Posted on 07/12/2006 2:07:22 PM PDT by carlo3b
No scientific basis for 'born gay' theory By David Clarke PrudenAlthough the simple "born gay" theory has faded from the science scene, activists continue to misrepresent scientific findings. When you assert that individuals are born gay and cannot change, people naturally jump to the conclusion that same-sex marriage is the only rational choice for same-sex attracted individuals.
However, the innate-immutable theory of homosexuality has no basis in science. The simplistic biological theory has been dismissed by all of the researchers whose studies have been cited to support the notion that homosexuality is so deeply compelled by biology that it cannot change.
Let's examine the words of just one of those often incorrectly cited as providing evidence for a "gay gene." Simon LeVay notes, "It is important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality was genetic, or find a cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men were born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work."
A new research study by a University of Illinois team, which has screened the entire human genome, reported that there is no one gay gene. Writing in the journal Human Genetics, lead researcher Dr. Brian Mustanski noted that environmental factors were also likely to be involved.
Of the innate-immutable argument, Dr. Richard C. Friedman and Dr. Jennifer Downey, noted, "At clinical conferences one often hears . . . that homosexual orientation is fixed and unmodifiable. Neither assertion is true . . . The assertion that homosexuality is genetic is so reductionistic that it must be dismissed out of hand as a general principle of psychology."
And the fluidity of homosexual attractions is well-established. Dr. Ellen Schecter of the Fielding Institute studied women who had self-identified as lesbian for more than 10 years and who after age 30 were now in intimate relationships with men lasting a year or longer.
Even more prominent was the research by Robert Spitzer, the very psychiatrist who led the charge to remove homosexuality from the psychiatric manual. His study of 200 gay men and lesbian women who had undergone re-orientation therapy concluded: 44 percent of the women and 66 percent of the men had arrived at what he called "good heterosexual functioning" and 89 percent of the men and 95 percent of the women reported that they were bothered slightly or not at all by unwanted homosexual feelings.
Mainstream gay-affirming publications like The Advocate are changing their terminology to embrace the concept of fluid sexual attractions. Matt Foreman, of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, summarizes what the gay movement has done.
"We as a movement can take pride that we opened the door for young people to be much more fluid about sexuality, gender, gender roles, orientation and sexual behavior than any other generation in history. That's what the gay movement has contributed to society, and that's a tremendously good thing."
But is it? If the innate-immutable theory of homosexuality has no basis in science then why do so many activists still insist that individuals are born gay and cannot change? LeVay provided the answer. He notes " . . . people who think that gays and lesbians are born that way are more likely to support gay rights."
This is not to say that anyone chooses homosexual attractions nor do most of us choose many of the other challenges we face in life, but we do choose how we respond.
---
David Clarke Pruden is the executive director of Evergreen International, a nonprofit Latter-Day Saint organization that provides resources and educational services for same-sex attracted members.
BTW, just so it's clear and my original comments are buried above, only some are born that way. others are born with more, or less propensity.
Asking you to find other scientists who agree with you is similar to asking you to submit your paper to a peer review before publishing it. It's not so much an appeal to authority as it is a check against the possibility of human error creeping into your methods, your data, or your interpretation of data. Yes, one person can be right when everyone else is wrong. However, that is the least likely explaination for one person having a different answer from everyone else.
Shalom.
What part of of the propaganda technique of appeal to authority don't you understand? I laid out the facts right here on this thread. The data and statistics are really simple. If you don't agree with what I said, address it right here, or you ping an "expert". There task will be to show that the 20% in table 1 of the paper somewhere above is the same as 0-10%.
"a check against the possibility of human error creeping into your methods, your data, or your interpretation of data."
Go for it!
"Yes, one person can be right when everyone else is wrong. However, that is the least likely explaination for one person having a different answer from everyone else."
Who's everyone else? The data and statistics for table 1 are given. Show how the probability of finding a homo monozygotic twin once one is found is not 20% and it's the same as either dizogotic twins, or the occurance in the general pop.
LOLOLOLOL! (attraction to skydiving)
A previous poster on this thread said something like, "I doubt that anyone just woke up one day and found they were attracted to men..."
I dunno. Something like that happened to me in my early teens! But then, I am very much a girly girl! Or, womanly woman! So, I suppose that was to be expected. LOL.
(tongue firmly in cheek!)
Otherwise, your advice is perfect and a good reason to not introduce this subject in elementary school! MG, they are playing with fire.
The part where it applies to the fact that no (other) scientist believes homsexuals are born that way.
I laid out the facts right here on this thread. The data and statistics are really simple. If you don't agree with what I said, address it right here, or you ping an "expert".
Well, I walked in "in the middle" and didn't go all the way back through the discussion. From what I HAVE read, I would say that you are discussing the statistics around "identical twins" but are being asked about the idea that people are born homosexual. In other words, you are being accused of being the only person in the world who thinks water is dry, and you keep answering, "Show me what is wrong with my statement that a water molecule is made of two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule." Then you are trying to call that an argument.
So statistically speaking having one homosexual "identical twin", you would only expect to find the other being homosexual 20% of the time. Does that prove that people are born homosexual? If not, how is it relevant?
Yes, I know people use the fact that all pairs aren't homosexual to prove that people aren't born homosexual. But that just makes them as wrong as you.
Shalom.
That's almost correct and it applies to males. The qualifier "only" does not belong. This statistic applies to the more rigorously defined data that indicates natural inherent attractions. For the same in dizygotic twins, the corresponding statistic is 0%. There the data set is too small(0.56 the size of the MZ group) to get a good estimate of the mean probability and any measure of variance. For opposite sex dizygotic twins, the corresponding probability is 11%. For a weaker def of natural homo men, the corresponding statistics are 37% for MZT, 6% for DZT and 11% for opp. sex DZT. These statistics show that they were born gay and that there's an underlying physical cause. The data in the table show the occurrence of natural gay is on the order of 0.3%, ~1% for weaker gay.
" The part where it applies to the fact that no (other) scientist believes homsexuals are born that way.
There are plenty of scientists, or anyone that understands statistics, that would agree to what I just said. The data and statistics tell the story.
You're absolutely right. Problem is, the story you told has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Did you expect the sheer mass of numbers to throw me off?
I do cutting through bs for a living.
Shalom.
The subject and title of the thread is "No scientific basis for 'born gay' theory". Table 1 from that paper shows there clearly is. I don't see a shear mass of numbers there. Also, if you're going to "cut through BS", you'll have to show that 20% is the same as 0-10%. Go for it!
Yes, you've said some are born that way. Your evidence some are born that way is Table 1 from here (page 14). None of the scientists involved with the study agree with you and you cannot cite any credible scientist that agrees with you. Is that correct?
Can you imagine the 3 way CF that would occur if you pit the homosexual lobby against the abortion lobby against the "bioethecists?"
Mark
I'd pay handsomely to witness that fight.. :)
No. From the abstract, "...childhood gender nonconformity was significantly heritable for both men and women." That's because 20% is greater than 0-10%.
When my buddy told me he thought Mariah Carey was ugly I told him it was proof that there is a gay gene.
You've said some are born that way. Your evidence some are born that way is Table 1. You don't know any credible scientists that use Table 1 as evidence some homosexuals are born that way. Is that correct?
We need to put that in context. Here's more from the abstract:
Univariate analyses showed that familial factors were important for all traits, but were less successful in distinguishing genetic from shared environmental influences. Only childhood gender nonconformity was significantly heritable for both men and women. Multivariate analyses suggested that the causal architecture differed between men and women, and, for women, provided significant evidence for the importance of genetic factors to the trait's covariationAre you of the opinion that significantly heritable implies homosexuality is inherited? If not, how does your quoting from the abstract support your position that homosexuals are born that way.
No. I know several in widely different fields that would read table 1 as I did. I'll also say that most members of the APA that read the table would come to the same conclusion the authors did.
I notice you're getting quite picky and specific about actually "knowing" the scientists. I could give Bailey a call and see if he wouldn't mind if I rode down to have a talk with him. I could invite him up to my third world bed and breakfast for a pig roast. I could call some of the psych docs I know and see if they're familiar with this work and ask them about it. I already know they think there's a physical cause in some.
That's fine. But could you cite a credible scientist that uses Table 1 as evidence some are born homosexual?
I notice you're getting quite picky and specific about actually "knowing" the scientists.
That's now what I meant. I'm just curious if you can cite, not know scientists that believe Table 1 provides evidence some are born homosexual.
I already made it clear that some are. The others do it for what I'll summarize as pleasure and there's a range in between. As I noted above in more than one post, including my comment regarding the NARTH paper you presented, the homo MZ twins have an inherent physical cause for being gay. That cause is less of a factor and has less effect in the mixed MZ twins. IOWs, heritable fruitiness appears as a range, not as an either/or.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.