A decade or so ago (1998) the APA (American Psychological Association) released a brochure titled ""Answers to Your Questions about Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality" that contained the following statement: "There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."
However, they have just released a new brochure and it appears that they have backed off of that somewhat. The new statement says: "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..."
The former President of NARTH ( National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality), A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., MBA, MPH had this comment on the APA's new position: "Although there is no mention of the research that influenced this new position statement, it is clear that efforts to 'prove' that homosexuality is simply a biological fait accompli have failed." He went on to say: "The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion. There is no gay gene. There is no simple biological pathway to homosexuality."
NARTH has spoken out against the so-called "gay" gene for somtime and claims that they have more than enough evidence to prove this theory false.
For example, 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."
NARTH goes on to say: The APA has now begun to acknowledge what most scientists have long known: that a bio-psycho-social model of causation best fits the data.
The main reason that NARTH is so involved with this is because they are advocates of "reparative therapy". A process which seeks to assist those who are unhappy with their homosexual lifestyle to embrace and live a heterosexual one according to their wishes.
NARTH believes that this is a step in the right direction because as Dr Byrd points out: "Certainly, client self-determination is one of the cornerstones of any form of psychological care. And any attempt to ban psychological care for those unhappy with their homosexual attractions would be a direct violation of enormous magnitude of APA's own Code of Ethics -- one which neither the federal/state governments nor the American public would respond to favorably."
Ineed, in the new brochure the APA states: "Mental health organizations call on their members to respect a person's [client's] right to self-determination."
Even though many scientists and now the APA admit that to declare homosexuality as a "untreatable condition" is ethically wrong when the person in question does not embrace this lifestyle, this issue as well as this revision in their statement is likely to bring down the wrath of the gay and lesbian activist community on the APA and will most likely lead to some very angry protests in the very near future.
When you take into account that there is "hate crimes" legislation that is being debated as we speak and that this legislation is designed to protect "sexual orientation" among other protected categories, you have the makings of a very nasty situation indeed. Stay tuned.
For more on this subject you can check out the NARTH article here: http://www.narth.com/docs/deemphasizes.html
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
TruePatriot1
Barbara Joanne
UncleChri
Tommy T
rwnutjob
Caroline K
Salon.com
Comments
Then he comes here, cloaked in faux christianity claiming a wish to make sense of the world around him (How's THAT project going, simple simon?).
He makes idiots worldwide seem like an international mensa convention (NO offense to idiots).
It is therefore entirely within the realm of possibility to have some type of mutation where you have a male exterior with a female brain and vice versa. This is what I'm thinking when I discuss a genetic aspect to homosexuality. Then, there is the issue of environmental homosexuality. Either way it's still a sin. (Not judging.....just sayin')
Bottom line, people will do what people will do. You play, you pay.
Uh, no. handedness is determined by a genetic mechanism, but 90% or so of people are right-handed. Some genes are dominant, some recessive.
As for the rest: Of course there's no gay gene. There are many genes which determine sexuality, acting together to create a wide spectrum of sexual behaviour. Other factors can be biological changes caused by things like the effects of different hormones during the pregnancy, diet etc. And finally there's the environment you grow up and live in - not the least whether homosexuality is considered acceptable or not. People are not 100% gay or 100% straight, but fall somewhere on a gliding scale.
But if you think that any gay person could become straight after a few hours on a psychologists couch, you are nuts. It's not something they choose freely, like changing their clothes. They follow their natural insticts - and they do absolutely no harm in doing so.