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