Listen to this articleNARTH reports that a recent American Psychological Association (APA) brochure on homosexuality de-emphasizes the biological theory of homosexuality. The new pamphlet is a re-release of a similar one from 1998 entitled "Answers to Your Questions about Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality."
This revision shows that the APA may be recovering from it’s politization of the subject, and returning to good science, or as NARTH puts it:
The APA has now begun to acknowledge what most scientists have long known:
that a bio-psycho-social model of causation best fits the data.
1. Changes from the previous versions
Regarding the previous APA brochure, NARTH remarks on it’s political rather than scientific asserstions:
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.
Notice one illustrative revision:
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…"
These changes show that proving that homosexuality is entirely biologically determined is not going to happen.
2. Recognizing the rights of gays who want to change
The important thing here is that gay-rights advocates, in an attempt to push the normalcy of their condition, have trampled real science with unsubstantiated certainty, and the rights of those who deserve the hope of change that science and faith might offer them.
And now, the APA is also recognizing those rights.
In APA’s new document, there is a greater emphasis on ethicality. The pamphlet includes this key statement:
"Mental health organizations call on their members to respect a person’s [client’s] right to self-determination."
Read the rest of the article, it’s very good. Thank God that ‘gay rights’ advocates are no longer trampling the rights of those who want to get well, and those pushing for objectivity and the possible dysfunction-model of homosexuality are allowing science to move ahead unmolested (pun intended).
