« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
05/13/2009
But what about grasping at straws, WND -- is that genetic or a 'choice'?
A little over a year ago, we were surprised to see professional "ex-gay" Randy Thomas spinning the text of an updated American Psychological Association brochure, making it sound as if the organization's new text about their being no conclusive consensus on the cause of sexuality was somehow "proof" that homosexuality is a choice and gays can "change." We found it especially odd considering that the very same brochure that Randy and his compadres at Focus on the Family were citing specifically and clearly distanced itself from "ex-gay" therapy:
Well let's fast forward to 2009, and move over to the uber-conservative WorldNetDaily. That particular "news" site is now quoting from the very same document, presenting it as somehow "new", and even more egregiously suggesting that this fair and measured statement about the complexity of sexual orientation...
...somehow means this:
A publication from the American Psychological Association includes an admission that there is no "gay" gene, according to a doctor who
has written about the issue on the website of National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality.
...
"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," Byrd wrote. "The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion. There is no gay gene. There is no simple biological pathway to homosexuality."
'Gay' gene claim suddenly vanishes [WND]
So essentially WND is enabling NARTH and other "ex-gays," suggesting that a non-new, non-change from an organization that still very much stands against their work is somehow a "sudden" shift in policy. Once again, their side is using complexity to their advantage, simplistically and duplicitously presenting the scientific community's inability thus far to find one certain gene as "proof" that their own scientifically-shunned work has merit.
But then again, theirs is a flower that best grows in bullsh*t.
*The full, year-old APA brochure:
sorientation
Your thoughts
There is a good Swedish twin study published last year. Everyone should have a copy.
The other day someone used the term 'recloseted' instead of ex-gay...I like it much better, tells it straight (no pun intended.)
As for determination of orientation, the best study...which they wouldn't use was the Swedish one last year from identical twins... who's genes all match.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080628205430.htm
Homosexual Behavior Largely Shaped By Genetics And Random Environmental Factors
ScienceDaily (June 30, 2008) — Homosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors, according to findings from the world's largest study of twins."
Posted by: LOrion | May 13, 2009 11:21:05 AM
Funny how WND doesn't link to a copy of the actual online pamphlet, which states the negative effects of discrimination on gay people. Heaven forbid they actually provide their readers with non-filtered information.
It also pains my brain when they assume that because no single gene has been found to control sexual orientation, it must be totally devoid of biological causation. Has none of them really ever realized that there's no "tall" gene either?
Posted by: that_chris_guy | May 13, 2009 1:01:58 PM
There's no one I feel more sorry for than these 'ex gays'. To be in such denial, and so afraid to just be themselves. It must be hell.
Posted by: Callie | May 14, 2009 8:39:37 PM
I just had a wingnut quote me this intellectual slight-of-hand today on my own blog here.
Posted by: Jason D | Jun 2, 2009 6:25:48 PM
comments powered by Disqus
