'Gay' gene claim suddenly vanishes

[justashooter 430]

well, not really my taste, but you have to admit she is kinda cute. in any case, it's the message, rather than the messenger, that counts. hard principle for libs in this forum to understand.

stole the pic from a recent thread in this forum. kudos to the OP.

she is kinda cute, but i liken it to myself holding up a sign about small people or hairy people...

okay,

so you're fat and bald? no wonder you are on the "import a spouse" forum.

it's OK. it's cool to be fat and bald.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Specifically, in a brochure that first came out about 1998, the APA stated: "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, in the update: a brochure now called, "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality," the APA's position changed.

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

I don't see any significant change in the statements. Both acknowledge that we know little about the actual triggers and both stipulate a biological role in how one is wired.

But what does one expect from World Nut Daily?

One would expect WND to run with a story which counters the claims of many ignorant people (the claim has even been made here... unchallenged).

Why do you hate freedom of the press?

Why do you believe I hate freedom of the press?

There's just no substance to the story they wrote. The APA's position hasn't changed. They have and continue to stipulate a biological role in the determination of an individual's sexuality. All the difference in the statement is that "biological" was replaced with "nature". That might be a big deal to folks over at World Nut Daily but in the real world, these terms are quite interchangeable.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

well, not really my taste, but you have to admit she is kinda cute. in any case, it's the message, rather than the messenger, that counts. hard principle for libs in this forum to understand.

stole the pic from a recent thread in this forum. kudos to the OP.

she is kinda cute, but i liken it to myself holding up a sign about small people or hairy people...

okay,

so you're fat and bald? no wonder you are on the "import a spouse" forum.

it's OK. it's cool to be fat and bald.

Must be the same reason you're here too, right?

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

let's see - discredit the source: check. discredit the op: check. attack anyone supporting the op: check.

this thread is done, stick a fork in it.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

let's see - discredit the source: check. discredit the op: check. attack anyone supporting the op: check.

this thread is done, stick a fork in it.

Boy, that didn't take long. Next.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Specifically, in a brochure that first came out about 1998, the APA stated: "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, in the update: a brochure now called, "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality," the APA's position changed.

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

I don't see any significant change in the statements. Both acknowledge that we know little about the actual triggers and both stipulate a biological role in how one is wired.

But what does one expect from World Nut Daily?

One would expect WND to run with a story which counters the claims of many ignorant people (the claim has even been made here... unchallenged).

Why do you hate freedom of the press?

Why do you believe I hate freedom of the press?

There's just no substance to the story they wrote. The APA's position hasn't changed. They have and continue to stipulate a biological role in the determination of an individual's sexuality. All the difference in the statement is that "biological" was replaced with "nature". That might be a big deal to folks over at World Nut Daily but in the real world, these terms are quite interchangeable.

I don't think anyone pushes the idea that sexual orientation is purely genetic. There may well be a genetic component of it - but its likely the result of a confluence of biological and social factors.

[Danno 1,228]

Another interesting story might be.... why the change in position?

Did new evidence develop ...did a political hack retire from the Organization?

How did the suggestion of "fact" ever become accepted as a finding earlier?

[Danno 1,228]

I don't think anyone pushes the idea that sexual orientation is purely genetic. There may well be a genetic component of it - but its likely the result of a confluence of biological and social factors.

Such as Molestation?

[justashooter 430]

well, not really my taste, but you have to admit she is kinda cute. in any case, it's the message, rather than the messenger, that counts. hard principle for libs in this forum to understand.

stole the pic from a recent thread in this forum. kudos to the OP.

she is kinda cute, but i liken it to myself holding up a sign about small people or hairy people...

okay,

so you're fat and bald? no wonder you are on the "import a spouse" forum.

it's OK. it's cool to be fat and bald.

Must be the same reason you're here too, right?

nope. full head of hair, and my mother's father died with a full head of hair, so i'm good to go. also had a foreign wife i met while living in a foreign country before i found this forum. i'm just here to mess with the liberals.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think anyone pushes the idea that sexual orientation is purely genetic. There may well be a genetic component of it - but its likely the result of a confluence of biological and social factors.

Such as Molestation?

I really have no idea.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I don't think anyone pushes the idea that sexual orientation is purely genetic. There may well be a genetic component of it - but its likely the result of a confluence of biological and social factors.

Such as Molestation?

I really have no idea.

Aha! So you admit it!

*dances lame victory jig*

[mawilson 2,133]

Actually the truth is that we really don't know. There's a lot about our biological conditioning that isn't understood - for example, noone really knows for sure how babies learn language.

And why so many don't.

[AlHayatZween 2]

so you're fat and bald? no wonder you are on the "import a spouse" forum.

it's OK. it's cool to be fat and bald.

it's not easy...

[The_Dude 1,142]

'Gay' gene claim suddenly vanishes

American Psychological Association revises statement on homosexuality

Posted: May 12, 2009

9:30 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

"The term 'homophobia' is often used inaccurately to describe any person who objects to homosexual behavior on either moral, psychological or medical grounds," NARTH explains. "Technically, however, the terms actually denotes a person who has a phobia – or irrational fear – of homosexuality. Principled disagreement, therefore, cannot be labeled 'homophobia.'"

as usual, nothing of value to say.

As usual shooter, your brilliant repartee and analysis are both cunning and relavent. You crop a part of an article that was already posted for everyone to see.

My initial post was in response to the article itself. WorldNetDaily is nothing more than a propaganda newsletter. No need to post it's attempts at journalism here and try to pass it off as analysis. It's yellow journalism that has no sense of context. It would be the same as a liberal posting an article from DailyKos or Huffingtonpost here.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Don't know much about WorldNetDaily, but the article is all agenda and rampant speculation.