There is no scientific evidence that anyone is born gay or transgendered. Therefore, the College further advises that schools should not teach or imply to students that homosexual attraction is innate, always life-long and unchangeable. Research has shown that therapy to restore heterosexual attraction can be effective for many people. Read more»
That ACPEDS is reporting that homosexual orientation is not hardwired is about as surprising as the ICR releasing a report on scientific evidence for a young earth.
The organization is not some umbrella group of American pediatricians. It is a politically conservative group whose purposes include fighting what it perceives to be liberal bias in American schooling and media. In other words, it’s a group fighting the culture wars. It’s not a disinterested group of scientists.
Ironically, their website includes a position statement titled, “Empowering Parents of Gender Discordant and Same-Sex Attracted Children”.
Unfortunatly ACP crap works. Today in El salvador our largest Newspaper “El Diario De Hoy” published an op-ed written by Julia Regina de Cardenal. Quoteing this News release as the latest American Scientific findings by the AMERICAN College Of Pediatrics. Please help us! Send an Email to opine@elsalvador.com and inform them what the ACP is and to not take this consensus of the American Pediatrics. Please help us!
An important thing to note is the following:
>> Dr. Francis Collins, former Director of the Genome Project, has stated that while homosexuality may be genetically influenced, it is “… not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations.” <<
It's quite possible that certain genetic disorders, Swyer syndrome, Turner's Syndrome or the like could influence same-sex desire. The fact of the matter is that we're all "hardwired" toward sin. So while no one is born homosexual, we're all born sinners and that sin may tend one direction or another.
BTW, I'm working my way through RRC.
Micah Burke
For what it’s worth the American College of Pediatricians is not the same organization as the American Academy of Pediatrics. The former is an advocacy group the latter is much larger and better known profession organization (that may or may not also be a advocacy group). The similarity in names between the two organizations is no doubt intentional. It’s a little unsettling that the organization that I am sure is on the side of the angels feel it is necessary to resort to such a seemly dishonest tactics.
Why do some seem to think sexuality is the one aspect of humanity that escaped the effects of original sin? How can it be possible to be born a child of wrath but impossible to be born homosexual? I suspect it has to do with preempting any potential grounds to condone that which makes some particularly ill-at-ease. But if we preempt natural homosexuality for fear that it will be condoned, what keeps us from preempting original sin for fear it that it will be condoned? It sure seems that what lurks behind the resistance to natural homosexuality lurks behind the charge of antinominism against Paul’s gospel: admit something evil is real and you’ll end up condoning it. Huh?
Zrim, I agree with the heart of your analysis. I think there is often more at stake than you suggest. Those who maintain that there cannot be an inborn predisposition to homosexuality necessarily posit environmental causes for homosexuality. These folks often propose several possible environmental causes, including gay parents, sex education, pornography, The Smurfs, etc. Anyway, this gives them something to fight against, and it enhances their perceived status as enlightened cultural warriors saving the benighted masses from themselves. It goes straight to how they define themselves.
Rhett,
I purposely didn’t suggest more, hoping someone else would. I think you’re absolutely right.
I’ll see your point about the “perceived status as enlightened cultural warriors saving the benighted masses from themselves” and raise another: it may also have something to do with constructing things in such a way that it becomes possible to make the world the way some want it in order to be more comfortable, which is to say, less gay (“You’re not really gay, you just think you are. You were born straight, so let’s get back to the garden.”). And, voila, make ‘em straight factories. At least AA knows that an alcoholic is fundamentally an alcoholic until he dies; imagine an AA counselor telling an alcoholic, “You’re not an alcoholic, you just think you are. You were born sober, so let’s get back to sobriety.” Or a pastor telling a sinner, “You’re not an enemy of God, you just think you are. You were born to love God and enjoy him forever, so grab those bootstraps and let’s get back to the garden.” Since when was denial a healthy way to counsel anyone?
Right, but while we are born into sin, isn’t sin also still a choice? While I would not advocate denial, it is true that we were born to love God and enjoy Him forever. It is true that we were born not addicted to alcohol. We are born as sinners in a fallen world… but we still have free will, right? It sounds like you are denying that, too. We freely will to deny God, that is our heredity from Adam. But we still freely will it! Thus while we are born sinners, we are not born having already committed sins (like choosing to be homosexual, and thus getting the long way around the block to being “born homosexual”). We are born sinners in the sense that we naturally deny God and are inclined to choose sin over saving grace (in the absence of God’s saving mercy). We are not born sinners in the sense that we have pre-committed sins (like homosexuality) prior to birth.
ACP’s point seems rather moot at least such places as Scotland (the whole U.K. too?):
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2010/05/street_preacher.html