- Thread starter
- #21
Countless studies have been performed aiming to prove that homosexuality is caused by genetics. Gay proponents love this argument because it says, Hey, we cant help our sexual orientation. We are born this way! Essentially, they can claim that they are helpless, get your sympathy and try to further the justification of homosexual practices because they believe the drive is hereditary.
Whos to blame them? On the surface, the science appears convincing. In recent years, several studies have grabbed headlines around the world, proving homosexuality is inborn. The evidence looks solid. The researchers seem credible.
According to Joe Dallas, author and former homosexual, People tend to view homosexuality more favorably when they think it is inborn. No wonder gay leaders (not all, but most) push the born gay theory; it furthers the cause.1
Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, a medical doctor and former fellow in child psychiatry at Yale University, has taken a thorough look at three particular studies that backfired on themselves. Upon closer evaluation, this is what he discovered:
In the August 1991 issue of Science, Simon LeVay of the Salk Institute in San Diego published a study on differences in brain structure between homosexual and heterosexual men.2
The study, however, had at least three glaring weaknesses:
1. It was based on a small group of 41 male cadavers, including 19 homosexual males. All of the homosexual men had died of AIDS, something that many researchers believe could very well account for or contribute to the differences (in the brain stem).
2. There is no way to determine if the smaller hypothalamuses were the cause or the result of homosexual behavior.
3. The area of the brain LeVay was measuring (the INAH3) was quite small smaller than snowflakes, according to scientists interviewed. His peers in the neuroscientific community couldnt agree on whether the INAH3 should be measured by its size and volume, or by its number of neurons.
In another study, psychologist Michael Bailey of Northwestern University and psychiatrist Richard Pillard of the Boston University School of Medicine showed that homosexuality occurred more frequently among identical twins than fraternal twins.
But their 1991 study had a major flaw: All of their twins grew up together.
These researchers failed to compare their findings with a control group of twins raised apart. If they had, they would have discovered other influencing factors, such as how family dynamics and their relationship with parents affected who they were. Not to mention only about half the identical twins studied were both homosexuals. So, if the study showed that homosexuality in twins was purely genetic, then both of the twins would have been homosexual 100 percent of the time.
Lastly, five researchers led by Dean Hamer at the National Cancer Institute released a study in July of 1993 that attempted to link homosexuality in men with a specific genetic region of the X-chromosome.6 This is by far the strongest evidence to date that there is an important genetic component to sexual orientation, Hamer reported.7
Not so, said other highly qualified professionals. There are several problems with the Hamer study. First, a Canadian research team has been unable to duplicate the finding using a comparable experimental design.8 Second, Hamer confined his search to the X-chromosome on the basis of family interviews, which seems to reveal a disproportionately high number of male homosexuals on the mothers sides of the family.9
Additionally, one of Hamers co-authors has expressed serious concerns about the methodology of the study.10 Finally, there is some question about whether Hamers results, correctly interpreted, are statistically significant. His conclusions rest on the assumption that the rate of homosexuality in the population at large is 2 percent. If the base rate is actually higher, then Hamers results are not statistically significant.11 An interesting side note is that the 2 percent incidence figure is more accurate than the oft-noted 1-in-10 percentage. The lower figure is brought in when needed to bolster this slight effect, but generally overlooked by the media elsewhere.
These are only three examples of popular studies that were later found to be unreliable due to failure to meet basic criteria for establishing scientific facts, lack of clarity on behalf of the researcher, faulty method of study, or ignorance of basic scientific premises. Other studies hold no weight because the conclusions have been insinuated rather than proven. Its these flawed studies, however, that receive the most publicity.
Most recently, Dr. Robert Spitzer, one of the men who helped eliminate the American Psychiatric Associations listing of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973, acknowledged that some homosexuals can become heterosexual. In an interview with the CitizenLink online newsletter, Spitzer said, The critics of this kind of therapy (to change homosexuality) dont just argue that it is rarely effective; they argue that its never effective.12 (Emphasis added.)
No solid scientific evidence exists today that people are born homosexual.
Interestingly enough, genetic predeterminants have also been theorized for alcoholism or depression. Neither alcoholism nor depression is embraced as healthy. Rather, we try to help people who suffer from these tendencies to find relief and recovery.
The same holds true for homosexuality. From conception, males differ from females. Every cell in the male body is different from every cell in the females. There are vast disparities between males and females that are currently overlooked by the popular media. But, by design, male was meant for female, and vice versa.
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, president of the National Association for Research and Treatment of Homosexuality, states, We are all heterosexual. Some heterosexuals have a homosexual problem, but it does not mean there are two different kinds of people.
As such, the hope for finding freedom from its trap is all the more real.
In the words of Stanton Jones, Chair of Psychology at Wheaton College, Anyone who says there is no hope (for change) is either ignorant or a liar. Every secular study of change has shown some success rate, and persons who testify to substantial healings by God are legion.
Whos to blame them? On the surface, the science appears convincing. In recent years, several studies have grabbed headlines around the world, proving homosexuality is inborn. The evidence looks solid. The researchers seem credible.
According to Joe Dallas, author and former homosexual, People tend to view homosexuality more favorably when they think it is inborn. No wonder gay leaders (not all, but most) push the born gay theory; it furthers the cause.1
Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, a medical doctor and former fellow in child psychiatry at Yale University, has taken a thorough look at three particular studies that backfired on themselves. Upon closer evaluation, this is what he discovered:
In the August 1991 issue of Science, Simon LeVay of the Salk Institute in San Diego published a study on differences in brain structure between homosexual and heterosexual men.2
The study, however, had at least three glaring weaknesses:
1. It was based on a small group of 41 male cadavers, including 19 homosexual males. All of the homosexual men had died of AIDS, something that many researchers believe could very well account for or contribute to the differences (in the brain stem).
2. There is no way to determine if the smaller hypothalamuses were the cause or the result of homosexual behavior.
3. The area of the brain LeVay was measuring (the INAH3) was quite small smaller than snowflakes, according to scientists interviewed. His peers in the neuroscientific community couldnt agree on whether the INAH3 should be measured by its size and volume, or by its number of neurons.
In another study, psychologist Michael Bailey of Northwestern University and psychiatrist Richard Pillard of the Boston University School of Medicine showed that homosexuality occurred more frequently among identical twins than fraternal twins.
But their 1991 study had a major flaw: All of their twins grew up together.
These researchers failed to compare their findings with a control group of twins raised apart. If they had, they would have discovered other influencing factors, such as how family dynamics and their relationship with parents affected who they were. Not to mention only about half the identical twins studied were both homosexuals. So, if the study showed that homosexuality in twins was purely genetic, then both of the twins would have been homosexual 100 percent of the time.
Lastly, five researchers led by Dean Hamer at the National Cancer Institute released a study in July of 1993 that attempted to link homosexuality in men with a specific genetic region of the X-chromosome.6 This is by far the strongest evidence to date that there is an important genetic component to sexual orientation, Hamer reported.7
Not so, said other highly qualified professionals. There are several problems with the Hamer study. First, a Canadian research team has been unable to duplicate the finding using a comparable experimental design.8 Second, Hamer confined his search to the X-chromosome on the basis of family interviews, which seems to reveal a disproportionately high number of male homosexuals on the mothers sides of the family.9
Additionally, one of Hamers co-authors has expressed serious concerns about the methodology of the study.10 Finally, there is some question about whether Hamers results, correctly interpreted, are statistically significant. His conclusions rest on the assumption that the rate of homosexuality in the population at large is 2 percent. If the base rate is actually higher, then Hamers results are not statistically significant.11 An interesting side note is that the 2 percent incidence figure is more accurate than the oft-noted 1-in-10 percentage. The lower figure is brought in when needed to bolster this slight effect, but generally overlooked by the media elsewhere.
These are only three examples of popular studies that were later found to be unreliable due to failure to meet basic criteria for establishing scientific facts, lack of clarity on behalf of the researcher, faulty method of study, or ignorance of basic scientific premises. Other studies hold no weight because the conclusions have been insinuated rather than proven. Its these flawed studies, however, that receive the most publicity.
Most recently, Dr. Robert Spitzer, one of the men who helped eliminate the American Psychiatric Associations listing of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973, acknowledged that some homosexuals can become heterosexual. In an interview with the CitizenLink online newsletter, Spitzer said, The critics of this kind of therapy (to change homosexuality) dont just argue that it is rarely effective; they argue that its never effective.12 (Emphasis added.)
No solid scientific evidence exists today that people are born homosexual.
Interestingly enough, genetic predeterminants have also been theorized for alcoholism or depression. Neither alcoholism nor depression is embraced as healthy. Rather, we try to help people who suffer from these tendencies to find relief and recovery.
The same holds true for homosexuality. From conception, males differ from females. Every cell in the male body is different from every cell in the females. There are vast disparities between males and females that are currently overlooked by the popular media. But, by design, male was meant for female, and vice versa.
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, president of the National Association for Research and Treatment of Homosexuality, states, We are all heterosexual. Some heterosexuals have a homosexual problem, but it does not mean there are two different kinds of people.
As such, the hope for finding freedom from its trap is all the more real.
In the words of Stanton Jones, Chair of Psychology at Wheaton College, Anyone who says there is no hope (for change) is either ignorant or a liar. Every secular study of change has shown some success rate, and persons who testify to substantial healings by God are legion.
