Friday, May 15, 2009

APA revises 'gay gene' theory

Whenever I remind my Sunday school class that there is no scientific evidence for a "gay gene," (or anything of the sort) I always get some doubtful and startled looks. The reality is that if you look at the studies (rather than the headlines) you'll see that the best that any researcher (gay or hetero) can come up with, is it may be a combination. The APA gave in to the homosexual lobby quite some time ago (as is pointed out in the article) and lost a great deal of credibility. This statement is a beginning toward regaining a shred of that credibility:

From OneNewsNow:

For decades, the APA has not considered homosexuality a psychological disorder, while other professionals in the field consider it to be a "gender-identity" problem. But the new statement, which appears in a brochure called "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality," states the following:

"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...."

That contrasts with the APA's statement in 1998: "There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality." (more)


Euripides said...

That's an impressive statement coming from the APA. Will they catch flak from the gay activists for such blatant uncertainty?

Pearl said...

Very interesting. I wonder why the backpedaling now when homosexual activists loudly (and erroneously) claim a "great shift" in public opinion that supposedly favors homosexuality?

Whatever the reason, you are right, Eutychus. The APA just gained back a smidgen of respect, in my eyes, by accurately presenting the ambiguous and indeterminate nature of the origins of homosexuality in an individual.

eutychus said...

It's probably not nearly as ambiguous an indeterminate as some would have us believe. If the APA, in today's political/cultural climate, and while still very much influenced by such ideas, would make a stement such as this, it make one wonder if the statement itself isn't very much an understatement.

kkollwitz said...

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

Chino Blanco said...

As a courtesy to bb, here's a heads up from this NYU grad:

NY Marriage Equality: Astroturfing - Courtesy of the Same Ten (Mormon) People,-Courtesy-of-the-Same-Ten-(Mormon)-People

And, yeah, I fixed the graphic. Dude in the bottom-right corner was looking way too sullen for such a joyous occasion.

Euripides said...


This just proves what I've been saying all along about certain same sex marriage advocates as they take on the Mormon church, that they are also led by a bunch of anti-Mormon activists. It looks like you fall into the same camp, CB.

A lot of the "Anti-8" blogs and websites that grew up after the vote in California, point to a core group of anti-Mormons. This leads me to believe that these folks weren't at all interested in promoting same sex marriage as they were in trying to defame the Mormon church.

My blogs on these appeared last year, after the California vote.

The question remains, why are certain same sex marriage advocates trying so desperately to defame the Mormons, the Mormon church, and religion in general? Why does the 1st Amendment have to come under attack in order to promote same sex marriage?

No CB, don't bother to answer those. We already know your answer.

Delirious said...

This is a very interesting statement. It's funny how people believe what they want to believe, regardless of the data. When my husband decided to pursue a Phd, his professor encouraged him to write a thesis about this professor's pet project. The more my husband got in to the data, the more he realized it was a negative thesis. There simply wasn't data to support it. But the professor had already invested so much time, money, and effort in this research that he couldn't believe the data. The gays really want to believe they "can't help" their gender orientation, so that it will give them a blanket excuse.

Euripides talked about why they attack the Mormon church. They will attack ANYONE who says that homosexuality is wrong. This same sex marriage fight isn't really about marriage. I don't really believe they want marriage, they just want normalization of homosexuality. Religion gets in the way of their agenda. The LDS church has been one that has shown some grass roots power, so they attack us, but religion in general pricks their conscience, so they won't stop with the Mormons.

eutychus said...

"I don't really believe they want marriage, they just want normalization of homosexuality."

I believe you are right. Spot on. Everything they say they want, they have or can get, without redefining marriage. Actually, I'd have to say its something beyond normalization that they seek because it has already been normalized in this society. I think what they seek is the maginalization of religion. And by "they" I don't mean all homosexuals, but rather the activist fringe. Many homosexuals reject the idea of a "gay" gene, redefining marriage and forcing the idea down our children's throat. (I'll write more on this later) It's the end of the school year and the calendar is filled with awards ceremonys and the like.