American Psychological Association: sexual orientation & homosexuality
Some surprising — and welcome — news from the American Psychological Association:
A. Dean Byrd, PhD., president of NARTH – the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality – reports in the Summer 2008 NARTH BULLETIN that the “APA’s new pamphlet on homosexuality de-emphasizes the biological argument [and] supports a client’s right to self-determination.”
Dr. Byrd writes:
In 1998, the American Psychological Association (APA) published a brochure titled “Answers to Your Questions about Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality.”
This particular document was ostensibly published to provide definitive answers about homosexuality. However, few of the assertions made in the brochure could find any basis in psychological science. Clearly a document anchored more in activism than in empiricism, the brochure was simply a demonstration of how far APA had strayed from science, and how much it had capitulated to activism.
The newest APA brochure, which appears to be an update of the older one, is titled, “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality.”
Though both brochures have strong activist overtones (both were created with “editorial assistance from the APA Committee on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns“), the newer document is more reflective of science and more consistent with the ethicality of psychological care.
Consider the following statement from the first document:
“There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”
That statement was omitted from the current document and replaced with the following:
“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…”
Sherry Tyree, 66, a graduate of John Burroughs School and Washington University, is a founding member (1984) and Vice President of Women for Faith & Family, a national Catholic women's organization that supports and defends traditional church teachings. Sherry is married to Dr. Donald A. Tyree, professor emeritus, School of Business, St. Louis University. 
So, they’re saying that “we don’t know why some percentage of the population are homosexual, there is not a lot of empirical data either way”.
No problem.
To stretch the statement to the point that some would argue that homosexuality is a learned and chosen behavior is also an inappropriate application of the data.
Having a homosexual child makes me a little more sensitive to this than others might be. Having watched her mature and grow up (she’s now a young adult in her 20’s), I have no doubt that she was born with the trait, it wasn’t learned or taught to her.
The APA has issued a more balanced statement and indeed this is commendable. Now, NARTH, the organization headed by Dr. Byrd, should do the same thing.
NARTH leaders have been at the forefront of a purely environmental theory that homosexuality stems from deficient same-sex parenting and some sense of deficient gender identification.
Will NARTH and Dr. Byrd now issue a more nuanced statement?
I think the key phrase above is Sherry’s use of “Some surprising — and welcome — news “.
What is welcoming about such ludicrous statements?
Dr. Byrd is looking for conflict where none exists. For example Byrd thinks the APA statement is biased because it received editorial assistance from the APA Committee on Lesbian, Gay, and Bi-Sexual concerns. I can’t think of what committee would be better to assist on a statement concerning ‘Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality’
Suzy – Looks like you’re the only one looking for conflict. Dr. Byrd is finding common ground. What ludicrous statements are you referring to? This is about common ground, and having points of view based factually on what we know and what we don’t know. Furthermore, the APA has a responsibility to science and truth – not nicety and tolerance. Letting activists insert their agenda into the APA’s position is like letting either the Bush administration, or moveon.org write the history of the Iraq war; neither would likely be unbiased.
I’m going to preface the rest of this by saying that I know nothing about NARTH. But, Warren’s request for a more balanced point of view made me look into what their point of view actually was. Copied from their position statement:
“There is no such thing as a “gay gene” and there is no evidence to support the idea that homosexuality is simply genetic. However, biological influences may indeed influence some people toward homosexuality; recent studies point to prenatal-hormonal influences, especially in men, that result in a low-masculinized brain; also, there may be genetic factors in some people — both of which would affect gender identity, and therefore sexual orientation. But none of these factors mean that homosexuality is normal and a part of human design, or that it is inevitable in such people, or that it is unchangeable.”
They clearly take the point of view that homosexuality is not a normal behavior. They don’t deny biological factors may be involved. It is really nice to see NARTH and the APA accepting that there is not any fact about genetic or fully biological factors that MAKE somebody homosexual. It’s nice to see because that’s what popular culture accepts as fact, and as long as we’re all expected to worship at the alter of tolerance, we’ll be forced to check our brains at the door and just accept lies so that we don’t offend anybody.
I’d like to pose a question, if I might: Why is it that so many people both within and without the Church focus on sexuality as if it is the ONLY human behavior worthy of comment? Why does it seem that the only sin worth preaching about or criticizing in print is sexual sin? I don’t get it. I was taught that ’sin is sin’, that no sin (with one exception) is any worse than any other sin. The one exception is Blasphemy against the holy spirit…and I’m not sure I even clearly understand what that IS.
Could it be that it’s the one sin that pretty much all of us struggle with, and deep in our hearts, we know that we’re guilty of pretty much all our lives?