Raycom, are you a psychiatrist or even a psychologist, as you are talking a load of ignorant bulldust, in other words put up or shut up with evidence to prove your nasty antigay comments.
You may not respect people who are gay, but your comments contribute to the ongoing stigma, bullying and bashing, that gay people have to live with daily.
I respect that you are of rightwing thinking, but when you denigrate fellow human beings for who they are. You lower yourself to the level of a facist.
I truely believe has a person, you will never be happy until you accept the diversity of life.

>> "The study of sexual-orientation change efforts to date, shows that some people can indeed move from homosexuality to heterosexuality, and that harm is unlikely to result from such efforts" <<
Posted by Raycom, Friday, 20 April 2012 5:36:15 PM

Some ... perhaps. But, such as small %, and usually within a strongly religious family/community, as not to be a universal claim.

Historically, before it was OK to "come out", most entered the clergy.

RE human genome project - it sequenced the genome of humans from blood samples from initially 6 people, nothing to do with "whole body" or sexuality. It found genes but it was not a study designed to determined what is the function of those genes. That is subsequent research that is still ongoing and for sexuality it would require sequencing a large number of people representing various diversities and some fancy mathematics called genetic linkage disequilibrium AND a very large amount of public funding. The evidence for the genetic contribution to homosexuality indicates that it is polygenetic - the idea of 1 or 2 gay genes was dismissed a long time ago - and the technology is only now being developed to be able to do this type of study some time in the future.

Why is Jim Wallace so off track on this, quoting a social historian who has never published any science, using old ideas and misrepresenting the Human Genome Project that a yr 12 biology student would be expected to be able to refute? I think he has a log in his eye (Matthew 7:3). You shall know them by their fruits.

Survivor of suicidal ideation trying to resisit homosexuality, distraught that I was not even bisexual.

Would Raycom send Jesus for a gay cure? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/apr/20/was-jesus-gay-probably?
"Jesus was a Hebrew rabbi. Unusually, he was unmarried. The idea that he had a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene is the stuff of fiction, based on no biblical evidence. The evidence, on the other hand, that he may have been what we today call gay is very strong.

"After much reflection and with certainly no wish to shock, I felt I was left with no option but to suggest, for the first time in half a century of my Anglican priesthood, that Jesus may well have been homosexual. Had he been devoid of sexuality, he would not have been truly human. To believe that would be heretical.

Heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual: Jesus could have been any of these. There can be no certainty which. The homosexual option simply seems the most likely. The intimate relationship with the beloved disciple points in that direction. It would be so interpreted in any person today. Although there is no rabbinic tradition of celibacy, Jesus could well have chosen to refrain from sexual activity, whether he was gay or not. Many Christians will wish to assume it, but I see no theological need to. The physical expression of faithful love is godly. To suggest otherwise is to buy into a kind of puritanism that has long tainted the churches."

No one in their right mind would choose life long discrimination or gay bashing. Or permanent harmful estrangement from family and friends. Little wonder the suicide rate is the highest in young men facing a future void of all happiness, human warmth, companionship or common human decency, or parenthood!
No normal heterosexual could choose to switch sides or bat for the other team, unless a gun were held to their head or it was the only way they could survive.
Even then the skin would fairly crawl with horror, self loathing and disgust! Choice? Preference? What a ridiculous idea!
There is plenty of evidence of natural selection, but those never ever looking for it will never ever find it? If they ever did then maybe they would no longer be able to justify their mindless hate-filled attitude and all the various forms of harm that spring from it. Basic physiology informs us that there are four tiny centres at the base of the brain, which control all our sex responses, arousal and or attraction.
They are not like light switches that we can simply switch on or off at will. Every foetus starts out as female and some are adjusted by hormones, incubation temperatures and other factors to change sex. Around half?
Sometimes this starts but is not properly completed, hence we have some that are naturally attracted to the same gender. Not every child born of water and the spirit, exits the womb fully formed and or normally functional. No one would now seriously question being left handed as a product of choice, yet as a young boy attending school I can remember being rapt over the knuckles on many occasions, by some seriously ignorant imbeciles merely masquerading as elementary teachers.
We really must go beyond judgment, but simply focus on ourselves and fixing our own perceived flaws!
Why if we did just this much there'd be no wars, no want or poverty, no homeless demographic and no holier than thou blithering idiots. There are none so blind---- Rhrosty.

The replies in this thread suggest that people value the right to criticise an idea (no shortage of bashing the Bible-bashers for instance; not quite sure how that works in a secular society that is not supposed to be prejudiced about what people believe in, but anyway). So I think the Press Council is definitely not acting impartially.

However, on the issue of a "gay gene", should it be found, you move from the realm of "free choice" and slide down the slippery slope of "medical affliction". Proving genetic disposition will do nothing to help the gay community particularly in the area of ridicule; it will make it worse ("poor dears can't help themselves, they've got 'the gene'"). It also won't stop it being monopolised by drug companies wanting to patent gene therapies (any combination of to or from orientation being possible). But it will put more pressure on unborn children who are already culled for simply being the undesired gender (like that was *their* fault). And there'll be no shortage of studies linking 'the gene' (or whatever markers forms the "proof") with any number of positive and negative health effects (you think the battle between scientists about climate change is bad? - pfft). That's going to do wonders for self-esteem, hetero and homo alike. So be careful what you wish for ... Gattaca anyone?