After exhaustive research, "Gay is not genetic"

[phillybear 366]

Link

 

APA revises 'gay gene' theory

 

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)

 

With the new information from the APA, Barber wonders if the organization will admit that homosexuals who want to change can change.

 

"It's irrefutable from a medical standpoint that people can leave the homosexual lifestyle," he argues. "Homosexuality is defined by behavior. Untold thousands of people have found freedom from that lifestyle through either reparative therapy or through -- frankly, most effectively -- a relationship with Jesus Christ."

 

LaBarbera agrees. "Change through Christ is possible -- and it's one of the most heartwarming aspects of the whole gay debate," he shares. "Many men and women have come out of homosexuality, mostly through a relationship with Jesus Christ. The fact that these professional organizations will not study that, will not acknowledge that, shows how 'in the tank' they are for the homosexual movement."

 

LaBarbera stresses that even though elites will not recognize the change, that does not mean the change does not exist. In fact, both Barber and LaBarbera believe that God changes people through Christ -- regardless of the sin.

**********************************************

 

You bunch of rubes. Letting the media and PACs form your opinions. Of course being gay is not genetic. There's your factoid of the day.

[Greedo 13]

The religious BS at the end really hurts the article, but there isn't anything new here IMO. Some may be nature, some nurture, no one knows exactly.

 

It's a long way from "we don't know exactly" to these religious folks' "irrefutable" Jesus BS.

[parrot 789]

including genetic or inborn hormonal factors

 

There is no fetal alcohol syndrome gene. Does that mean children aren't born with FAS?

[BunnysBastatrds 2,447]

There is no fetal alcohol syndrome gene. Does that mean children aren't born with FAS?

 

 

With that line of thinking, after a woman becomes pregnant, and then only allows carpet lickers and d!ldo pushers to invade her space, you have a queer?

[Bigtraine 30]

But the new statement, which appears in a brochure called "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality

 

Oh, it was in a brochure. Surely, this must be ground-breaking. All the best advances are published in brochures.

 

"Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles...."

 

So... it sounds like the prevailing belief is that nature (aka genetics) does play a role. Ok then.

[jgcrawfish 232]

Ok. I'll chime in here. I read a research study about rats in utero. apparently during the development cycle the mother's body floods the fetus with chemicals based on the chromosomal gender makeup of baby. a male rat will be hit with large amount of testosterone from the mother at two very specific points during the pregnancy. scientists studied this and began, for lack of a better word, jacking with it. by implanting the rat with a fertilized XY egg first they deprived the fetus of the testosterone completely. i forget the exact results but they were able to essentially turn an XY (male) egg into a female infant, despite the XY encoding in the genes, complete with female parts. then, in other trials, by reducing the amounts of testosterone administered during pregnancy they were able to produce a rat with male physical characteristics but clear female brain pathology (the brain structures of males and females are different, and the theory is that testosterone "wires" us males differently...these male rats had female rat brain structures). those rats with reduced testosterone in utero were more inclined to try and mate with other males despite possessing male parts.

 

the researchers then tried it in reverse, with XX chromosomal eggs and by adding testosterone at the same intervals they determined from the previous experiments. they were able to hit the female (XX) fetus with the needed amounts of testosterone and turn them fully into males, complete with male reproductive organs and male brain makeup. They were also able to apply smaller amounts of testosterone to the females in utero and leave them with female reproductive organs but male brain pathology who showed signs of being sexually attracted to other female rats despite possessing female reproductive organs.

 

now comes the fun part...there have been several subsequent studies of alcohol and tobacco in rats that produce startling results. pregnant rats given excessive amounts alcohol produced lower amounts of testosterone during their pregnancy. Pregnant female rats subjected to cig smoke produced more testosterone. so it's very possible that not only can chemical factors influence hormone levels expectant mommies but that those hormonal variables can have a substantial affect on that childs chemical makeup.

 

i used to work with this really hot lesbian a few years back (34C estimate). she had been married (to a guy), had a kid and liked d!ck. however, a horrible father and a bad marriage ended up giving her major guy issues and she went to the pink side. every girl she dated was practically a freaking guy though. nearly as big as I am, totally masculine and butch. My co-workers and I would get into Nurture vs Nature debates all the time and we determined her switch to pink meat was Nurture but all her girlfriends were pink meaters by nature.

 

bottom line, if your kids is ghey from the start...it's your wife's fault.

[Korben Dallas 0]

I see every right wing fundy site on the planet has taken this "story".

 

Too bad they didn't read it all and clipped out most of the parts that completely contradict the article. This brochure is about how to "Accept Homosexuality", it basically is a move beyond their prior claim, not a step back:

 

Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

 

or this little tidbit:

 

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.

 

 

I think the conclusion should be noted before all the phobes and haters celebrate:

 

What can people do to diminish prejudice and discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people?

 

Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people who want to help reduce prejudice and discrimination can be open about their sexual orientation, even as they take necessary precautions to be as safe as possible. They can examine their own belief systems for the presence of antigay stereotypes. They can make use of the lesbian, gay, and bisexual community—as well as supportive heterosexual people—for support.

 

Heterosexual people who wish to help reduce prejudice and discrimination can examine their own response to antigay stereotypes and prejudice. They can make a point of coming to know lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, and they can work with lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals and communities to combat prejudice and discrimination. Heterosexual individuals are often in a good position to ask other heterosexual people to consider the prejudicial or discriminatory nature of their beliefs and actions. Heterosexual allies can encourage nondiscrimination policies that include sexual orientation. They can work to make coming out safe. When lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people feel free to make public their sexual orientation, heterosexuals are given an opportunity to have personal contact with openly gay people and to perceive them as individuals.

 

Studies of prejudice, including prejudice against gay people, consistently show that prejudice declines when members of the majority group interact with members of a minority group. In keeping with this general pattern, one of the most powerful influences on heterosexuals’ acceptance of gay people is having personal contact with an openly gay person. Antigay attitudes are far less common among members of the population who have a close friend or family member who is lesbian or gay, especially if the gay person has directly come out to the heterosexual person.

 

Oops.

[phillybear 366]

Oops.

 

Can't argue with the facts, bub.

 

BEEP. BEEP. HERE COMES THE FAILDOZER.

[jerryskids 6,825]

Since I was asked to chime in here from another thread, here goes: I've never seen a more condensed effort at "proving a negative" than this thread:

- The APA says that no conclusive ghey gene has been found. That doesn't mean there aren't any, or that there aren't biochemical reasons for it. FALE

- jgcrawfish provides a quote that indicates some chemical connections in rats. No link provided, and no reason to believe they are exclusive. Interesting info, but based on the above, FAYL

- korben posts a link stating that no behavioral therapy has proven to be effective. See my initial premise. Also he calls people who question it "phobes" and "haters". FAYUL ^ FAYULTH power.

 

I'm left where I started; we don't know.

[Bigtraine 30]

I'm left where I started; we don't know.

 

"We don't know" is a different conclusion that the title of this thread, "Gay is not genetic."

[gocolts 300]

They don't call homosexuality "The ultimate perversion of nature" for nothing.

[FeelingMN 273]

Can't argue with the facts, bub.

 

BEEP. BEEP. HERE COMES THE FAILDOZER.

 

Symmetry Of Homosexual Brain Resembles That Of Opposite Sex, Swedish Study Finds

ScienceDaily (June 18, 2008) — Swedish researchers have found that some physical attributes of the homosexual brain resemble those found in the opposite sex, according to an article published online (June 16) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

 

Some psychological tests have shown differences between men and women in the extent to which they employ the brain’s hemispheres in verbal tasks. Other research has hinted that homosexuals may exhibit the tendencies of the opposite sex in brain behavior unrelated to sexual activity.

 

Ivanka Savic and Per Lindström, of the Department of Clinical Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, now report that the brains of heterosexual men and homosexual women are slightly asymmetric—the right hemisphere is larger than the left—and the brains of gay men and straight women are not.

 

Positron emission tomography (PET) scans taken by the researchers also show that in connectivity of the amygdala (which is important for emotional learning), lesbians resemble straight men, and gay men resemble straight women. The researchers analyzed the brains of 90 subjects, using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to assess brain volume and PET data partly gleaned from previous olfactory studies.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80617151845.htm

 

There's no gene for heterosexuality either. Nor for competitiveness. Nor for a sweet tooth. Nor for about a billion other traits. It's pseudoscientific to claim any one specific gene underlies a particular trait.

 

 

 

 

Just stick to your LOST writeups.  It's all you're good at.

[NewbieJr 541]

I have seen three year-olds who I absolutely knew would end up being gay, and I was right. I highly doubt they made a 'choice' at that age. I've also seen people who were pure poontang hounds in high school end up being gay as adults. I don't think there's a definitive answer. Some are born that way and some seem to change later on. I still can't see what harm it does to let them get married. As long as they leave me the fock alone.

[phillybear 366]

"We don't know" is a different conclusion that the title of this thread, "Gay is not genetic."

 

"We don't know" is a way different conclusion than "Gay is genetic" which is what every swinging d!ck in this nation has been babbling for years. The FACT is that is not true. And until someone proves gay is genetic, you can't assume it.

 

I don't give a sh!t what fetish a person might have. But I analyze data for a living. I have never, never, never seen a shred of legitimate data supporting "you are born gay".

 

Being gay cannot be proven to be genetic. Therefore, being gay cannot be refered to as being genetic. So, if you can't call it genetic, logically you have to say being gay is not genetic. Ergo, Gay Is Not Genetic.

 

FACE.

[phillybear 366]

Just stick to your LOST writeups.  It's all you're good at.

 

I'm not good at them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm GREAT.

 

Also, the Swedes can't even get meatballs right. Their research is laughable.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

"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.

 

Good. The APA should be an organization based on science. This is a good thing...

 

"It's irrefutable from a medical standpoint that people can leave the homosexual lifestyle," he argues. "Homosexuality is defined by behavior. Untold thousands of people have found freedom from that lifestyle through either reparative therapy or through -- frankly, most effectively -- a relationship with Jesus Christ."

 

LaBarbera agrees. "Change through Christ is possible -- and it's one of the most heartwarming aspects of the whole gay debate," he shares. "Many men and women have come out of homosexuality, mostly through a relationship with Jesus Christ. The fact that these professional organizations will not study that, will not acknowledge that, shows how 'in the tank' they are for the homosexual movement."

 

LaBarbera stresses that even though elites will not recognize the change, that does not mean the change does not exist. In fact, both Barber and LaBarbera believe that God changes people through Christ -- regardless of the sin.

 

So close... Well, there goes science out the window. Well folks, it is the learned opinion of the APA that the best way to de-gay someone is to convince them to believe in the vengeful power of a semi-divine long dead jew.

[Cdub100 3,925]

Look at Edjr that dude has been a ###### sucker since day one.

[gocolts 300]

I have seen three year-olds who I absolutely knew would end up being gay, and I was right. I highly doubt they made a 'choice' at that age. I've also seen people who were pure poontang hounds in high school end up being gay as adults. I don't think there's a definitive answer. Some are born that way and some seem to change later on. I still can't see what harm it does to let them get married. As long as they leave me the fock alone.

Some of it has to do with what they are using as their argument for allowing gay marriage, which is the equal protection clause.

[Chronic Husker 85]

Some of it has to do with what they are using as their argument for allowing gay marriage, which is the equal protection clause.

So, two dudes or two girls have a better relationship with each other than you had with your ex and you want to deny them the same rights you were afforded while married?

 

[NewbieJr 541]

Some of it has to do with what they are using as their argument for allowing gay marriage, which is the equal protection clause.

I actually have a harder time trying to understand any argument not allowing gay marriage. Who the fock cares?

[phillybear 366]

So, two dudes or two girls have a better relationship with each other than you had with your ex and you want to deny them the same rights you were afforded while married?

 

 

I'm not allowed to marry another guy either. But a gay guy can marry a broad.

 

So I guess that means I have the SAME EXACT rights as a gay guy does. So much for the whole civil rights and our ancestors will feel ashamed sh!t, huh?

 

BEEP. BEEP. FAILDOZER IS A'COMIN'.

[phillybear 366]

Look at Edjr that dude has been a ###### sucker since day one.

 

Take note everybody. This is the strongest argument in this thread so far.

[phillybear 366]

I actually have a harder time trying to understand any argument not allowing gay marriage. Who the fock cares?

 

I don't really care either. But that is not the issue in this thread.

[Chronic Husker 85]

I'm not allowed to marry another guy either. But a gay guy can marry a broad.

 

So I guess that means I have the SAME EXACT rights as a gay guy does. So much for the whole civil rights and our ancestors will feel ashamed sh!t, huh?

 

BEEP. BEEP. FAILDOZER IS A'COMIN'.

Is your major concern here that people shouldn't be able to marry the same sex because you don't want them to be able to file a joint tax return due to the fact that you don't want your ancestors to be ashamed?

[FeelingMN 273]

I don't really care either. But that is not the issue in this thread.

 

But your OP doesn't really prove anything either. Gay isn't genetic. But neither is heterosexuality. Nor literacy. Nor athleticism. But there's an underlying physical basis for all these things, as I'm sure is the case with the gayness too.

[phillybear 366]

Is your major concern here that people shouldn't be able to marry the same sex because you don't want them to be able to file a joint tax return due to the fact that you don't want your ancestors to be ashamed?

 

OR....

 

Maybe most people don't give a sh!t about gay marriage, but are annoyed beyond fock because idiots are going around claiming a lack of civil rights because they have the same EXACT same civil rights as every other American. At last count, you've posted twice, and been made to look like a drobeski twice. Quit now and safe some humility.

 

FACE.

 

Now, back on topic. Why did you choose to be woman-beating lesbian?

[phillybear 366]

Gay isn't genetic.

 

Thank you for your support, brother.

[gocolts 300]

So, two dudes or two girls have a better relationship with each other than you had with your ex and you want to deny them the same rights you were afforded while married?

 

Me and the Ex wife had a great relationship for over 10 years. She just decided she wanted to date again. I had no idea she was leaving until I woke to a cop telling me my wife filled a restraining order on me and I had to leave my house that I bought before I even met her. I was not allowed to take anything and she was allowed to move out and take most everything. Ok, I am rambling now. Back to the topic.

 

If the gays are allowed to use the equal protection clause, then why can't anyone???

[jerryskids 6,825]

"We don't know" is a different conclusion that the title of this thread, "Gay is not genetic."

What's your point? I thought I was clear: I was asked to chime in, I did, and my conclusion is "we don't know", and that conclusion was, and continues to be, supported by a bunch of illogical data on both sides.

[MDC 7,470]

I guess that means you just enjoy gargling mangravy.

[phillybear 366]

Son of a gun. I'm converting more people to my way of thinking in this thread than football fans outside of Texas converting their children to hate the Dallas Cowboys.

[gocolts 300]

I actually have a harder time trying to understand any argument not allowing gay marriage. Who the fock cares?

[Chronic Husker 85]

OR....

 

Maybe most people don't give a sh!t about gay marriage, but are annoyed beyond fock because idiots are going around claiming a lack of civil rights because they have the same EXACT same civil rights as every other American. At last count, you've posted twice, and been made to look like a drobeski twice. Quit now and safe some humility.

The "EXACT" same civil rights? So, you're saying a gay man has a right to marry a woman if he likes? Is that your point?

 

My point is that many married couples get tax breaks for being married and filing jointly. You don't think a couple of guys or a couple of girls that want to spend their life together should be allowed to file jointly and get the same breaks?

[jerryskids 6,825]

Looks like we've hit critical velocity in this thread, including a phillybear/CH smackoff. Let the F5s begin.

[jerryskids 6,825]

The "EXACT" same civil rights? So, you're saying a gay man has a right to marry a woman if he likes? Is that your point?

 

My point is that many married couples get tax breaks for being married and filing jointly. You don't think a couple of guys or a couple of girls that want to spend their life together should be allowed to file jointly and get the same breaks?

Nobody has addressed the economic issue in this thread, which I've stated in other threads is a leading (although never openly admitted) detriment to such rights. You think Cali with their hooge deficit wants to fund yet more spousal benefits?

[MDC 7,470]

I'll give this a serious answer. This:

 

Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles....

 

... is I think pretty obvious. Although I think there has to be a genetic component. Otherwise, why does the percentage of adults who are gay consistently hover right around the same %? You'd think the numbers of gays would be soaring, what with the supposedly greater acceptance of the gays. I also think it's strange that homersexuality occurs in apes - why?

 

Anyway, my two cents. I really don't see why anyone cares if two consenting adults want to get married. Lord knows I'm disgusted by plenty of hetero unions, but as long as I don't have to see it - who cares?

[Chronic Husker 85]

Looks like we've hit critical velocity in this thread, including a phillybear/CH smackoff. Let the F5s begin.

I haven't insulted phillybear once.

 

As far as your Cali being in the red comment, does being in the red mean that gays should be discriminated against economically?

[phillybear 366]

The "EXACT" same civil rights? So, you're saying a gay man has a right to marry a woman if he likes? Is that your point?

 

My point is that many married couples get tax breaks for being married and filing jointly. You don't think a couple of guys or a couple of girls that want to spend their life together should be allowed to file jointly and get the same breaks?

 

Well, you keep trying to grab the wheel of this thread and crash into a Twinkie truck so you can scoop up some collateral damage in clear wrappers.

 

What, your main mission in life is the tax status of people living in a house? What, are you Green Lantern Accountant, with his sidekick Gayto? Most of these fuckos get the same rights. How about a guy that's been living with his broad for a month. Should he be given the same rights at the gay couple? Well, that guy doesn't? You going to stick up for that guy?

[kutulu 1,680]

How many cacks did you let ream your asswhole before you came to this conclusion?

[phillybear 366]

Anyway, my two cents. I really don't see why anyone cares if two consenting adults want to get married.

 

This thread is not about marriage.

 

Why is everybody so hung up on this? This thread is about the propaganda of the Gay Movement in this country.