• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

APA revises 'gay gene' theory

idea

Question Everything
Here is he article:
APA revises 'gay gene' theory (OneNewsNow.com)

from another thread
The "gay gene" refuted - Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board

APA from:
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."


Now they state:
"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."

Aparently they lied about having "considerable evidence" in 1988. If there was so much evidence then, why is there "no consensus" now?

In any event, if you are born that way, or if orientation is created through "social and cultural influences" no matter what tendencies anyone has, we all have a choice in how to behave. "Whether it's genetic or not, I think we all have unhealthy urges we shouldn't act on."


Just thought it was interesting that APA is now saying "no consensus"
 
Last edited:

Comicaze247

See the previous line
I think you are overstating this. No consensus means "no consensus" ... not refutation.
From your own post:
no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.
It just means THEY DON'T KNOW. That also includes the anti-homosexual theories that it is social influence (exposure to gays).

And about the word "consensus"
dictionary.com said:
con⋅sen⋅sus

   /kənˈsɛn
thinsp.png
səs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kuh
thinsp.png
n-sen-suh
thinsp.png
s] Show IPA –noun, plural -sus⋅es. 1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month. 2. general agreement or concord; harmony.

Untold thousands of people have found freedom from that lifestyle through either reparative therapy or through -- frankly, most effectively -- a relationship with Jesus Christ
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

*gasp*

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
 
Last edited:

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Sexuality is a complex thing, and to suggest that taste and attraction are matter of choice is foolish. It's also foolish (and unhealthy) to try and repress something that's benign and harmless to begin with for the sake of some absurd and unsubstantiated superstition. I think religious fundamentalism is far, far, far more damaging and harmful to an individual than homosexuality, as it clearly turns people into irrational automatons who wallow in bigotry and ignorance.
 

idea

Question Everything
Sexuality is a complex thing, and to suggest that taste and attraction are matter of choice is foolish.

that is what they are considering though. "possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation" We can control developmental, social, and cultural influences - we have a choice over these things.

It's also foolish (and unhealthy) to try and repress something that's benign and harmless

you assume it is harmless. It is harmful.

see: http://www.lds.net/forums/preserving-marriage-between-man-woman/20375-kids-need-mother-father.html
As an example of how how mother provides the backbone of the relationships we have with all women and how how father provides the backbone for the relationships we have with all men – My M.I.L. was horribly abused by her mother when she was a child. She was locked in a chicken coop and deprived of food etc., eventually taken out of the house. Because of the experience of being rejected by her mother, she has felt insecure around all women throughout her life. She told me about how terrifying it was to get a teaching assignment in relief society. She was horrified to get up in front of a room of women because after 50 years she still harbored feelings of rejection and insecurity from women generated by her mother so many years earlier. These feelings did not translate to men though, she was not rejected or abused by her father, and so she was comfortable in front of men. She could have easily given a lesson in elders quorum if she had been asked.

Animals are like this too – we got our dog from the pound, he was there because his previous owners were going through a divorce, we found this out later (pound called, told us previous owners wanted to check up on him, here is their phone # if we wanted to call, we called, long story short, he took their dog to the pound when she was off on vacation, she was not in an apart that did not accept dogs or we would have given the dog back) Anyways, he was mean to the dog, she was nice. Because of this the dog loved all women, hated all men. I am sure a few people have known animals like this.

The relationship with our mother provides the foundation for the relationship we have with all women. Our relationship we have with our father provides the foundation we have with all men. Two mothers raising a child might give them a wonderful backbone for dealing with all the women in their life, but it will not help them feel secure and accepted around men. Unless they have a male father figure in their life giving them words of affirmation, encouraging them, telling them that they are beautiful, building up their self-esteem, they will feel insecure around all males.

Here are statistics for children raised without a father figure. Two moms might improve these stats a little over a single mom, but the trend will still be there because they are generated from a lack of a supportive male figure in the children’s life. There are not as many kids being raised by their father rather than mother, but logic suggests that the stats would be visa versa in such a case – unhealthy relationships/ premarital pregnancies/ insecurity low self-esteem leading to suicide/low grades/etc. etc. because they feel rejected/uncomfortable/insecure around half of the population.


Everyone knows that kids raised without a father figure do poorly.
TNDAD - Children Need Their Dads
TNDAD - Children Need Their Dads

children who come from fatherless homes;
63% of youth suicides
70% of juveniles in State Institutions
71% of teen pregnancies
71% of High School dropouts
75% of children in chemical abuse centers
85% of youth sitting in prisons
85% of children with behavioral problems
90% of homeless and runaway children


What Single-Parenting Can Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting
What Single-Parenting Can Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting

Father and Child Reunion - Part
Father and Child Reunion - Part


Let’s look at why the following three conditions seem to work best or children after divorce:
- First, the child has about equal time with mom and dad
- Second, parents live close enough to each other that the child does not need to forfeit friends or activities when visiting the other parent
- Third, no bad-mouthing

Children with minimal exposure to the other parent after divorce seem to feel abandoned, and often psychologically rudderless... (children who are adopted also do poorly for this same reason, they feel abandoned by their natural parents - because they are abandoned by their natural parents. Adopted kids do poorly compared to kids raised by their biological mother and father, and all kids of homosexuals are at least half adopted.)

Children with both parents, and especially children with substantial father contact, do better--even when socio-economic variables are controlled for. They do better on their SATs, on their social skills, on their self-esteem, in their physical health, in their ability to be assertive, and, surprisingly, the more dad involvement the more a child is likely to be empathetic. These children are far less likely to suffer from nightmares, temper tantrums, being bullied, or have other signs of feeling like a victim. (It is not just about the love between mom and dad, it is about have having both of their natural parents there to give them a foundation for their relashonship with both men and women.)

...children who are raised (only by) moms and have problems with the 5 D’s (drinking, drugs, depression, delinquency, disobedience) are most likely to be given to their dads to “take over” in early teenage years. The propensity of dads to take on the more challenging children and yet still have positive outcomes speaks highly of dads’ contributions. Nevertheless, these children still do not do as well as when the children are in an intact family, or when the involvement of both mom and dad are closer to equal.

Why does the approximately equal involvement of both parents appear so important, and even more crucial after a divorce? No one knows for certain, but here appears to be three rarely-discussed possible reasons that emanate from “between the lines”. I believe they are crucial to a cutting-edge understanding of child development:
The child is half mom and half dad. The job of a child growing up is to discover whom it is. Who is it? It is half mom and half dad. It is not the better parent. It is both parents, warts and all. So we are not talking about fathers’ rights, mothers’ rights or even the child’s right to both parents. We are talking about a new paradigm: the child’s right to both halves of itself. Psychological stability seems to emanate from the child knowing both parts of itself.


turns people into irrational automatons who wallow in bigotry and ignorance.

Yes, it is sad to see those who are "ignorant" of God. Irrational automatons who allow themselves to be brainwashed by the press rather than choosing to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Anyways, just nice to see the APA admitting there is not "considerable evidence" but rather "no consensus".
 
Last edited:

Comicaze247

See the previous line
Sexuality is a complex thing, and to suggest that taste and attraction are matter of choice is foolish. It's also foolish (and unhealthy) to try and repress something that's benign and harmless to begin with for the sake of some absurd and unsubstantiated superstition. I think religious fundamentalism is far, far, far more damaging and harmful to an individual than homosexuality, as it clearly turns people into irrational automatons who wallow in bigotry and ignorance.
Very good point. That just made me think of this:

Wars caused by religion: Crusades, endless war in the middle east, WWII, (off the top of my head)

Wars caused by homosexuality: . . . umm . . .
 

Comicaze247

See the previous line
that is what they are considering though. "possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation" We can control developmental, social, and cultural influences - we have a choice over these things.
That we do, I agree. But why must we base our morals and laws on those of a religion? I think the U.S. was built on something about separation of . . . I believe Church . . . and State, yes. I think that's what it was.

you assume it is harmless. It is harmful.
Please, explain how.

Yes, it is sad to see those who are "ignorant" of God. Irrational automatons who allow themselves to be brainwashed by the press rather than choosing to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Let me rephrase that for you:
Yes, it is sad to see those who are "ignorant" of common sense. Irrational automatons who allow themselves to be brainwashed by religious dogma rather than choosing to follow the guidance of the rational thought.
 

Nepenthe

Tu Stultus Es
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."

Now they state:
"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."
Aparently they lied about having "considerable evidence" in 1988. If there was so much evidence then, why is there "no consensus" now?
How are "considerable evidence" and "no concensus" mutually exclusive?
Also, the APA has a terrible track record when it comes to genetics and behavior; I'm more inclined to defer to biologists and geneticists when it comes to behavior. Even if there is no "gay gene", homosexuality still has a biological origin whether it's a combination of genetic expression(s), or a hormonal cause, or a combination of factors.

LOL! Charlie Butts and OneNewsNow....! Talking about dredging the scum off the bottom of the religious fanatic barrel!
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
that is what they are considering though. "possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation" We can control developmental, social, and cultural influences - we have a choice over these things.

A child can control it's own enviroment and development? If a person is healthy and happy, there is no reason for them resort to unhealthy repression for worthless voodoo.

you assume it is harmless. It is harmful.
How so? Clearly not as harmful as fundamentalism, which is extremely psychologically unhealthy, as it robs you of critical thinking skills and instills a disregard for facts and logic. I mean you actually believe that Native Americans are the lost tribe of Israel, for example, so why should I trust anything you have to say? And the link you gave me is clearly not an objective and unbiased one, and thus is worthless.

Yes, it is sad to see those who are "ignorant" of God.
There is a difference between the concept of god, and what mere men attribute to god. If god were clear, there wouldn't be thousands of religions with thousands of variations of each. There is nothing to elevate one as more valid than the next, so they should be equally disregarded. People like you use god as a sock puppet to voice your own ignorance, fears, and hatred.

Irrational automatons who allow themselves to be brainwashed by the press rather than choosing to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
I choose to believe what's logically coherent and substantiated by evidence, and your beliefs fail on both.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
It gets so tiresome to hear so many people claim that they cannot control certain aspects of behavior because of genetics. It's an overused excuse in my opinion - often a copout to justify lifestyle choices.

Not always, but often enough to create skepticism. Wouldn't you agree? Or all we all simply at the mercy of our gene pool?
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
It gets so tiresome to hear so many people claim that they cannot control certain aspects of behavior because of genetics. It's an overused excuse in my opinion - often a copout to justify lifestyle choices.

Not always, but often enough to create skepticism. Wouldn't you agree? Or all we all simply at the mercy of our gene pool?

Stop and think for a second. How does someone have control over taste and attraction? Did you just choose to find your husband attractive? Was falling in love with him a choice? Did you need an excuse? Did you take responsibility for your actions? Sexuality is a very complex thing, and trying to simplify it is disingenuous.

Claiming that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice" is what is really tiresome. Your objection to homosexuality isn't based on anything rational or scientific but rather on some ancient, primitive and superstitious book, which to me has no use beyond toilet paper.
 
Last edited:

gnomon

Well-Known Member
Here is he article:
APA revises 'gay gene' theory (OneNewsNow.com)

from another thread
The "gay gene" refuted - Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board

APA from:
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."


Now they state:
"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."

Aparently they lied about having "considerable evidence" in 1988. If there was so much evidence then, why is there "no consensus" now?

In any event, if you are born that way, or if orientation is created through "social and cultural influences" no matter what tendencies anyone has, we all have a choice in how to behave. "Whether it's genetic or not, I think we all have unhealthy urges we shouldn't act on."


Just thought it was interesting that APA is now saying "no consensus"

That's not really surprising. Sexual orientation is more complex than sexual identity.

We do know, for a fact, that hormones take a large part in determining the actual sex of a human being.

There is also research on the differences between the male/female brain and how hormonal influence affects brain development and if this accounts for some observed differences between males and females.

It's not a large step between recognizing hormonal influence on sexual identity and how that is linked with brain development to question whether or not sexual orientation is indeed influenced by hormones.

That the APA states there is no consensus only highlights that within the realm of scientific research that there is still much for us to learn.

Now let's compare that to the theological point of view.

There is a consensus, supposedly, based on zero empirical observation and merely a few passages from a book as to the nature of human sexuality. Never mind, as I futilely state once again, that not one of the three Abrahamic theologies can explain why a genetic male can be born a woman.

And theologians have had a couple thousand years to puzzle that one out. Modern scientific endeavors into human physiology, especially determinants in human sexuality, is still relatively young.

In other words......this changes nothing.

Another point of contention. Proponents on both sides of the debate but even more so on the "moral" side of the debate paint the issue as a dichotomous debate between hetero- and homosexuality. Even those who accept bisexuality as an orientation fail to see that human sexuality can lie along a spectrum. When you have a spectrum getting people to move from one part of that spectrum to another can be a matter of small degrees. Once again, we can see this in the physical development of human beings regarding the sex organs.

Also, straight from the brochure that NARTH(ugh!), quoted:
What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
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; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

Is homosexuality a mental disorder?
No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

What about therapy intended to change sexual orientation from gay to straight?
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. Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. This appears to be especially likely for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals who grow up in more conservative religious settings.
Helpful responses of a therapist treating an individual who is troubled about her or his samesex attractions include helping that person actively cope with social prejudices against homosexuality, successfully resolve issues associated with and resulting from internal conflicts, and actively lead a happy and satisfying life. Mental health professional organizations call on their members to respect a person’s (client’s) right to selfdetermination; be sensitive to the client’s race, culture, ethnicity, age, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, socioeconomic status, language, and disability status when working with that client; and eliminate biases based on these factors.

Answers to Your Questions For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality

Quite frankly, merely pointing out that a young field of research has yet to understand the mechanisms of sexual orientation is no reason to adopt a religious viewpoint. Thank goodness.
 

gnomon

Well-Known Member
It gets so tiresome to hear so many people claim that they cannot control certain aspects of behavior because of genetics. It's an overused excuse in my opinion - often a copout to justify lifestyle choices.

Not always, but often enough to create skepticism. Wouldn't you agree? Or all we all simply at the mercy of our gene pool?

No, there is definitely some nurture involved in the variety of human development but as I stated in the response to idea hormonal, as well as genetic and nurture, influence plays a factor in our development as well.
 
Last edited:

gnomon

Well-Known Member
As well......

The individuals who pointed out the APA brochure and now have it referenced on many a "family" website is NARTH. An organization devoted to "curing" homosexuality and quite frankly wouldn't accept a genetic component of homosexuality no matter the evidence.

It should also be noted that the APA changed their statement. The American Psychological Association. Just a rewording from strong possible evidence to no consensus at this time. While actually the correct thing to do it will probably not only be NARTH jumping on the APA change but groups opposing hate crimes legislation which includes sexual orientation as well.

So something that should hardly cause any stir at all may be taken and misused for more than it should.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
"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."
Good news all around.

Aparently they lied about having "considerable evidence" in 1988. If there was so much evidence then, why is there "no consensus" now?
Don't be silly. Evidence is evidence. However "considerable", if it's replaced by better evidence, all's the better.

In any event, if you are born that way, or if orientation is created through "social and cultural influences" no matter what tendencies anyone has, we all have a choice in how to behave. "Whether it's genetic or not, I think we all have unhealthy urges we shouldn't act on."
We have choice, whether one is "born that way" or not --right.
 

Smoke

Done here.
Jesus, how stupid are the writers of your sources? I don't know of any credible researcher who has ever claimed that there is a "gay gene." Sexuality and sexual orientation are much more complex than that.

Did you or your sources actually read the APA statement? If it means that homosexuality has no biological component, it also means that heterosexuality has no biological component.
 
Top