Homosexuality From the Perspective of Gene And Brain Researchers & Flawed Statistics
I Found this at http://www.pureintimacy.org/gr/homosexuality/a0000057.cfm in no way is it my own research, I just thought it was really cool and I wanted to share it with others
Is Sexual Orientation Fixed at Birth?
The best overall summary of most respected researchers is that homosexuality (like most other psychological conditions) is due to a combination of social, biological, and psychological factors.
Following are quotes from researchers in the field:
1. From Dr. Dean Hamer, the “gay gene” researcher, and himself a gay man:
“Genes are hardware…the data of life’s experiences are processed through the sexual software into the circuits of identity. I suspect the sexual software is a mixture of both genes and environment, in much the same way the software of a computer is a mixture of what’s installed at the factory and what’s added by the user.”
– P. Copeland and D. Hamer (1994) The Science of Desire (New York: Simon and Schuster).
2. From psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.:
“Like all complex behavioral and mental states, homosexuality is…neither exclusively biological nor exclusively psychological, but results from an as-yet-difficult-to-quantitate mixture of genetic factors, intrauterine influences…postnatal environment (such as parent, sibling and cultural behavior), and a complex series of repeatedly reinforced choices occurring at critical phases of development.”
– J. Satinover, M.D., Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (1996) (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books).
3. When “gay gene” researcher Dr. Dean Hamer was asked if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology, he replied:
“Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors…not negate the psychosocial factors.”
– “New Evidence of a ‘Gay Gene’,” by Anastasia Toufexis, Time, November 13, 1995, p. 95.
4. William Byne, a psychiatrist with a doctorate in biology, and Bruce Parsons (1993) carefully analyzed all the major biological studies of homosexuality. They found none that definitively supported a biological theory of causation.
– W. Byne and B. Parsons, “Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised.” Archives of General Psychiatry, Vol. 50, no.3.
5. Psychiatrists Friedman and Downey state that “a biopsychosocial model” best fits our knowledge of causation, with various combinations of temperament and environmental events leading to homosexuality. They say:
“Despite recent neurobiological findings suggesting homosexuality is genetically-biologically determined, credible evidence is lacking for a biological model of homosexuality.”
– R. Friedman, M.D. and J. Downey, M.D., Journal of Neuropsychiatry, vol. 5, No. 2, Spring l993.
6. From sociologist Steven Goldberg, Ph.D.:
“Virtually all of the evidence argues against there being a determinative physiological causal factor and I know of no researcher who believes that such a determinative factor exists…such factors play a predisposing, not a determinative role…I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors.”
“Gay criticism has not addressed the classic family configuration”; it has merely “asserted away the considerable evidence” for the existence of family factors. Studies which attempt to disprove the existence of the classic family pattern in homosexuality are “convincing only to those with a need to believe.”
– S. Goldberg (1994) When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe is False (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books).
7. An article on genes and behavior in Science magazine says:
“…the interaction of genes and environment is much more complicated than the simple “violence genes” and “intelligence genes” touted in the popular press. Indeed, renewed appreciation of environmental factors is one of the chief effects of the increased belief in genetics’ effects on behavior. The same data that show the effects of genes also point to the enormous influence of non-genetic factors.”
– C. Mann, “Genes and behavior,” Science 264:1687 (1994), pp. 1686-1689.
8. Among Jeffrey Satinover’s conclusions in “The Gay Gene”:
“(1) There is a genetic component to homosexuality, but ‘component’ is just a loose way of indicating genetic associations and linkages. ‘Linkage’ and ‘association’ do not mean ‘causation.’
(2) There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is genetic – and none of the research itself claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.”
– Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., The Journal of Human Sexuality, 1996, p.8.
9. Says brain researcher Dr. Simon LeVay:
“At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role.
“In 1988, PFLAG member Tinkle Hake surveyed a number of well-known figures in the field about their views on homosexuality. She asked: ‘Many observers believe that a person’s sexual orientation is determined by one of more of the following factors: genetic, hormonal, psychological, or social. Based on today’s state-of-the-art-science, what is your opinion?’
“The answers included the following: ‘all of the above in concert’ (Alan Bell), ‘all of these variables’ (Richard Green), ‘multiple factors’ (Gilbert Herdt), ‘a combination of all the factors named’ (Evelyn Hooker), ‘all of these factors’ (Judd Marmor), ‘a combination of causes’ (Richard Pillard), ‘possibly genetic and hormonal, but juvenile sexual rehearsal play is particularly important’ (John Money), and ‘genetic and hormonal factors, and perhaps also some early childhood experiences’ (James Weinrich).” (Page 273)
– Simon LeVay (1996), in Queer Science, published by MIT Press.
10. The American Psychological Association says:
“Various theories have proposed differing sources for sexual orientation…However, many scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors.”
– From the A.P.A.’s booklet, “Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality.”
11. The national organization P-FLAG (“Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays”) offers a booklet prepared with the assistance of Dr. Clinton Anderson of the American Psychological Association. Titled, “Why Ask Why? Addressing the Research on Homosexuality and Biology,” the pamphlet says:
“To date, no researcher has claimed that genes can determine sexual orientation. At best, researchers believe that there may be a genetic component. No human behavior, let alone sexual behavior, has been connected to genetic markers to date … sexuality, like every other behavior, is undoubtedly influenced by both biological and societal factors.”
Copyright © NARTH. All Rights Reserved. Reprinted with permission
I Found this at http://www.pureintimacy.org/gr/homosexuality/a0000058.cfm in no way is it my own research, I just thought it was really cool and I wanted to share it with others
Homosexuality and the Truth
Is It Natural and Normal?
Society has two views of homosexuality. The traditional view holds that homosexuality is an aberration, the orientation is a disorder, and the behavior is pathological. The opposing view is that homosexuality is a normal variant in the human condition that is determined before birth and that homosexual behavior is natural for those so oriented.
The gay community has been tremendously successful in gaining acceptance for the second view. This view, however, rests on a number of questionable premises, which if false, lead us back to the traditional view. In the following article we will continue to examine the premises put forth by those accepting homosexuality as “normal.”
“Homosexuality is simply a normal variation in the human condition. It occurs in every culture, in every age, and although a majority are heterosexual, just as some people are left handed, a minority is homosexual in their orientation.”
Is this assertion true, or is homosexuality a disorder, a sign that something has gone wrong in an individual’s development? Is homosexuality something that is inevitable for a certain percentage of the world’s population, and therefore should simply be accepted, or is it a distortion or dysfunction that should be resisted, and if possible, cured?
As with the question regarding homosexuality being prenatally determined, the burden of proof should be with those who say it is normal and natural. I say this because the only hard evidence that we have—the biological evidence—clearly indicates that it is a disorder, in that homosexuality represents a tendency to want to use body parts for some purpose other than that for which they were designed. The penis and vagina are certainly constructed for male-female intercourse. Their complimentary shapes, the location of highly sensitive nerve endings show, without a doubt, the Divine intent.
Regardless of where you stand on the pleasure-relational aspects of sexuality, man and woman’s sexuality is inextricably associated with reproduction, and two men or two women cannot reproduce. Therefore, homosexuality is a condition that, in a fundamental way, is contrary to nature. Biologically, it is simply not natural or normal.
The advocates of acceptance of homosexuality, however, have put forth a great effort to convince the world that homosexuality is in fact both natural and normal, that it is simply different, and that only because it is the orientation of a minority, do we classify it as a disorder or perversion. They have been quite successful in this effort.
When we talk about what is normal, we are talking about what is in accordance with the norm; what is common. When we talk about what is natural, we are talking about what is in accordance with nature. Most arguments favoring homosexuality as normal and natural, therefore, are aimed at creating an impression that homosexuality is extremely widespread, that it occurs everywhere in nature. Furthermore, human sexuality is viewed as an extremely fluid thing in which all sorts of variations are just going to happen.
If you listen to gay advocacy groups, over and over again, you will hear these arguments used. There isn’t space here to fully refute this whole approach, but I ask you to consider what is really being said, and what evidence is really being offered. We will look at two of the most common statements made by advocacy groups.
1. Ten percent of the world is gay. I have heard this expressed with tremendous certainty, as when one gay activist said, “Don’t forget, one child in every ten born in the world, in all countries, in all ages is a homosexual.” The 10 percent statistic has been used so much that it is often simply assumed to be true in newspaper and magazine articles and by much of the public.
Where did the 10 percent figure come from? As far as we can tell it is a misinterpretation of the first Kinsey Report (Sexual Behavior in the Human Male l) in which it was stated that “10% of the males are more or less exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55.” There are several problems here. Apart from the many legitimate concerns about Kinsey’s statistical methods and the fact that the study covered only U.S. males, Kinsey, on the same page states that, “4% of the white males are exclusively homosexual throughout their lives after adolescence.”
Those who first quoted the 10% figure from Kinsey were obviously consciously trying to mislead. Others later have used the figures innocently. In fact, we don’t know what percentage of ours or any other culture is homosexually oriented. Before Kinsey, the estimates, coming primarily out of England, Germany and the U.S. were between 2 and 5%. Later, more objective estimates in the United States project a maximum incidence of 5% among males and less among females.
The bottom line, however, is that whether it is 5% or 10% does not matter. Figures tend to be exaggerated by many homophiles because they believe that in numbers there is legitimacy. Not so. A significant number of people are criminally inclined, but that does not mean that they are not somehow distorted in their orientation.
2. Homosexuality occurs in all cultures and has been accepted in many. This usually is accompanied by the statement or implication that Judeo-Christian culture just happens to be hard on homosexuals. Obviously, we can’t review culture by culture here, but let me suggest that you look carefully at the examples given of homosexuality in other cultures. Invariably, they involve either pederasty (sex by men with boys) or, in rare instances, a limited period of approved homosexual behavior during adolescence.
Certainly, homosexual behavior could have occurred in all cultures to varying degrees, but that says nothing about it being normal or natural. In fact, most cultures, including the Greek, up until its final years, classified homosexuality as a crime deserving the severest of penalties.
There is evidence that homosexual behavior occurs far less frequently in some cultures than it does in the West. Obviously, differing cultures would evidence differing degrees of secrecy regarding sexual behavior and there have been no widely-accepted surveys of homosexuality in non-Western countries, so hard evidence is almost impossible to come by. Anecdotal evidence is available however.
Theologian and psychiatrist Ruth Tiffany Barnhouse quotes an incident in which an American mentioned homosexuality to a group of doctors at the Canton Hospital in the People’s Republic of China, and only one member of the medical staff understood what homosexuality was.2 I asked two missionaries to Africa about homosexuality on that continent, and both related that they had been told that it was unknown until the Westerners arrived. Anecdotes don’t provide certainty, but in the absence of hard numbers, ask people from Asia and Africa this yourself.
Copyright © Alan P. Medinger. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
Alan Medinger is the director of Regeneration, an ex-gay ministry in Baltimore, MD.
1. Alfred C. Kinsey, Wardell B. Pomeroy and Clyde E. Martin, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1948), p.651.
2. Ruth Tiffany Barnhouse, Homosexuality: a Symbolic Confusion, (New York: The Seabury Press, 1979) p.l57.