The Biological Research on Homosexuality

[Logan13]

The Biological Research on Homosexuality
From the 1997 conference, "Homosexuality and American Public Life," held in Washington, D.C. at the Georgetown Conference Center.
It is important to note that serious research on the biology, innateness, or genetic determinants of homosexuality has only just recently begun. Exactly opposite to what the public is being led to believe, the research that has been done thus far suggests that genetic factors account for, at most, but a small proportion of the risk. J. M. Bailey and R. C. Pillard, two of the major researchers most widely cited as having demonstrated that "homosexuality is genetic," were forced to admit otherwise by the results of their own research. They themselves wrote:

"These studies were designed to detect heritable variation, and if it was present, to counter the prevalent belief that sexual orientation is largely the product of family interactions and the social environment.... Although male and female homosexuality appear to be at least somewhat heritable, environment must also be of considerable importance in their origins".{1}
Neuroanatomic Research

In 1991, newspapers primarily on both coasts trumpeted the discovery of a brain difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Although the research finding itself was reported fairly accurately, the accounts universally concluded that the discovery had social-policy implications. Commentators triumphantly claimed that the discovery would halt any remaining uncertainty that homosexuality was either a choice, or a consequence of factors in upbringing. Therefore, they claimed, to continue to support anything less than full acceptance of homosexual behavior would be proof positive of prejudicial hatred.

What precipitated this outpouring? In August of 1991, a San Francisco neuroanatomist, Simon LeVay, published an article in the respected journal Science. It reported his finding that a localized cluster (a "nucleus") of cells in the brains of "homosexual" men was twice as large by volume on autopsy as in "heterosexual" men.{2} "Homosexual" and "heterosexual" are in quotations here because in this particular study the definitions of each were extremely imprecise, nor was there any way of verifying sexual orientation, as the subjects were dead.

But this was not the first such discovery. One year before a group reported in Brain Research that they had found a similar difference in both volume and number of cells in a different brain nucleus.{3} The media did not report this first study because Brain Research, unlike Science, is read only by neuroscientists. And in contrast to journalists, the neuroscientists themselves genuinely understood the research and its limitations, and saw no reason to make grand pronouncements.

More recently, yet another difference in another part of the brain was reported, also in a prestigious publication, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America. This study claimed that a difference between male homosexuals and heterosexuals was found in the anterior commissure, a structure that divides the left and right halves of the brain. The authors found that the anterior commissure was larger in women and homosexual men than in heterosexual men. This was a group statistical difference, however: the size of the anterior commissure in 27 of the 30 homosexual men actually fell within the range of sizes found among the 30 heterosexual men. As did LeVay, these authors used brain samples obtained preponderantly from men who died of AIDS, introducing another uncontrolled variable into their work.{4}

The only other study to examine morphological differences in the anterior commissure--published in 1988 and not mentioned by the press--found, in part, precisely the opposite. Namely it found that the anterior commissure was larger in men than in women.{5}

The Brain's Structure Changes with Use

Even if actually present, however, the discovery of brain differences per se is on a par with the discovery that athletes have bigger muscles than nonathletes. For though a genetic tendency toward larger muscles may make it easier to become an athlete, and therefore one will more likely become an athlete, becoming an athlete will also certainly give one bigger muscles. The layperson, encouraged by press accounts, is apt to assume that brain differences must be innate and unchangeable, especially differences in the number of cells as contrasted with the simple volume occupied by a collection of cells. We tend to think of mind as "software" and brain as "hardware," the former plastic and changeable, the latter fixed at birth. We have used this analogy already to good advantage. But the analogy breaks down at a certain point. Various processes go on throughout life: the selective death of brain cells in response to training or trauma, the establishment of new connections between cells, dramatic increases or decreases in the "thickness" of connections between cells as a result of learning, the loss of interneuronal connections through "pruning." Very unlike our modern computers, the brain's software is its hardware. We know from animal studies that early experience, and especially traumatic experience (this has special pertinence with respect to the childhood histories of male homosexuals as we will discuss later), alters the brain and body in measurable ways. Thus infant monkeys who are repeatedly and traumatically separated from their mothers suffer more or less permanent alterations in both blood chemistry and brain function.{6} A similar piece of research on homosexuals with a similarly indeterminate meaning is the recent finding of a protein--an Alpha1-Antitrypsin variant--in the blood of homosexual, but not heterosexual men. Again, we have no way of determining whether this is an innate or an acquired difference, or whether it is even replicable.{7} There is a major current theory about the developmental causes of depression and the interaction of genetics with development. It claims that under conditions of early trauma, a genetically based susceptibility to stress creates a greater vulnerability to intense stress-responses later in life.{8} Furthermore, this "vulnerability" is represented physiologically as measurable alterations in the brain. Because what constitutes "stress" depends on one's subjective interpretation of events, the brains in individuals with the same genetically determined biology may respond quite differently. One may demonstrate no brain changes; another may demonstrate very significant changes.{9}

Some Lifestyle-Induced Brain Changes

Likewise, in individuals who became blind as adults and then learned Braille, the part of the brain governing the right index finger became progressively enlarged. And just this year, researchers reported measurable increases in brain tissue associated with learned sexual activity in rats.{10}

The editor of Nature commented on the LeVay research:

Plainly, the neural correlates of genetically determined gender are plastic at a sufficiently early stage.... Plastic structures in the hypothalamus allowing the consequences of early sexual arousal to be made permanent might suit [those who claim an environmental origin to homosexuality] well.{11}
And of course all this presumes that the research itself was of high quality. Was it? Writing in Technology Review, published at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, two prominent geneticists commented on the quality of the LeVay research. Paul Billings and Jonathan Beckwith write: LeVay "could not really be certain about his subject's sexual preferences, since they were dead."{12} His "research design and subject sample did not allow others to determine whether it was sexual behavior, drug use, or disease history that was correlated with the observed differences among the subjects' brains."{13} LeVay's very method of defining homosexuality was very likely to "create inaccurate or inconsistent study groups."{14}

Firmer and more rigorous findings than these are nonetheless sure to be forthcoming because all aspects of human behavior are influenced by our genetic makeup...Almost all, however, tell us nothing about origins, nor of the range of freedom of expression we have apart from influencing factors.

Thus we can guess that we probably will find genetic factors that correlate with homosexuality. But we should not even call such factors "an innate predisposition." In the proper and precise language of science, they are merely "risk factors."

Higher Levels of Distress: The Result of Homophobia?

Homosexuals have a greater incidence of mental illness, particularly depression and suicide, than do heterosexuals. Activists quickly explain that this connection implies neither a necessary psychological nor a necessary biological link between homosexuality and depression. They argue, rather, that suicidal depression is the unsurprising effect on otherwise healthy individuals who have to live a closeted existence in an abusive and hostile society.

We have heard this kind of argument before. It has long been obvious that parental divorce is associated with both severe distress and later behavioral problems among children. Until recently, however, no scientific studies were available to "prove" this painfully obvious point. In the name of eliminating any harm to children, the divorce industry in the seventies put forth the "progressive" idea that the stigma attached to divorce caused the distress, not the divorce itself. If divorce was normalized, they claimed, the children would walk away unscathed. Actually, they said further, the children would be improved, for they would not suffer the trauma of being reared and cared for by un-self-actualized and less-than-totally-personally-fulfilled parents.

Science has finally caught up with years of experience and common sense. Numerous studies now confirm that divorce inflicts lifelong damage on children far greater than that caused by parental unhappiness. Even the divorce experts are beginning to recant their earlier claims.{15}

The same social-stigma theory is not only used to explain why so many homosexuals are unhappy, it is even used to explain why so many homosexuals remain unhappy about being homosexual--gay liberation notwithstanding. They label that unhappiness as itself a "symptom," or in the more politically correct literature as "internalized homophobia:"

... membership of [sic] a stigmatized minority sexuality may exacerbate causes of sexual dysfunction. The effects of discordant lifestyle and identity, homosexual identity formation, dyshphoria and internalized homophobia on sexual functioning are three examples of these factors of specific relevance to being homosexual in this culture. The effects of AIDS, difficulties arising from the mechanics of safer sex and the psychosexual effects of oppression on healthy sexual functioning all indicate how factors important to (but not caused by) minority sexual status may influence sexuality functioning.}16}
The Prevalence of Sexual Abuse in the Childhoods of Homosexuals

The self-serving explanation for homosexual distress, however, is undermined by what we now know about the terrible effects of childhood trauma on the emotional well-being of adults. Many studies demonstrate a sadly disproportionate extent of sexual abuse in the childhoods of homosexual men, suggesting at the least that both homosexual unhappiness and homosexuality itself derive from common causes, and that unhappiness is therefore an inherent accompaniment of homosexuality:

From May 1989 through April 1990, 1,001 adult homosexual and bisexual men attending sexually transmitted disease clinics were interviewed regarding potentially abusive sexual contacts during childhood and adolescence. Thirty-seven percent of participants reported they had been encouraged or forced to have sexual contact before age 19 with an older or more powerful partner; 94 percent occurred with men. Median age of the participant at first contact was 10; median age difference between partners was 11 years. Fifty-one percent involved use of force; 33 percent involved anal sex. Black and Hispanic men were more likely than white men to report such sexual contact. Using developmentally based criteria to define sexual abuse, 93 percent of participants reporting sexual contact with an older or more powerful partner were classified as sexually abused. Our data suggest the risk of sexual abuse may be high among some male youth, and increased attention should be devoted to prevention as well as early identification and treatment.{17}
The same is true for pedophiles:
The association between perpetration of sexual abuse and the offender's own victimization as a child has been well documented in the literature. Various researchers have examined this relationship by assessing the exclusiveness of the sexual abuser's behavior, the gender of his victims and the gender of his own childhood abuser.... Subjects were 135 pedophiles ... who admitted to their offenses. A total of 42 percent of pedophiles ... reported being sexually victimized in their own childhoods .... [and] appear to choose their age-specific victims in accordance with the age of their own experience of sexual victimization. Although the cause of child molestation remains undetermined, these results support social-learning and modeling theories.{18}
Is Social Disapproval the Cause of Distress Among Both Pedophiles and Homosexuals?

In spite of its superficial appeal and the activists' repeated claims, no studies support the hypothesis that the social disapproval of homosexuality is the prime cause of the high levels of internal distress evident in homosexual populations even long before AIDS. (That social stigma would cause some distress, is of course the small kernel of truth upon which the exaggeration is built.) Such studies as the one cited immediately above suggest that both the high levels of emotional distress, as well as homosexuality itself, have at least one common root in painful childhood experiences, in the same way that other deviations from the sexual norm (such as pedophilia) likewise do. It makes just as much sense to claim that the high levels of psychological abnormality and personal distress found among pedophiles are due solely to the social disapproval of pedophilia.

[Tock]

The Biological Research on Homosexuality
From the 1997 conference, "Homosexuality and American Public Life," held in Washington, D.C. at the Georgetown Conference Center.

Huh . . . Logan, did you copy that from the website at www.narth.com/docs/bioresearch.html ? It is the website for NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality), an organization that advocates something called "Reparative Therapy" (see http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo..._changing.html
and www.religioustolerance.org/hom_nart.htm ) , a philosophy that has been disparaged by both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association as pseudoscience:


from http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo..._changing.html
At its meeting in August, 1997, the Council of Representatives of the American Psychological Association overwhelmingly approved a resolution affirming its longtime position that homosexuality is not a disorder and raising serious questions about so-called reparative therapies. In particular, the APA resolution raised the question of whether it is ethically possible for a psychologist to conduct conversion therapy with individuals who are not capable of informed consent, including minors.

In 1998, at its December 11-12 meeting, the American Psychiatric Association Board of Trustees unanimously endorsed a position statement opposing reparative therapy. According to the 1998 position statement:

"The potential risks of 'reparative therapy' are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient."

"Many patients who have undergone 'reparative therapy' relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction."

"The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed."

"Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as 'reparative' or 'conversion' therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon a prior assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation. The American Psychiatric Association recognizes that in the course of ongoing psychiatric treatment, there may be appropriate clinical indications for attempting to change sexual behaviors."


In Summary In summary, scientific data are lacking to show that behavior modification techniques effectively change individuals' sexual orientations from homosexual to heterosexual. The relatively small number of attempts that have been adequately documented appear to have been largely unsuccessful.




Tell me this, Logan -- Why would you would copy this homophobic pseudo-scientific babble from the NARTH website to this one, and then try to make it look like it's from a reliable scientific source? It's pure, unadulterated 100% crap . . .
Sheesh . . .

[Carlos_E]

[DSM4Life]

Tell me this, Logan -- Why would you would copy this homophobic pseudo-scientific babble from the NARTH website to this one, and then try to make it look like it's from a reliable scientific source? It's pure, unadulterated 100% crap . . .
Sheesh . . .

......

[Chad B]

Huh . . . Logan, did you copy that from the website at www.narth.com/docs/bioresearch.html ? It is the website for NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality), an organization that advocates something called "Reparative Therapy" (see http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo..._changing.html
and www.religioustolerance.org/hom_nart.htm ) , a philosophy that has been disparaged by both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association as pseudoscience:


from http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo..._changing.html
At its meeting in August, 1997, the Council of Representatives of the American Psychological Association overwhelmingly approved a resolution affirming its longtime position that homosexuality is not a disorder and raising serious questions about so-called reparative therapies. In particular, the APA resolution raised the question of whether it is ethically possible for a psychologist to conduct conversion therapy with individuals who are not capable of informed consent, including minors.

In 1998, at its December 11-12 meeting, the American Psychiatric Association Board of Trustees unanimously endorsed a position statement opposing reparative therapy. According to the 1998 position statement:

"The potential risks of 'reparative therapy' are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient."

"Many patients who have undergone 'reparative therapy' relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction."

"The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed."

"Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as 'reparative' or 'conversion' therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon a prior assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation. The American Psychiatric Association recognizes that in the course of ongoing psychiatric treatment, there may be appropriate clinical indications for attempting to change sexual behaviors."


In Summary In summary, scientific data are lacking to show that behavior modification techniques effectively change individuals' sexual orientations from homosexual to heterosexual. The relatively small number of attempts that have been adequately documented appear to have been largely unsuccessful.




Tell me this, Logan -- Why would you would copy this homophobic pseudo-scientific babble from the NARTH website to this one, and then try to make it look like it's from a reliable scientific source? It's pure, unadulterated 100% crap . . .
Sheesh . . .

I think you’re opinion is pure, unadulterated 100% crap...
Sheesh...

[Red Ketchup]

I think you’re opinion is pure, unadulterated 100% crap...
Sheesh...

Now go stick a dildo up you gay ass you mentally sick SOB

Huh?

I hope that was a poor attempt at humour?

Red

[Carlos_E]

Now go stick a dildo up you gay ass you mentally sick SOB

You think this shit is funny? I will be the one laughing when you're banned. Your comment is OFFENSIVE and people have been banned for less! We have several gay members on this board me being one of them.

[DSM4Life]

You think this shit is funny? I will be the one laughing when you're banned. Your comment is OFFENSIVE and people have been banned for less! We have several gay members on this board me being one of them.

Why even warn him ? For stuff like this just ban him and be done with it.

[Chad B]

You think this shit is funny? I will be the one laughing when you're banned. Your comment is OFFENSIVE and people have been banned for less! We have several gay members on this board me being one of them.

I was joking. did you not notice I used the gay word and not the other ones people take offence too like. Also I used SOB rather that much worse words.

Don't get so offended, you can see it was not intentional.

[Carlos_E]

Now go stick a dildo up you gay ass you mentally sick SOB

Where is the fucking humor here.

Don't get so offended, you can see it was not intentional.

No, I don't see it. Your intentions are pretty damn clear.

[DSM4Life]

I was joking. did you not notice I used the gay word and not the other ones people take offence too like. Also I used SOB rather that much worse words.

Don't get so offended, you can see it was not intentional.

Come on man. You know it as much as we do that you took it too far.

Funny how some show their true colors and then try and hide from it.

[Chad B]

Why even warn him ? For stuff like this just ban him and be done with it.

Ever heard of being forbearing or forgiving. Maybe that’s why you jerk!

[Chad B]

Where is the fucking humor here.

No, I don't see it. Your intentions are pretty damn clear.

Sorry bro, bad choice of words.

I love gay people and I am not bs'ing

[DSM4Life]

I know many close people that are gay and I get really offended when people say stuff like this. To you it’s a joke to others it’s much more.

[Chad B]

Come on man. You know it as much as we do that you took it too far.

Funny how some show their true colors and then try and hide from it.

DID YOU NOT SEE THE

IT WAS A JOKE

SORRY IT WAS A BAD ONE

Your the one showing bad colors, no forgivness...

[Chad B]

Where is the fucking humor here.

No, I don't see it. Your intentions are pretty damn clear.

Carlos I am sorry and I did not want to offend anybody.

It was a bad choice of words, a mistake.

Do you forgive me

[Tock]

I think you’re opinion is pure, unadulterated 100% crap...
Sheesh...

There's no opinion involved . . . it's all fact.

Logan posted the contents of a page from an avowedly anti-gay website, but edited its source reference from:

This book is based on papers delivered at the 1997 conference, "Homosexuality and American Public Life," held in Washington, D.C. at the Georgetown Conference Center. To order, call 1-888-773-6782.

to:

From the 1997 conference, "Homosexuality and American Public Life," held in Washington, D.C. at the Georgetown Conference Center.


In essence, he's trying to make this BS sound like it originated from a respectable university conference, instead of merely something drawing from papers presented at a conference center. Not entirely honest . . .

Anyway, I'm sure Logan's seen the response to his post . . . I'd still like to know why he posted this unmitigated crap -- this completely unscientific BS that's been dissed by both the American Psychological Association AND the American Psychiatric Association.

Sheesh . . .

[Tock]

Now go stick a dildo up you gay ass you mentally sick SOB ...

Not much humor there. I'll assume you meant it in a light spirited way, but since verbal humor often loses something when you put it in writing, and since you might not have discovered this yet, I'm not gonna get excised over it. Everyone's gotta learn this lesson sooner or later, and I'm sure you learned something today . . .

-Tock

[Chad B]

Not much humor there. I'll assume you meant it in a light spirited way, but since verbal humor often loses something when you put it in writing, and since you might not have discovered this yet, I'm not gonna get excised over it. Everyone's gotta learn this lesson sooner or later, and I'm sure you learned something today . . .

-Tock

Thanks bro

We all mess up sometimes; it is the hypocrites that judge quickly not knowing the tru intentions of the heart. just pointing fingers like they are perfect...

DSMforlife should learn something from your longsuffering act of kindness...
.

[DSM4Life]

Thanks bro

We all mess up sometimes; it is the hypocrites that judge quickly not knowing the tru intentions of the heart. just pointing fingers like they are perfect...
You throw words around like they are nothing. Until you have a family member or best friend who is gay you will not understand where i am coming from and i don't feel like getting into this.

DSMforlife should learn something from your longsuffering act of kindness...
You insult me personally and i should shake your hand ? Wake up man. The best thing you could have done was said sorry and walked away from your computer.

.

....

[Carlos_E]

The best thing you could have done was said sorry and walked away from your computer.

Agreed

[Carlos_E]

Carlos I am sorry and I did not want to offend anybody.

It was a bad choice of words, a mistake.

Do you forgive me

You're apologizing to the wrong person.

[Tock]

Nonetheless, I still would like to hear Logan's rationale for this:

Tell me this, Logan -- Why would you would copy this homophobic pseudo-scientific babble from the NARTH website to this one, and then try to make it look like it's from a reliable scientific source? It's pure, unadulterated 100% crap . . .
Sheesh . . .

-Tock

[Chad B]

You're apologizing to the wrong person.

No reason to apologize to somebody who shows no mercy.

[Chadb]

You insult me personally and i should shake your hand ? Wake up man. The best thing you could have done was said sorry and walked away from your computer.

Yes you should shake my hand and give me a hug. It is called righteous forgiveness.

I guess you’re just like everybody else in the world...

I did not insult you personally. Don't get your panties in a bunch...

[Logan13]

Huh . . . Logan, did you copy that from the website at www.narth.com/docs/bioresearch.html ? It is the website for NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality), an organization that advocates something called "Reparative Therapy" (see http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo..._changing.html
and www.religioustolerance.org/hom_nart.htm ) , a philosophy that has been disparaged by both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association as pseudoscience:


from http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo..._changing.html
At its meeting in August, 1997, the Council of Representatives of the American Psychological Association overwhelmingly approved a resolution affirming its longtime position that homosexuality is not a disorder and raising serious questions about so-called reparative therapies. In particular, the APA resolution raised the question of whether it is ethically possible for a psychologist to conduct conversion therapy with individuals who are not capable of informed consent, including minors.

In 1998, at its December 11-12 meeting, the American Psychiatric Association Board of Trustees unanimously endorsed a position statement opposing reparative therapy. According to the 1998 position statement:

"The potential risks of 'reparative therapy' are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient."

"Many patients who have undergone 'reparative therapy' relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction."

"The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed."

"Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as 'reparative' or 'conversion' therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon a prior assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation. The American Psychiatric Association recognizes that in the course of ongoing psychiatric treatment, there may be appropriate clinical indications for attempting to change sexual behaviors."


In Summary In summary, scientific data are lacking to show that behavior modification techniques effectively change individuals' sexual orientations from homosexual to heterosexual. The relatively small number of attempts that have been adequately documented appear to have been largely unsuccessful.




Tell me this, Logan -- Why would you would copy this homophobic pseudo-scientific babble from the NARTH website to this one, and then try to make it look like it's from a reliable scientific source? It's pure, unadulterated 100% crap . . .
Sheesh . . .

Because they posted it from the transcript of this conference. Don't hate the messenger, funny how you have no actual rebutle to this though..........

[Chadb]

You're apologizing to the wrong person.

Were your compassion?

It shows a lot about your character when you don’t forgive.

[Tock]

Because they posted it from the transcript of this conference. Don't hate the messenger, funny how you have no actual rebutle to this though..........

Uh-huh. No rebuttal except to show how the vast majority of actual scientists in the mental health field show how "reparative therapy" (also called "conversion therapy") is not only 100% pure unadulterated BS, but is harmful and dangerous to people who fall prey to its malevolent tentacles.

[Logan13]

Nonetheless, I still would like to hear Logan's rationale for this:

-Tock

http://www.amazon.com/Homosexuality-.../dp/1890626236

The link above will take you to Amazon.com. The book here was the basis for the conference which was sponsored by the American Public Philosophy Institute. Narth had nothing to do with it, it was merely posted on their site. There are always other ways to look at things, especially when using science, and just because you do not like what they show does not make it wrong............
Care to respond to what they said now?

[Logan13]

Uh-huh. No rebuttal except to show how the vast majority of actual scientists in the mental health field show how "reparative therapy" (also called "conversion therapy") is not only 100% pure unadulterated BS, but is harmful and dangerous to people who fall prey to its malevolent tentacles.

You questioned the source, the source has now been validated.
Rebut their claims than.........

[Tock]

http://www.amazon.com/Homosexuality-.../dp/1890626236

The link above will take you to Amazon.com. The book here was the basis for the conference which was sponsored by the American Public Philosophy Institute. Narth had nothing to do with it, it was merely posted on their site. There are always other ways to look at things, especially when using science, and just because you do not like what they show does not make it wrong............
Care to respond to what they said now?

I could respond, but there's no sense in doing so. You evidently don't fully appreciate or care about the psychological harm that reparative therapy does to people. You found some reason to post this anti-gay BS in this NEWS forum, which is more BS than NEWS.

I don't know what's prompting you to post all this homophobic crap on this website.

-Tock

[Carlos_E]

Were your compassion?

It shows a lot about your character when you don’t forgive.

Chad. You are suspended. Signing up a new name is an automatic ban for life.

[biglouie250]

devils advocate question to any gay members, lets suppose that they could "cure" homosexuality like they isolated the gene or found whatever led inidividuals toward homosexuality and could neutralize it or whatever. would you be interested in getting it done?

[Carlos_E]

If they isolated the gene that caused heterosexuality would you have it done? Would you want to be anything but straight? I don't think so. So what makes you think I would be any different. The answer is no. Anyone who wants to change who they are has serious self hate going on.

[biglouie250]

If they isolated the gene that caused heterosexuality would you have it done? Would you want to be anything but straight? I don't think so. So what makes you think I would be any different. The answer is no. Anyone who wants to change who they are has serious self hate going on.

just curious, i mean i think we have all heard of self hating homosexuals because of societal pressure. i was just wondering what the consensus of the board was. good insight tho.

[Phreak101]

If they isolated the gene that caused heterosexuality would you have it done? Would you want to be anything but straight? I don't think so. So what makes you think I would be any different. The answer is no. Anyone who wants to change who they are has serious self hate going on.

You'd be thinking a lot differently if you wanted to conceive naturally....

[DSM4Life]

I know people who would want the straight pill simply because it would make their lives easier. Its sad but true.

[Carlos_E]

I think it's the same as asking a person if they want to change their race. They would have to be very unhappy with themselves to want such a thing.

[Carlos_E]

You'd be thinking a lot differently if you wanted to conceive naturally....

You don't have to be straight to naturally conceive a child.

[Phreak101]

I think it's the same as asking a person if they want to change their race. They would have to be very unhappy with themselves to want such a thing.

Married men who have families who have realized they are gay would argue...isolating the gene would allow these men to not ruin the lives of everyone they have effected...


Not saying it's the right thing to do, but if you're 50 and gay with a family, no good can come from you coming out...