Studies
The conservative opposition writes off any study that speaks to a gay bio-genetic root as mere propaganda. However, there have been a slew of studies over the years that give credence to nature.
But you know what? I'm not going to detail them all here. Richard Lippa, Qazi Rahman, Hamer and Levay -- you can Google the various works. Some are better than others. But what I want to look at is the way homosexuality's strong opponents tend to refute these studies.
One issue: They put out counter research from groups that are solely designed to embolden their agenda. They constantly encourage LGBT activists of having an agenda, yet the large majority of their born gay counter research comes from groups that exist to keep gays stigmatized (usually with faith as the fuel). One such group is The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), who holds one of the most exhaustive database of "born gay"-challenging research. Only problem, at least for those who value objectivity? That NARTH's goal is to prove their desired outcome (that gays can change), not learn from the science presented to them.
Another issue: It's common for counter researchers to present an inability to locate concrete proof as "proof" that none exists. Meaning, that because researchers have not been able to conclusively pin down genes that lead to homosexuality, "born gay" opponents often act as if this lends credence to their cause. All of a sudden genetics, an obviously complex area, becomes a simple puzzle whose lack of definitive solution somehow contains definitives. It's intellectually weak.
A third issue: The burden of proof is more fully and unfairly placed upon the "born gay" side. Despite the physiological evidence, the anecdotal claims, the easily discernible shared traits, the popular opinions among countless gay people, etc., those who refuse to believe nature's role in homosexuality act as if gay people are the ones who have to find the holy grail of "born gay" proof. I would argue that the burden is much more on them to prove that heterosexual beings are simply born into their sexualities, but that gay people's love for gay sex is a learned thing.
Fourth: While those who trend towards the "born gay" side of things tend to be open to learning more about the subject at hand, the other side tends to be in the business of seeking converts. Even though there is absolutely no credible science to support the idea that gays are cultivated and can therefore change, all of their findings are presented as if the case is closed. There is an aggression in their pushes that simply does not exist on the other side.
Now, these are of course generalized ideas that focus on the two sides of the so-called "culture war," and between these two polars there is gradation. But I would argue that it is the "pro-family" social conservatives who provide the greatest clues as to what this "nature vs. nurture" contest is all about. And I would argue that the staunchly "nurture" side is out to fulfill what they see to be a godly call much more than they are out to dig up empirical data.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Your argument is too broad to actually support your position. This fact, however, is not a refutation of your argument, I am merely pointing out that it is difficult to respond to the sum total of your argument.
Generally speaking, the various tests have overlooked a very subtle yet important philosophical principle, coincidence does not entail causality.
Brain studies, I've yet to read anything conclusive, most rely on ambiguous evidence and partial explanations.
Hormonal studies, these attempt to define a causal link yet end up concluding only coincidence!
Genetics, you covered this well, I disagree with both sides about using genetics to try to win this argument. Until we have achieved a complete understanding of the totality of this field, you cannot use the lack of a thing to prove its antithesis and you cannot say that: "a gay-gene will eventually be found" (yes I have actually heard this argument before).
If you sweep aside ambiguous studies, you are left with a dearth of information, thus, "studies" cannot support either side.
When Hope7 quotes the Family Research Council, she shouldknow that the FRC is ananti-gay organization and their reports on research do not tend to be accurate. Statistically, most child sexual molestation is perpetrated by heterosexual males by far.
And Angelman quotes the APA recent article which repeated their previous reports that they do nto recommend trying to change sexual orientation because it can do more harm than good. But they did sya that if a gay person, for relilgious reasons, cannot accept being gay, the therapists can ethically try to hep them accept themselves and to learn ways to remain celebate. But they do not recommend trying to change sexual orientation.
Just as left-handedness, sexual orientation is no known or knowable at birth, but is recognized later. Neither handedness nor sexual orientation is chosen. They are discovered when they appear. No one knows all the factors that cause sexual orientation; it is complex and may involve hormones, genetics, rearing, and other factors; but it is NOT chosen, either heterosexual or homosexual. There doen's have to be a gene, necessarily to have genetikc factors.
I read this article at the citizen link web site calling for the APA to acknowledge and respect personal autonomy and religious diversity. Stating that the APA has not acknowledged that personal decision or self determination of ones sexual orientation is possible and has even said it is dangerous. This article dispells those fears and shows through actual scientifc study and research that one can change their sexual attractions and decide for themselves whom they will be attracted to and respond.
Apparently in 1973 the APA adopted a principle to always have public declartions backed up by research and not follow public opinion but some how according to Dr. Jones has forgone that directive to bow to cultural pressures in regards to many things including sexual orientation. This lack of professionalism has caused quite a rift in the scientific world regarding the APA making any public pronouncements.
The APA recently released a task-force report that shows some patients may want to change, but stops short of giving its blessing to such programs, accordig to this recent article which can be read at http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000010710.cfm
Can some gays change? Yes. Can most gays change? No. Are there genetic factors? Probably. Sexuality is a continuum, from straight to bi-sexual to gay. It isn't hard to understand that some bi-sexuals are going to be able to leave a gay lifestyle. Genetics is complicated. Nobody has done the genetic study needed to find a gay gene or more likely genes. For political reasons I doubt any one will.
sniffing their arm pits? They have tried harder to find a homosexual gene that cure cancer becasue if they can prove its genetic they can get lots of money from the government and justify their lifestyle, since they failed to find a gene, one does not exist so its futile but hey go for it, they are recruiting our children via the public schools, otherwise their numbers would diminish drastically over the next few years. Personally I think they will anyway as more and more baby boomers wake up to the fact that the lifestyle is a dead end, literally, and figuratively.
Most of the studies have been statistical, percentage of twins where both are gay to those where one is gay. The gay gene would only be in the first group, so you have to look for a gene that is in the first group but not in the second. In those studies that actually looked for a gene the numbers were too low to be conclusive.
Homosexuality has been studied up the ying/yang..no offense. They just cant find a gene, they have all but made another human being to try and come up with one, dna dissected by brillant people for years and years and years...but none that are pink and have a big hole in the center and say IM HERE AND IM..well you know.
OK, name one recent study that is large enough to be statistically significant.
People keep harping on a "gay gene" but did you ever think to look up brain pattern research? http://4mind4life.com/blog/2008/07/08/gay-brains-similar-to-straight-brains-of-opposite-sex / and http://www.ajnr.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajnr.A1260v1 and http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9125-clue-to-sexual-attraction-found-in-lesbian-brain.html
Seems brain chemistry is a pretty solid indicator to me. And I want you to know where I'm coming from so I will let you know that I have nothing whatsoever against the gay community and I'm not "desparate" to prove this. It's just something that seems logical to me.
"They have tried harder to find a homosexual gene that cure cancer becasue if they can prove its genetic they can get lots of money from the government and justify their lifestyle,"
Not all scientists are homosexuals. And there are millions of dollars spent each year on trying to find cures for cancer, hardly any money is spent on trying to find a 'gay gene'.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A new report published by the Family Research
Council (FRC) reveals that there is a body of evidence indicating a
definite link between homosexuality and pedophilia. Statistics show
that homosexual men, who represent less than 3 percent of the adult
male population, commit a disproportionate number (one-third or more cases of child sexual molestation. The report, "Homosexuality
and Child Sexual Abuse," authored by Dr. Timothy J. Dailey (available
at www.frc.org .), is being sent to parents, youth groups, school
administrators, Catholic bishops, and religious organizations.
FRC's report comes at a time when the nation has been rocked by
scandals of child sexual abuse and when homosexuals argue that youth
organizations such as the Boy Scouts should be forced to include
homosexuals as leaders. Similarly, gay activist organizations are
encouraging homosexual teachers to share their sexuality with their
students. Many parents have become concerned that children may be
molested, encouraged to become sexually active, or even "recruited"
into adopting a homosexual identity and lifestyle.
"Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse" examines the following evidence
linking homosexuality to pedophilia:
Pedophiles are invariably males: Almost all sex crimes against
children are committed by men.
Significant numbers of victims are males: Up to one-third of all sex
crimes against children are committed against boys (as opposed to
girls).
The 10 percent fallacy: Studies indicate that, contrary to the
inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey,
homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.
Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: Those among the
1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the
same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against
children.
Some homosexual activists defend the historic connection between
homosexuality and pedophilia: Such activists consider the defense of
"boy-lovers" to be a legitimate gay rights issue.
Pedophile themes abound in homosexual literary culture: Gay fiction as
well as serious academic treatises promote "intergenerational
intimacy."
"Children have become the last sexual frontier," FRC President Ken
Connor said. "Those given the task of protecting our nation's children
should give a serious look at these statistics and think twice before
complying with the demands of homosexual activists."
That is one study... from a source that I find rather biased. What is their methodology? Their sample base? I checked the Family Research Council and could not find a link to that report.
And I was disappointed you used only half the cliches that are usually used ie cant find it, biased source, oh you forgot one, your slipping...HOMOPHOBIC...oh yah, I guess there will be a homophobic gene suddenly appearing soon too...right out of the National Education Ass. black hat of mystic tricks to pull on children .
OOOWWW Im scared now.....I am...I am...
"And I was disappointed you used only half the cliches that are usually used ie cant find it, biased source, oh you forgot one, your slipping...HOMOPHOBIC..."
-Hope7
Well, you are homophobic... that's a given. I am questioning the source of your statistics (which should always be done)... the FRC seems to be quite biased to me. You can show that they are not biased by detailing (or providing a link to) their methodology.
You are blind , for whatever reason, and unable to see or else all the links I have provided would spur you into checking it out for yourself for its validity.
Look up heterophobic while your at it too. You might try googling. Oh yes, its more true than homophobia ever thought of being.
"Look up heterophobic while your at it too. You might try googling. Oh yes, its more true than homophobia ever thought of being."
heterophobia? I did Google it... very little comes up, the top pick being a Wikipedia link... heterophobia is the fear of things that are different... not necessarily a fear of heterosexuals.
Are you suggesting that I am heterophobic?
"You are blind , for whatever reason, and unable to see or else all the links I have provided would spur you into checking it out for yourself for its validity."
I did follow those links, and I've asked questions about the statistics presented. The two sources that you have offered (Family Research Council, Free Republic) appear to be quite biased. FRC mentioned statistics, but did not provide any information about where those numbers came from. FR had statistics, but they were 15+ years old. You provided a link to a 66 page paper, to which I asked for specific page numbers that backed up your claims.
Statistics have to be viewed with a critical eye, even when you agree with their conclusions.
Wonderfully stated, posed and thought provoking. I so agree with 99% of what you wrote in your view of the great debate. And I wonder why it is that it's just sooooooo important that the religious side NEED to somehow "prove" that sexuality is an open choice for all. And really, WHO or just WHY would ANYONE choose conciously to live in a manner that exposes them to the cruelness of society and fear based groups, a lifestyle in which they have to fight for their rights as gauranteed by our constitution , or be told they are "less than" in EVERTY way, as parents, Christians, community members, called pedeophiles, perverts, sinners and many other ugly names. Crazy...I was born the youngest of 7, to a Hetrosexual couple, Catholics(staunch), and in S.Dak. I was the only person who felt "different" that I knew of then...so the piece about hanging out and being influenced to follow suite by other LGBT persons that the Christians use, is laughable. Perhaps The Creator had to throw in enough diversity to challenge the mind set of His chosen few...and to date, they are being very challenged and not getting a very good grade.
I once interrupted a street preacher that was going on about gays, to ask him when was he born again. He could give me the exact time and place. Then I ask him when he decided to be straight.
Why not post the findings of these studies? Probably because they would not really help your position as I quickly found out in my cursory readings of several scientific studies done on the topic.
You agree that no study has been able to discover a "gay" gene. And, it appears that no one is in disagreement with you that sexuality is a complex thing. However, the question for this forum is: are people born gay? So, shouldn't you be trying to answer this question with sound reasoning and good argument? It does not appear that you have done this, but rather have went on the offensive right off the bat . . . I would suggest giving us some findings to chew on and then going on the offensive as issues arise.
You are correct that the refutation of these studies on the conservative right has often been heavy-handed. I wonder though, how objective science really is. Based upon much of the reading I have done, I have my doubts. There is absolutely no consensus in the scientific field on the relationship between sexuality and genetics. The Xq28 chromosome theory has been completely thrown out and now scientists have to search out another possibility altogether. Doesn't it still seem like the consensus of science goes against your position, namely that sexuality is formed through a complex web of biological and environmental factors?
I am still wondering if your side of the argument really has any teeth to it???
Thanks for your post.
Data from multiple identical twin studies, however, proves that this inherited influence is minimal.
For a more detailed explanation copy and paste the following link into your browser: http://www.bestforchildren.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=10005&art=167&BISKIT=2837956624
Ok, ANOTHER "accredited college " with a pretty evident anti gay stance. They just say it really nice. Gay families raise children to be more likely to have sex earlier and declare their "gayness". WHERE? And WHOM?
They site no studies that are non-Christian but just scientific research. At least they don't give a free pass to hetro's by saying ALL children are best served in a family with a MARRIED mommy and daddy. Ugh, there's no end to this debate. I just don't get WHY I have to debate ANYTHING about my persoanl, and VERY private life. Who has the right to debate ME about ME? How can you tell ME I am wrong about me? I know me...even I tried to not be how I am...but after the 2nd wonderful time of being raped by God loving males who knew it was their duty to "bring me around", I let it be, I accepted me as God child, no more, no less.
I am sorry to hear about the sexual assaults of which you were the victim. Only those with that experience can ever know the full impact of the hurt. Please know that there are a lot of "God loving males" who would never do that to you.
The study we cite regarding children with gay parents being more promiscuous and same-sex attracted was conducted by gay-activists Judith Stacey & Timothy Biblarz and was published in the peer-reviewed journal of American Sociological Review (66 (2001): 174, 179). It is a meta-analysis of 21 gay parenting studies.
The harm children sustain from engaging in the gay life-style is well documented in the peer-reviewed scientific literature we cite.
More importantly: "loving males" do not rape anyone of any gender. You are an individual of infinite worth and dignity and these men tried to take that from you to satisfy their own psychological needs. But no one can rob another of his inherent human dignity.
You are not alone: More than 40% of men with same-sex attraction have been raped and/or sexually molested. This is a well-accepted psycho-social factor that can contribute to same-sex attraction. Many men in this situation have been healed with psychiatric therapy directed at resolving the trauma associated with the sexual abuse (as opposed to re-orientation therapy per se). We wish you health and happiness along whichever path you follow.
Twin studies DO demonstrate a genetic link. Every notable twin study has shown that a greater percentage of monozygotic twins shared the same sexual orientation than the percentage of dizygotic twins. The fact that not all monozygotic twins share the same sexual orientation does not disprove a genetic link. It simply suggests that other factors, most likely intrauterine, are involved -- most likely a complex process involving the mutation of certain fragile genes during early cell replications, along with hormonal changes which alter brain chemistry, received more by one twin than the other.
Monozygotic twins nearly always have some perceptible physiological differences, including mirror-image,where one twin is left-handed and has left-handed hair whorls, while the other is the opposite; size differences, due to unequal uterine blood supply; and even being of opposite genders, due to genetic mutations which take place after the the cell division in which the twins divide from one another. One would not expect that 100% of monozygotic twins would share the same sexual orientation. But the fact that a higher percentage of monozygotics do than dizygotics is a highly-reliable indication that sexual orientation is a genetically-linked trait.