APA revises 'gay gene' theory

APA revises ‘gay gene’ theory

[LEFT]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.[/LEFT]

[LEFT]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:[/LEFT]
[LEFT]“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…”

more…
[/LEFT]

My son heard about this from a Catholic friend but we’ve seen nothing in the local news-of course.:shrug:

I see a glaring disconnect between the actual APA quotes and the article interpretation!

The quotes seem to confirm that the APA is backing off from holding to a positive stance that there IS a ‘gay gene.’ But I see no justification to say that the APA now holds that there is NOT a gay gene.

This is the kind of unclarity or outright misrepresentation that gives conservatives a bad name. The APA has for years based its opinions on dubious science and studies conducted by extremely biased researchers. Shame on them. But it gives up the moral high ground when those who call them on it twist this APA admission into more than it is - yet.

what a suprise huh? the media wont tell people about this, its almost like they had an agenda other than impartial journalism…

The APA has never claimed that there is a gay gene. It has maintained that there is strong scientific evidence of a genetic component to homosexuality but that it is likely a combination of factors. This is nothing new.

From the APA site

The old:

“There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”

The new:

“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.”

This is exactly the feeling that I had upon reading the article. To quote from the actual statement: “Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles…”

There have been numerous studies indicating possible, complex biological factors which contribute to one’s sexual orientation. I hardly think this statement - by a psychological association, not a medical one, by the way - contradicts any of them. Let’s at least approach this subject honestly. (I say this as the sister of a lesbian woman of whose lifestyle I strongly disapprove, and as someone strongly opposed to the concept of gay “marriage.”)

To be honest, I’m not sure what they ever hoped to really gain from looking for a ‘gay gene.’ Research is pretty conclusive that some people have a genetic predisposition towards alcoholism too. Anybody ever meet a sober person who thinks you shouldn’t fight your gene’s on THAT self-destructive behavior??

Regardless of what the genes indicate, the issue revolves around the consequences of the behavior. Is gay sexual activity inherently self-destructive or not? If it is, then who cares if you are genetically inclined? Fight it out anyways.

Now they actually mention “developmental, social, and cultural influences.”

Yes, and the APA always pointed out the fact that there is an ongoing nature vs nurture debate and that homosexuality develops as a result of a combination of factors. There is no difference between the old statement and the “new” one.

No, there IS a major difference. The old statement led the reader to believe that it was biological. It was a very biased statement.

The new one is a more balanced, objective statement.

This is an incredibly biased article, calling it a knockout blow. The fact is that the prevailing theory was never that homosexuality was genetic; hormones in the womb have been considered a major factor for over a decade now. Perhaps it would be better to read articles directly from the source, rather than from thirdhand accounts that are pushing agendas.

How the heck can one prove/ DISPROVE that homosexuality in any specific case was not the result of hormones in the womb? You might as well try to disprove that a tree fell in the forrest on a specific date.

Well, of course. OneNewsNow is the press release arm of the American Family Association, a right-wing quasi-Christian organization. They are more interested in spinning the news than conveying the news.

OneNewsNow is not a reputable source for information.

So the APA didn’t really change the statement?

From the APA site

The old:

“There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”

The new:

“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.”

“biology …] play[s] a significant role in a person’s sexuality”

“nature and nurture both play complex roles”

I’m gonna have to agree with the dissenters that this isn’t really a change. Maybe a slight shift in emphasis between the two statements, but nothing more.

Even if the APA came out tomorrow and definitively said “There is no gay gene,” that would still not prove that no one is born homosexual. There is still the possibility that hormone imbalance while in the womb is the cause of homosexuality.

Seriously, people, this discussion is a total red herring. It doesn’t matter if people are born homosexual or not; it is still a disorder. There are plenty of disorders that people are born with; that doesn’t make them an intrinsic part of who one is.

Even if there were a gay gene (and there really can’t be, because there have been documented cases of identical twins who have opposite sexual orientations), that would be no defeat whatsoever for the traditional perspective on human sexuality. There are plenty of genetic disorders.

Philosophical conclusions about a person’s basic metaphysical identity cannot be deduced from genetics alone. The fact that people stake so much on the question of whether there’s a “gay gene” shows how much our society sucks at philosophy.

Perhaps the remnants of the mother taking the pill act on the unborn child or estrogens she uptakes from the environment.

But you are right in what you state above. The gay lobby was hoping and pushing for a gene to advance their cause.

Would someone please educate me as to what “hormones in the womb” means? Something inherited from the mother? Floating in the amniotic sac? This is a new one on me.

This article is extremely disingenuous. Conservatives and Catholics should not resort to shading the truth and telling half-lies. The statement did not change–it has always been a confluence of hereditary and developmental reasons for the uncertain conclusion. It is not a knockout punch–its a joke. It is a mixture of nature and nurture, and no one can tell you the precise mixture, nor can anyone rationally conclude that it is purely nature or nurture. Anyone who does is lying. Anyone who promotes either stance is misguided, inaccurate, or downright malicious. It has not been proven to any rational mind that it is one or the other. Period. Please do not post such inflammatory articles which shade the truth.

Thanks
Matt

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.