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.
You have an agenda to push which holds a conclusion that doesn't fit the scientific facts of the matter.
Actually, I took your challenge and pinged another scientist, an expert in the field. Thanks for the challenge!
Neither of us are interested in continuing this game of yours as you're just not worth our time. Go ahead and declare great victory as your logic is too much for us.
So your expert scientist in the field is afraid to challenge a chicken farmer and Bailey's results and conclusions. Maybe it's just that he's afraid to expose himself as being an incompitent hack?
Did you notice the name calling from the good Christian?
Yes, it's one of the many propaganda techniques NARTH uses.
Response from Simon LeVay on the article:
http://www.sltrib.com/search/ci_4057177
It's clear that biology influences sexual orientation
Views on sexual orientation were misrepresented
In 1991 I published a report in Science that described a difference in brain structure between homosexual and heterosexual men.
Although this was not the first biological study of sexual orientation, it drew a great deal of attention both from the general public and within the scientific community. It was followed by a wealth of other studies, and collectively these have greatly strengthened the general conclusion that I drew 15 years ago: Biological factors - including prenatal brain development, hormones and genes - exert a powerful influence on the direction of a person's sexual attractions.
The scientific evidence has helped many people view homosexuality and gay people with greater understanding and acceptance, but it has provoked antagonistic responses from those who are heavily invested in the concept of homosexuality as something undesirable or sinful.
Among the latter is David Clarke Pruden, director of Evergreen International, an organization that offers religion-based sexual conversion treatment to gay or lesbian Mormons. In a July 8 opinion piece in the Tribune, Pruden presents a wholly misleading account of scientific research in the field of sexual orientation.
Pruden grossly misrepresents me as someone who has abandoned or disproved the biological perspective. He quotes me as saying that my 1991 study, by itself, didn't prove whether gay people are "born that way." That's true, but the totality of the available evidence points strongly in that direction. For readers who would like more information about the science, I have posted a detailed review of the biology of sexual orientation on my easily Googled Web site.
Employing a turn of phrase calculated to confuse any reader, Pruden writes that a recent genetic study from the University of Illinois "reported that there is no one gay gene." That's correct - it reported evidence for three! How does finding three "gay genes" rather than one show that the born-that-way theory of homosexuality has "no basis in science," as Pruden argues?
Pruden also misrepresents the research of psychiatrist Robert Spitzer by reporting that he found a high rate of
success among people undergoing conversion treatment. In reality, Spitzer specifically recruited people who claimed to have already successfully completed conversion treat- ment.
Thus, his numbers say nothing about the chances that a gay person contemplating such treatment would end up changing his or her sexual orientation. By all accounts, the chances of "success" - if that is the right word - are far outweighed by the likelihood of experiencing lasting psychological trauma. The American Psychiatric and Psychological Associations have both gone on record as opposing the practice of, and need for, sexual conversion.
Evergreen International trumpets the fact that some homosexual people can function in heterosexual marriages, including in the bedroom. But is that so surprising? That's what most gays and lesbians did, after all, back in the days before there was the option of joining an out-of-the-closet gay community. A more relevant question is, why should they feel the need to go back into that dark and painful space?
According to Evergreen, homosexuality is incompatible with a Mormon identity, so that gay Mormons must reject either their sexual orientation or their culture and religion. Yet eloquent voices are speaking up in favor of an integration of the two.
Here's how Family Fellowship, a Utah-based support group, puts it in its mission statement: "We share our witness that gay and lesbian Mormons can be great blessings in the lives of their families, and that families can be great blessings in the lives of their gay and lesbian members."
---
Simon LeVay is a neuroscientist who has written or co-authored eight books, including The Sexual Brain, Queer Science, and the textbook Human Sexuality.
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.