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?