party. Republicans cannot win without us.
73 posted on 05/13/2009 8:50:50 AM PDT by OneVike (Just a Christian waiting to go home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE

LOLOL!! I have seen recent photos of her,and she is no goddess,to be sure, but she’s no Helen Thomas either.


74 posted on 05/13/2009 8:54:02 AM PDT by gimme1ibertee (For the sake of our Republic....RAISE HOLY HELL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
The "nature vs. nurture" debate ...is of no value to the afflicted.

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.

75 posted on 05/13/2009 8:54:52 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 43 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
My late sister had a friend who was married to a man and after he was killed in a terrible accident, she decided to give up men as well,and partnered up with another woman.
It may indeed be emotional trauma that results in some people,regardless of sex, going towards an "alternative lifestyle".
76 posted on 05/13/2009 9:01:48 AM PDT by gimme1ibertee (For the sake of our Republic....RAISE HOLY HELL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: gimme1ibertee

There are battered women who give up on men and then discover that lesbians can be physically abusive too.


77 posted on 05/13/2009 9:02:37 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 76 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma
American Psychological Association revises statement on homosexuality

APA Has No Disagreement With the Treatment of Unwanted Homosexual Attraction

78 posted on 05/13/2009 9:17:08 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: conservativegramma

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.


79 posted on 05/13/2009 9:19:52 AM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scripter
You changed the subject.

Nope. You're just defending a stupid statement.

80 posted on 05/13/2009 9:36:09 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: drjulie
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.
81 posted on 05/13/2009 9:37:34 AM PDT by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: GulfBreeze
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.

82 posted on 05/13/2009 9:40:44 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Lucky Dog
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.

83 posted on 05/13/2009 9:44:56 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
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.
84 posted on 05/13/2009 9:51:37 AM PDT by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
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?
85 posted on 05/13/2009 9:54:50 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 80 | View Replies]

To: Lucky Dog

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.


86 posted on 05/13/2009 9:59:10 AM PDT by drjulie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Lucky Dog
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.

87 posted on 05/13/2009 9:59:53 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: scripter
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?

88 posted on 05/13/2009 10:03:25 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
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.

89 posted on 05/13/2009 10:12:27 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 88 | View Replies]

To: scripter

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


90 posted on 05/13/2009 10:20:50 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
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.
91 posted on 05/13/2009 10:35:46 AM PDT by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: drjulie
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?
92 posted on 05/13/2009 10:38:31 AM PDT by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
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.

93 posted on 05/13/2009 10:55:34 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 90 | View Replies]

To: Lucky Dog
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.

94 posted on 05/13/2009 11:08:46 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: scripter
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.

95 posted on 05/13/2009 11:13:34 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
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.

96 posted on 05/13/2009 11:26:56 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 95 | View Replies]

To: scripter
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.

97 posted on 05/13/2009 11:34:38 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

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.


98 posted on 05/13/2009 11:42:57 AM PDT by GulfBreeze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma

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.


99 posted on 05/13/2009 11:47:55 AM PDT by The_Repugnant_Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GulfBreeze
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.

100 posted on 05/13/2009 11:49:22 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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