No scientific basis for 'born gay' theory. (DUH!)

Post 211 shows you are playing with words.

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.

" 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."

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?

"you're just not worth our time"

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.