|
#6 The Facts On Homosexuality
6. Do many leading scientific researchers
conclude homosexuality is not biologically or genetically based?
For more than 30 years careful
scientists have refused to assert that homosexuality is biologically based for
one simple reason: lack of supporting evidence. In the following pages we will
cite a wide variety of authorities to attempt to counter the prevailing
sentiment on this issue circulation throughout society.
Dr. Charles Socarides Kaufman, and Joseph Nicolost founded the National
Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH; see
www.narth.com) to counter the growing threat
of scientific censorship and unscientific propaganda and intimidation
originating from the gay community (and often supported by the media). For
example, "Gay activists have attempted to compel both the American Psychological
and Psychiatric Associations to declare as unethical any type of therapy that
encourages homosexuals to change." NARTH, which has grown rapidly in its
membership and support, was the only organized voice against this lobby.
Basing their conclusions on the best science, Socarides, Kaufman, and
Nicolost point out that there is a growing body of evidence that homosexually is
not genetic and "there is no scientific research indicating a biological or
genetic causes for homosexuality. Biological factors may play a role in
the predisposition to homosexuality. However, this is true of many other
psychological conditions." They also call attention to fact that "
psychotherapists around the world who treat homosexuals report that significant
numbers of their clients have experienced substantial healing" and that
"scientific research supports age-old cultural norms that homosexuality is not a
healthy, natural alternative to heterosexuality." (These quotes were found at
www.narth.com).
Dr. Nicolosi points out that he has examined the entire range of modern
scientific literature relating to the alleged biological foundations of
homosexuality; "I myself have reviewed all the literature...and I certainly
don't believe, and I don't think any scientist really believes, that there is a
biological predetermination for sexual orientation. There's much more evidence
for early environmental factors that would set the stage for a person's sexual
orientation."
No less an authority than Alfred Kinsey himself, as cited by W. B. Pomeroy,
his research associate, stated, "I have myself come to the conclusion that
homosexuality is largely a matter of conditioning." Perhaps this explains why
sex authorities Masters and Johnson emphasized. "It is of vital importance that
all professionals in the mental health field keep in mind that the homosexual
man or woman is basically a man or woman by genetic determination and
homosexually oriented by learned preference."
Masters and Johnson also observed the following:
The genetic theory of homosexuality has been
generally discarded today...no serious scientist suggests that a single
cause-effect relationship applies.
Dr. John Money, professor emeritus at
John Hopkins University, reported: "No chromosomal differences have been found
between homosexual subjects and heterosexuals controls" and "on the basis of
present knowledge, there is no basis on which to justify an hypothesis that
homosexuals or bisexuals of any degree or type are chromosomally discrepant from
heterosexuals."
Even John DeCecco, a professor at San Francisco State University and the
editor of the Journal of Homosexuality, said, "The idea that people are
born into one type of sexual behavior is foolish.
In the same issue of Archives of General Psychiatry that the
Bailey/Pillared piece on the lesbian twins appeared, two highly credentialed
researchers at New York State Psychiatric Institute concluded: "There is no
evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory of sexual orientation." In
fact, leading scientific journals have consistently pointed out "the lack of
supporting evidence" for a biological basis for homosexuality-which is hardly
surprising since "Genetically determined homosexuality would have become extinct
long ago because of reduced reproduction."
The fourth edition of the Psychiatric Dictionary observes that
how a child is raised is far more important in determining sexually than
genetics: "Many pseudohermaphrodites and subjects with gonadal agenesis have
been reared as females when their chromosomal sex is male (and vice versa); yet
in every case the gender role and orientation was consistent with the
assigned sex and rearing."
William P. Wilson, professor emeritus of psychiatry at Duke University
Medical Center, argued: "It cannot be demonstrated that homosexual behavior is
directly produced by the transmission of genetically determined behavior or by
the occurrence of an excessive or deficient number of sex chromosomes."
Dr, Clifford Allen concluded: "No investigations in any sphere
indicate an organic basis for homosexuality, whether physical, chemical,
microscopic or macroscopic."
Here is what other serious scientists think about recent
genetics-of-behavior research. "Time and time again, scientists have claimed
that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral
traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated." Yale's
Dr. Joel Gelernter stated that " 'it's hard to come up with many' findings
linking specific genes to complex human behavior that have been replicated."
These genetic links were announced with great fanfare and were greeted without
skepticism in the popular press (from Science 264:1687, 1994). Indeed,
former Yale and Harvard professor Dr. Jeffery Stainover declared in
Homosexuality and American Public Life that genetic factors account for, at
most, a small proportion of the risk factor for homosexuality (see "Biological
Research on Homosexuality," at www.narth.com).
For more information on scientific research, we recommend Drs. Stanton Jones and
Mark Yarhouse's corrective to the homosexual and cultural misuse of science
found in their Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the
Church's Moral Debate.
Two major principles need to be carefully understood in order to counter
the distortions of recent research. "1. Heritable does not mean
inherited; 2. genetics research which is truly meaningful will identify, and
them find focus on, only traits that are directly inherited. Almost every
human characteristic is in significant measure heritable. But few human
behavioral traits are directly inherited, in the manner of height, for
example, or eye color. Inherited means 'directly determined by genes',
with little or no way of preventing or modifying the trait through a change in
the environment."
In fact, the very same methods that have been used with homosexuality:
1) twins studies; 2) brain dissections; and 3) gene "linkage" studies, can be
used to show that anything is genetic. You can easily "prove" that basketball
players are "born that way." "As we have seen, there is no evidence that
homosexuality is simply 'genetic'-and none of the research itself claims there
is" ("Is There a 'Gay Gene'?" at www.narth.com).
Even if homosexuality were someday proven to be entirely genetic, it
wouldn't matter. Human "fallenness" clearly involves genetic defects, and we do
not yet (if we ever will) understand the relationship between genes and
behavior. But it is abundantly clear that genes do not force behavior regardless
of one's sexuality. Thousands of gays and straights are celibate. If behavior
were forced, this would be impossible. Thus, to justify the sin of homosexuality
genetically means that pedophiles, alcoholics, and serial murderers could all
have an equal case for moral approval. If we are going to permit a genetic
"fate" for gays, we will have to excuse all sorts of unsavory actions on the
basis of possible or actual genetic disposition.
The entire subject is extremely complex and unlikely to be resolved
definitively. To reject time-honored conventional morality for current
scientific propaganda and the reprehensible intimidation by gay activists is
just plain foolish. It will only compound the problems and harm our own
children. For example, "a 1992 study in Pediatrics found that 25.9% of 12 years
olds are uncertain if they are gay or straight"
(www.narth.com/menus/myths.html). The truth is that homosexuality cannot be
considered a genetic fait accompli. However, based solely on its medical,
social, and spiritual consequences, it should be considered a disorder (and a
blight), regardless of genes.
Taken from the Facts On Homosexuality, by John
Ankerberg and John Weldon, Published by Harvest House Publishers.
Are You Rapture Ready
|