Such clarity of position and candor is rare -- but much needed -- in interchanges via this [at times, confusion-prone] medium. I do appreciate the time and thought you put into your lucid and carefully stated discourse!
It is apparent to me that you have probably put more thought into -- and may even be better informed regarding -- the subject of homosexual 'nature' than am I. Example: your "tipping point" reference is something I had not considered before...
I find myself in agreement with most of what you have written, but, as a scientist, (physical chemist with undergrad background in med tech ) I would "revise and extend" one of your statements vis-a-vis science:
"...science is not in the business (nor should it be) of providing proscriptions for -- or advocacy of -- specific forms of behavior or making moral judgments. "
What I perceived in the article you cited was a pervasive aura of advocacy, which typifies efforts by those (even homosexual scientists) who are "pushing the homo agenda" and go to great and subtle lengths to "cast their perversion in a favorable light".
Unfortunately, not all who publish "scientific results" are agenda-neutral (See "Global Warming".) <GRIN>
If you haven't done so, I suggest that you avail yourself of the collected writings under the "Homosexual Agenda" at the tops of FR "forum" and "my comments" pages. (BTW & FWIW, you will find little activity by me there, simply because other subjects take higher priority with me.) BTW, a quick check revealed that not all articles collected there have as much direct relevance as this one -- such is typical of "open comment fora" like FR)...
The issue of "sexual attraction-urges" is a broad and complex one. In fact, I have found myself wondering if some posters to FR do not have a "sexual urge" component to their motivation...!! ;-)
In response to your
"Let me close with a question; If homosexuality did have a genetic component, what would change about the moral questions? As far as I could see, nothing."
I submit that humans may be subject to a broad spectrum of "sexual attraction-urges", and that (even given a hypothetical genetic bias) the individual's "suppression/pursuit" choice of a specific "orientation" may be even more strongly "steered" by giving heed to the Power referenced in my tagline... IOW, some folks may naturally have to more strongly apply the Lord's example of Get thee behind me, Satan!" than others in order to make the best decision re sexuality.
Unfortunately, not all who have urges and are (Satanically) encouraged to maximize a specific set of them have the moral fortitude (or even the wish to be moral) to make the choice(s) you, (apparently) and I find to be proper.
Again, thank you! As I said, I have other interests and claims on my time. I reiterate that I applaud your efforts at clarity, and I will follow your writings here with considerable interest.
Mr. Schumm continues the legacy of Paul Cameron. He is in fact an old friend of Mr. Cameron’s, and served on the editorial board of that gentleman’s defunct online journal. Mr. Schumm also testified in Florida opposing the lifting of the ban on gay adoption. His testimony was found so lacking in credibility and scientific validity, as was Mr. “Rentboy” Reker’s evidence in the same trial, that the ban is now dead. Yes, that’s right, his credentials, assertions and methodology were all present for scrutiny, and failed to convince anyone in the cold, hard light of day. These are the only people the state could find to testify, because no reputable scientist would ever swear under oath to the things this pair would say. He can continue to peddle his crackpot theories, and cherry pick and massage his “statistics” all day long, but when they are examined in detail, they fail the test.
Mr. Schumm’s “study” suffers from the very same problem that his predecessor’s study did. It’s not a representative sample of anything. He refers to it as a “meta-study”, which implies that he’s compiled data from other peoples’ studies to use for his statistical purposes. This is a problem, since the material he’s used are NOT SCIENTIFIC STUDIES, BUT POPULAR LITERARY WORKS. The authors of those books were editing for sales potential and reader interest, and selecting their subjects accordingly. In addition, most of them made a conscious effort to include an equal number of gay and straight kids in their books. Got that? That means they self selected for a set of subjects who intentionally didn’t represent the society as a whole.
This is how good stories are collected, but it most certainly is not how scientific studies are conducted. It was anything but random. It was, in fact, the opposite of random. To run statistics on this non-statistical (or anti-statistical) sample would be like judging the ratio of giraffes to chimpanzees in Africa by comparing the populations selected by the zookeepers at your local zoo. Whenever a non-random selection process is used, any attempt at statistics on that process is completely meaningless — and an abuse.
But to add further insult to that injury of statistics, Schumm needed a control sample of children from straight families. For that, he turned to a population-based representative sample from 1994: Edward O. Laumann, et al’s, The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. That’s right. He used a deliberately anti-random sample of children from LGBT parents and compared that number with a population-based nationally representative sample of children from households overall to conclude that gay parents are much, much more likely to cause their children to become gay.
Mr. Rekers was paid a six figure salary for his testimony in the Florida case. A huge and unforgivable waste of tax-payer money. Clearly Mr. Schumm would like to get on that gravy train, now that Rekers and Cameron have lost all credibility as “expert” witnesses. Obviously, if those two gentlemen can make such sums with such little real scientific training or even a semblance of hard work, it’s quite a cushy ride. This article by Mr. Schumm is his calling card to the new generation of professional homophobes looking for a little “truthiness” and scientific flavor to front for the intolerance and bigotry that is so common in America.