American Psychological Association revises statement on homosexuality

[Yazman]

This isn't really my field, but I figured those of you who frequent discrimination might be interested in this given its from the APA:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97940

Snippet from article, click link to see full story

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.

A. Dean Byrd, the past president of NARTH, confirmed that the statement from the American Psychological Association came in a brochure that updates what the APA has advocated for years.

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, 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. ..."

[JazzRemington]

Their current statement is actually quite accurate: no one really does know why people are straight, gay, or whatever.

[Pogue]

I think all that really matters if we know its natural to people and not something they can change, combined with the fact its harmless and a personal thing which doesn't harm anyone else. Although I do like being able to use the fact it occurts naturally when debating homophobes.

[counterblast]

I think all that really matters if we know its natural to people and not something they can change, combined with the fact its harmless and a personal thing which doesn't harm anyone else. Although I do like being able to use the fact it occurts naturally when debating homophobes.


Whether it is naturally occurring or socially constructed is pretty irrelevant in debating homophobia.

[Eva]

Whether it is naturally occurring or socially constructed is pretty irrelevant in debating homophobia.

I agree.

[samofshs]

I follow the john locke school of thought in the tabla rosa. this means that I believe that being gay is a choice that you are influenced to make based upon your surroundings.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I think homosexuals should consider actively going to outside schools to try and spread information about the beauty of a homosexual lifestyle.

Passive resistance does nothing if your oppressor doesn't give a damn about you. If you start going "after the children," believe me, you'll get your smaller demands pretty quickly.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think homosexuals should consider actively going to outside schools to try and spread information about the beauty of a homosexual lifestyle.

There's no such thing.

[Dr Mindbender]

I think homosexuals should consider actively going to outside schools to try and spread information about the beauty of a homosexual lifestyle.

its completely reactionary to suggest that the burden should fall on homosexuals to have to do such a thing.

Perhaps heterosexuals should have to do the same thing? No, wait, they've got the church and the bourgeioise media to convince us that anything else is 'unnatural'.

[Dimentio]

This isn't really my field, but I figured those of you who frequent discrimination might be interested in this given its from the APA:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97940

Snippet from article, click link to see full story

I don't see any problem with that. If people are born gay, lesbian or hetero, or if everyone truly is bi but society has conditioned them to be hetero. Let people live out their sexuality as long as they don't hurt anyone.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

its completely reactionary to suggest that the burden should fall on homosexuals to have to do such a thing.

Perhaps heterosexuals should have to do the same thing? No, wait, they've got the church and the bourgeioise media to convince us that anything else is 'unnatural'.

Yeah, because the oppressed don't ultimately have to take responsibility for their own interests, right? So the oppressed have to just politely educate people who "feel like listening" instead of actually ensuring our voices get heard?

Moral responsibility, if you believe in that, "may" be on the oppressor. Practical responsibility is on the individual for securing their own interests. If I walk down the most dangerous place in the city, alone, I might get mugged. Do I have "no" responsibility for that result? I knew it was a possibility when I went in there. I took the risk. I would have responsibility if I jumped off a bridge, or if I went a cage with lions unprotected.

Even if we can presume all individuals have access to some sort of moral standard, we can't presume they are aware of it, and we certainly can't assume they will act on it.

Individuals are ultimately responsible for themselves. If I started persecuting everyone from your local area, and you witnessed that, you'd be partially responsible for your own death.

This kind of perspective is typically chastised as victim blaming. I call it being realistic and fostering independence and, in some cases, collective independence. Individuals or groups who don't take opportunities to defend themselves against an observable threat, when opportunities are available, are doing themselves a disservice.

[Pogue]

I follow the john locke school of thought in the tabla rosa. this means that I believe that being gay is a choice that you are influenced to make based upon your surroundings.

John Locke didn't say that everything came from sensory experience, he said that knowledge does. Instinct is not counted in this case as a form of knowledge and homosexual urges are something of an instinct, sexual instinct, so being an rationalist doesn't mean you can justfiably say people are not born gay.

[Vincent]

im not homophbi, i promise. this is something i've spoken about with a number of gay friends...

the whole 'harm' thing... being gay can be harmful. social stigmas which lead to significant mental distress and anxiety disorders, for example. an increased risk of HIV/AIDS, perhaps?

we say 'whatever, be gay, straight, in between or anything you like.. just don't hurt people'. yet homosexuality can be statistically more harmful than heterosexuality... maybe?

so, what about homosexuality sets it apart from other 'statistical sexual deviances' like pedophilia and such?

just a question... please don't tie me to a bundle of sticks and burn me.

[Sasha]

im not homophbi, i promise. this is something i've spoken about with a number of gay friends... etc etc

you already know sommething is wrong with you wiews otherwise you wouldn't start with the worst, yet so typicaly, defence ever... let me go by your words step by step to point out your faults in reasoning;

i'm not homophobic, i promise mistake 1: because i say i'm not i cant, bollox ofcourse, you yourself are always the worst person to decide wheter not your an homophobe, thats up to others,"judge i'm not an criminal because i say so" is not an valid defence this is sommething i've spoken about with a number of gay friends... again this is an meaningless statement, like having gay or for example black friendsautomaticly absolves you from the possibility of having homphobic or racist ideas or attitudes. maybe your friends have just poor taste

the whole 'harm' thing... being gay can be harmful. social stigmas which lead to significant mental distress and anxiety disorders, bollox again, its not being gay thats harmfull, its society's attitude towards homosexuals; you'r blaming the victim here.
for example. an increased risk of HIV/AIDS, perhaps? while an prevelance of AIDS, a greater promisquety and not having to fear for unwanted pregnancy's (and so more unsafe sex) puts an certain part of the gay community at an increased risk this kind of broad sweeping statements serf no other purpose than reconfirm GAYS equals AIDS bigotry.
its like saying that all black people might have aids because there is an increased infection rate in certain african country's and wich is at that conected to specific local circomstances like traditions/culture, poverty, imperialism etc etc

we say 'whatever, be gay, straight, in between or anything you like.. just don't hurt people'. no we dont, i never make an conection between an persons sexuality and hurting people, yet you do, and i asume you would do it only when speaking about gay people, i dont think you would ever say; its fine that people are straight as long as they dont hurt people. so yes, unlike what you claim this remark (like the rest of your post) is an strong inication that you infact are an homophobic piece of shit yet homosexuality can be statistically more harmful than heterosexuality... maybe?no its not, being gay in an homophobic worlds can be harmfull not the fact that you are gay, again your blaming the victim and even worse at the same time you deny/dont realise that you actualy might be part of the agressors/purpetrators.

so, what about homosexuality sets it apart from other 'statistical sexual deviances' like pedophilia and such?wut?? :confused: how do you defend making this jump? although you made an bit coherent (but wrong) argument for saying that being gay might bring harm to yourself (wich is already bullshit because you dont choose to be gay), where the hell do you pull this deviances and pedophilia sudenly from? an aple + an pear doesnt make an goat.

just a question... please don't tie me to a bundle of sticks and burn me.
well maybe you need too burned and pleading not to doesnt impress me much.

because making statements like "gays equals aids" and "the possibility that society isnt nice to you when your gay and you might get an STD means you should be compared to an potential childmolester" are indeed very worying and sound very very homophobic and you should be called on that and potentianly held acountable.

[Bitter Ashes]

im not homophbi, i promise. this is something i've spoken about with a number of gay friends...

Why does this remind me of one of my parents who claimed to be tollerant, right until it landed on thier doorstep?

the whole 'harm' thing... being gay can be harmful. social stigmas which lead to significant mental distress and anxiety disorders, for example. an increased risk of HIV/AIDS, perhaps?
Gay women are the lowest HIV/AIDS risk group. Gay men may have a high HIV risk, but how is that a "hurt" to straight people? By definition, a gay individual is not going to have sex with straight people. And before the myths about all bi people bieng dirty and promisicuous rabbits, that bridge HIV from the LGBT community to the straight lot, flows in, let me remind you that there's quite enough straight idiots prancing around, failing to use condoms to cause thier own HIV epidemic thank you very much.


so, what about homosexuality sets it apart from other 'statistical sexual deviances' like pedophilia and such?*puts her face in her hands*
How about "Informed consent"?!? That's a big one!

[Hit The North]

we say 'whatever, be gay, straight, in between or anything you like.. just don't hurt people'. yet homosexuality can be statistically more harmful than heterosexuality... maybe?


This is just plain wrong. Given the fact that, on average in the UK, one woman per day is murdered by her (male) partner and that the majority of child abuse takes place within the family, it is safe to say that heterosexuality is "statistically more harmful".