Hot Debates

http://forums.mercurynews.com/topic/gay-gene-theory-given-knock-out-punch-the-verdict-is-in-it-is-a-choice

 The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there's no homosexual "gene" -- meaning it's not likely that homosexuals are born that way.

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."
 
Peter LaBarbera, who heads Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, believes the more recent statement is an important admission because it undermines a popular theory.
 
"People need to understand that the 'gay gene' theory has been one of the biggest propaganda boons of the homosexual movement over the last 10 [or] 15 years," he points out. "Studies show that if people think that people are born homosexual they're much less likely to resist the gay agenda."
 
Matt Barber with Liberty Counsel feels the pronouncement may have something to do with saving face. "Well, I think here the American Psychological Association is finally trying to restore some credibility that they've lost over the years by having become a clearly political organization as opposed to an objective, scientific organization," he states. (Hear audio report)
 

 

It is important to note that although the link given refers to MercuryNews.com, the online site for the San Jose Mercury news, the article is quoted in a open forum blog. It was originally published by OneNewsNow, a division of the American Family News Network, hardly an unbiased, mainstream media source.

The article claims that the current APA statement says that there is no gay gene, and that this is a turnaround from their 1998 statement. In fact, the APA has never claimed that a single gene determines sexual orientation. It has always claimed that the best science indicates a number of factors, including genetics and biology.

Reparative therapy is not accepted as proven safe or effective by the general medical and psychological community. In fact, there are serious concerns about its safety. Here's a link to a very solid article from relgioustolerance.org about the issue:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exod.htm

1) The writer chose to not to mention that the brochure also indicates:

"All major national mental health organizations have officially expressed concerns about therapies promoted to modify sexual orientation. To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective."

http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.pdf

2) Just because there's not yet "consensus" amongst scientists doesn't mean that there's not "considerable evidence".  The writer doesn't seem to grasp the definition of consensus, or is trying to be deceitful. 

eta Thank you for bringing that item to our attention.  Sure doesn't do much for their cause when nonsense comes out, or worse, deceit, eh?

Re: your last paragraph, it's right there in the brochure.  I'm so surprised the item in the OP didn't mention that ;)

Oooh.. I just realized... maybe you had thought the item in the OP (about the 2009 brochure) was accurate rather than misrepresenting things? 

I understand that you may have read and posted it in haste.  Don't worry about it, it could happen to anybody.