As Dr. Collins would agree, environment can influence gene expression, and free will determines the response to whatever predispositions might be present.

In Fact most of Byrd’s article, beginning with the headline, is NARTH’s way of misrepresenting another person’s work so that it fits within their worldview and supports their agenda. They have a long and sad track record of doing this.

Nevertheless, this kind of conflict is never discussed in Christians circles, which is the culture we are coming from. You have to figure out how to do it from scratch.

David,
I’m a little unclear on what you are talking about here. Are you speaking about the efforts to change NARTH made by you and Warren?

FWIW, Carole, you missed the point by several orbits. But that shrill screed is certainly telling. You might want to find another blog that suits you better.

Ah, the kind of thing David and Eddy were talking about.
FWIW, there are several people who post here often and some much less often who offer intelligent discourse, ask interesting questions, can disagree w/out resorting to ad hominems, and a blog owner who offers a great, intriguing mix of topics.
Could be there’s something wrong with your ears, but in any case, you can always choose to not read my posts if the tune isn’t to your liking.

@Debbie – When you say their current explanation was weaker than Byrd’s article, I agree. They have been going from marginal to much worse. I know of no scientist, gay, straight, liberal or conservative or anywhere in between that believe same-sex attraction is directly and exclusively inherited. NARTH continues to fight the battles of the 1990s. Those days are over. I know activists stretch the truth a lot on both sides but NARTH should deal with what is now in science and not what was. My guess is that part of why they continue to bang on 1990s research is because those battles are relatively easy to win. The brain evidence for orientation is much more difficult for them, hence, you see them going on and on about genetics.