Forums | MacLife

I agree the article is definitely religious in assumption.
Reject the religious point of view and the rest of it is rubbish. But I did find the referenced stance on the change of the APA position interesting. For some reason, "unbiased" news sources aren't covering the change in position. Possibly because they don't care.

That article also deceptively cuts off the last part of the paragraph they're quoting, which states:

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.

Obviously, that assertion contradicts the premise of the article.

Oh NARTH.  Love those guys.

Of course, I assume he leaves this part out:

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.

APA statements on homosexuality. Pamphlets don't mean smurf.

So, I googled "APA gene". Turns out there's 9 articles on it in google news. Yet Byrd wrote his piece on 6 March 2008.

Over here, we call that a zombie.

For example - I don't recall ever "choosing" to speak English.
Some people may have, but I didn't. I speak it due to cultural reasons, it is the language that was and is primarily spoken by my immediate family. Even though I didn't choose to speak English, there's no gene involved that makes me an English speaker.

Thus - my experiences have nothing to do with whether or not I have a genetic disposition to speak English.

resedit wrote:

bratboy wrote:

That article also deceptively cuts off the last part of the paragraph they're quoting, which states:

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.

Obviously, that assertion contradicts the premise of the article.

That's not a deceptive edit.
What people experience has nothing to do with whether or not a gene is involved, which is the point of the article.

Just how can you say that this isn't deceptive: the bolded part contradicts the assertion being made.

resedit wrote:

For example - I don't recall ever "choosing" to speak English.
Some people may have, but I didn't. I speak it due to cultural reasons, it is the language that was and is primarily spoken by my immediate family. Even though I didn't choose to speak English, there's no gene involved that makes me an English speaker.

Thus - my experiences have nothing to do with whether or not I have a genetic disposition to speak English.

<mode="bullhorn">resedit: put down the analogy gun and no one (else) will get hurt.</mode>

The failure here is that there is no argument that your "choice" in language is a cultural one, not one of genetics.

resedit wrote:

That's not a deceptive edit.
What people experience has nothing to do with whether or not a gene is involved, which is the point of the article.

What?  They reprinted the entire section, save the final sentence.  You don't believe they made that decision based on the content?

Read further down, it talks extensively about therapy and 'choosing' to change.

JakeTheTall wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

resedit wrote:

For example - I don't recall ever "choosing" to speak English.
Some people may have, but I didn't. I speak it due to cultural reasons, it is the language that was and is primarily spoken by my immediate family. Even though I didn't choose to speak English, there's no gene involved that makes me an English speaker.

Thus - my experiences have nothing to do with whether or not I have a genetic disposition to speak English.

<mode="bullhorn">resedit: put down the analogy gun and no one (else) will get hurt.</mode>

The failure here is that there is no argument that your "choice" in language is a cultural one, not one of genetics.

No, it works perfectly.  For instance, when I sat down for lunch today, there was a cheeseburger on my plate, so clearly I had no choice for lunch !  But there's no cheeseburger gene.

Close, but I have it on good authority that it's more like choosing a salad.

Or possibly a chocolate sundae.

resedit wrote:

For example - I don't recall ever "choosing" to speak English.
Some people may have, but I didn't. I speak it due to cultural reasons, it is the language that was and is primarily spoken by my immediate family. Even though I didn't choose to speak English, there's no gene involved that makes me an English speaker.

Thus - my experiences have nothing to do with whether or not I have a genetic disposition to speak English.

I could say the same of your religion. You could learn to speak another language and speak only that language for the rest of your life. I was raised in a particular religion and choose not to practice it. I do choose to keep speaking English though.

Usually this sort of thing is used to justify discrimination because sexual orientation is not genetically determined - but neither is religion. If you're interested for the sheer sake of scientific curiosity, fine - but even if sexual orientation were a choice - as religion is - it doesn't justify discrimination or treating an entire group differently under the law.

robco wrote:

resedit wrote:

For example - I don't recall ever "choosing" to speak English.
Some people may have, but I didn't. I speak it due to cultural reasons, it is the language that was and is primarily spoken by my immediate family. Even though I didn't choose to speak English, there's no gene involved that makes me an English speaker.

Thus - my experiences have nothing to do with whether or not I have a genetic disposition to speak English.

I could say the same of your religion.

You could, but you'd be wrong.
In my religion, you have to make a specific choice.
You have to specifically choose it, no one is born Christian.