Homosexuals admit: We recruit

[_moksha]

Its home to a few cranks and ideologues who nurse personal agendas such as Bradshaw and 9/11 truther Steven Jones. Beyond that, great place.

Just the same, it would be wise to look for brightly colored booths at the BYU Career Day - what with all the recruitment going on, you just know they will show up looking for candidates bursting with repression.

[_Buffalo]

We all know that BYU is home to agenda-driven leftists trying to force kindergarteners into gay marriages.

Its home to a few cranks and ideologues who nurse personal agendas such as Bradshaw and 9/11 truther Steven Jones. Beyond that, great place.

By the way, ignoring evidence and claiming it isn't there doesn't actually make it go away.

There is no evidence of anything but possible bias and predisposition to the eventual generation of SSA (not SSA per se) due to biological/genetic factors. There is not a shred of evidence that any biological factors, of themselves, represent a discreet, identifiable "cause" of homosexual orientation. That's the problem.

In place of counter-evidence, Droopy crams his stubby fingers into his ears and chants "LALALALA!" and tries to convince himself he can change his orientation.

[_EAllusion]

Yes, the analogy to human caused global warming is particularly apt in this case for Droopy.

Indeed, as both the "born that way" theory and the hypothesis of DAGW (or CAGW, if you've really drunk the Kool-Aid to the dregs) are pseudo-scientific assertions of truth lacking any actual substantive evidence but heated by the cherry-red coals of ideology and personal agenda.

Which is why it is necessary for you to trot out global warming skeptic canards time after time, watch them easily get refuted, only for you to slink away from the board until it all blows over? If what you are saying is true, then wouldn't that behavior be especially pathetic on your part? Like someone repeatedly getting skunked trying to demonstrate homeopathy is a placebo?

[_EAllusion]

There is no evidence of anything but possible bias and predisposition to the eventual generation of SSA (not SSA per se) due to biological/genetic factors. There is not a shred of evidence that any biological factors, of themselves, represent a discreet, identifiable "cause" of homosexual orientation. That's the problem.

Do you understand how genetic causes of complex cognitive traits work? Genetic factors predisposing an individual to a trait are causing that trait. But because causes are multifactorial and penetrance (no pun intended) isn't 100%, it isn't the cause. The idea that there is a single identifiable gay gene that causes tHe gaYZoRs is a straw-man that misunderstands what it means for heritable factors to be explaining a sizeable chunk in the variance of sexual orientation. Further the opposite of "genetic cause" is not "choice." Prenatal hormonal environment, which genetic factors probably are mediating, clearly plays a significant role the development of orientation, but those environmental factors aren't chosen. Choice is about volition. If you are a compatibilist like me you believe that it makes sense to say things are chosen even if they are caused by a chain of events that are not so long as what we refer to as our will was involved. If you deny there can be such a thing as a choice machine, then no causal factors will help rescue the position that orientation is a choice. In either case, it's pretty clear that sexual orientation isn't willed by people, though if you are a bisexual without strong leaning to either sex, it might be easy to imagine others can pick and choose what sex they are attracted to. But you aren't choosing to be bisexually oriented. You just are. The reason you can predict sexual orientation by looking at things like hair whorl patterns, digit ratios, neuron counts in the limbic nucleus, and so on is because that nature isn't particularly fluid after early development.

[_Droopy]

Which is why it is necessary for you to trot out global warming skeptic canards time after time,

They're not canards, but arguments drawn from the state of the empirical science and rational argument based on long term observations of nature, none of which do now, or ever have supported the DAGW hypothesis. The hypothesis is, for all intents, dead, and has been for sometime, as actual empirical data simply refuse to confirm the hypothesis and all empirical data, in wave after wave of disconfirmation from numerous earth sciences, has long been pointing away from its core claims.

Secondly, the Climategate 1 and 2 emails show conclusively (alongside devastating revelations of scientific sloppiness and deep activist influence on the IPCC) that the entire edifice has been the careful and furtive creation of a core of scientific charlatans, utterly corrupted by ego, ideology, and endless oceans of government grant funding, bent on feathering their own financial, academic, and ideological nests and destroying/discrediting, by any means necessary, anyone who gets in their way.

Add an utterly credulous, leftist media for whom AGW is exactly what they want to hear (regardless of its lack of seriousness as a scientific theory), the environmental movement, for whom it is the key to their power and ideological triumph, and government, for whom it is the key to vast centralized coercive regulatory powers heretofore never realized, and we have the makings of a corruption and politicization of science that may, in the end, dwarf what Trofim was able to accomplish even under much more auspicious political condition.

watch them easily get refuted,

I've never seen as single particle of my AGW arguments refuted here. All I've ever seen is what you've just done above, argue by assertion and turn red in the face while wailing, "Global Warming is here, its real, and we must ACT NOW!!!"

only for you to slink away from the board until it all blows over?

Actually, I've held court hear at length numerous times with a number of people, all huffing and puffing and trying to blow the house down with their pseudo-scientific ideologically motivated can't and environmentalist bumper sticker slogans and who clearly have never done a speck of serious reading on the actual scientific evidence for that which they support and the substantial evidence against it from competent and distinguished scientists. They have not looked at the issue from both sides, have no intention of doing so, and are not interested in pursuing a clear, balanced perspective on the issue, as there support of it isn't rational or scientific at all in the first place, but psychological and ideological.

Our children and children's children may look back on this past 20 years of global mass hysteria, complete with the perfect equivalent of the mentality of the Salem witch hunters among true believers and scientists with all their eggs in the AGW basket, and wonder what on earth could have possessed otherwise intelligent, educated human beings (depending, of course, upon one's definition of the term "educated").

I'm not going to go into a laundry list of the conclusive evidence against the DAGW hypothesis, as easy as it is at the present to deconstruct, as few here are listening or want to look at the other side. That goes with the territory here. The empirical earth science, I will just point out, is conclusively stacked against it, and has been for quite sometime. Mann's bungled scientific Hockey Stick fraud was only the beginning of the unraveling of this ideological ploy that has already destroyed hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth, corrupted the scientific enterprise, and threatened human health and well being around the world, and most especially in the Third World.

[_Droopy]

The idea that there is a single identifiable gay gene that causes tHe gaYZoRs is a straw-man that misunderstands what it means for heritable factors to be explaining a sizeable chunk in the variance of sexual orientation.

Yes, but that's exactly what the gay lobby and its fellow travelers have been promoting since the nineties. Its not a straw man, its the social Left's own argument.

Further the opposite of "genetic cause" is not "choice." Prenatal hormonal environment, which genetic factors probably are mediating...

Watch out when an intellectual uses words like "probably" when discussing concepts of a highly theoretical and speculative nature within the imprimatur of science. This means, "I don't know," but, as one can see, it isn't phrased that way.

, clearly plays a significant role the development of orientation, but those environmental factors aren't chosen. Choice is about volition.

No kidding. This is why I and many others have always maintained that while SSA itself may not be a "choice" in a conscious, volitional sense, homosexual behavior and the adoption of the "gay" indentity most certainly is. Secondly, the "orientation" itself is not a genetic given, but a manifestation of cognitive/psychological/ biases and predispositions introduced by genetic factors but which may need a specific interplay of other environmental factors (family dynamics, early childhood experiences etc.) to catalyze the expression of the actual perceptions.

If you are a compatibilist like me you believe that it makes sense to say things are chosen even if they are caused by a chain of events that are not so long as what we refer to as our will was involved.

I'll have to do some research on compatibilist arguments before commenting here on that aspect of it.

In either case, it's pretty clear that sexual orientation isn't willed by people, though if you are a bisexual without strong leaning to either sex, it might be easy to imagine others can pick and choose what sex they are attracted to. But you aren't choosing to be bisexually oriented. You just are.

This is, yet again, throwing up the hands and walking away from the hard thinking that needs to be done here in favor of one's own ideological preferences in the hope no one else will notice.

Very clearly, the "orientation" itself can be both innate and self generated, and the innate orientation is not some simply gene x = sexual orientation y as the homosexual activists and social liberal theorists would have it, but the result of a complex bio/psycho/social interplay of influences and factors eventuating, in some people, in what we call Same Sex Attraction.

And it is dysfunctional and destructive, no matter what its ultimate confluence of generating dynamics.

The reason you can predict sexual orientation by looking at things like hair whorl patterns, digit ratios, neuron counts in the limbic nucleus, and so on is because that nature isn't particularly fluid after early development.

Pseudoscience. No wonder you're an AGW true believer. The old homosexual brain structure (hypothalamus) studies by LeVay were discredited immediately, for among other reasons because the brains of most homosexual males are in no sense different from those of heterosexual males, the larger hypothalamus being present in only a subset of homosexual men. We must also mention that, as with the lesbian finger length studies, all that is demonstrated is a correlation without any plausible causal mechanism for which "predictions" could possibly even be entertained. A great many woman have finger lengths comparable to those of the small subset of lesbians who have a similar morphological trait, without in any sense being homosexual. More homosexual males do not display the enlarged hypothalamus than do, and the brain structure case, there is no way to show the direction of causation, if any, whether from the brain to homosexuality or from homosexual behavior to alterations in brain structure and function.

Good to know that the "social sciences" are on the cusp of prediction which of us are to be sexual Alphas, Betas, Gammas, Deltas and Epsilons.

The Archives of General Psychiatry mention that:

There is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory. … [T]he appeal of current biologic explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data. (1)

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) stated, in 2000, that:

“Currently, there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.

Here's the upshot: there is no "cause" of homosexuality. There is a complex, subtle, and plastic interplay, especially in early childhood, of biological, psychological, emotional, and social factors which may or may not bias a certain individual in the direction of the development of homosexual attraction. That's as far as the brain sciences can take us.



1. William Byne and Bruce Parsons, “Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised,” Archives of General
Psychiatry, Vol. 50, March 1993: 228-239.

[_Buffalo]

http://www.ldsresources.information/profession ... shaw.shtml

Biology and Homosexuality

William S. Bradshaw, Ph.D

Dr. Bradshaw and his wife Marjorie are the parents of five children. He is Professor of Microbiology and Molecular Biology at Brigham Young University. He served as the President of the Hong Kong Mission, 1971-1974.

Over the past three decades I have had periodic opportunities to respond to questions and engage in conversations with Latter-day Saints about the subject of homosexuality. These have come to me in several contexts: one through my students enrolled in biology and religion courses at BYU, and a second through my ecclesiastic service as a mission president, and as a bishop and in a stake presidency at BYU. It is clear that this subject elicits strong emotions, that it is not openly discussed in the church, and that there is a need for both accurate information (when that is available) and for sensitivity to the significant number of LDS families that are directly or indirectly affected. The personal views about homosexuality which follow are the result of both my investigation of the research evidence, my experience, and my commitment to the teachings of the Savior, and are offered in the spirit of helpfulness and concern.

Three questions, not independent, but related to one another as a nested set, lie at the heart of this issue:

Is there an explanation for why some of our brothers and sisters are homosexual? What is its cause?


Can a person's sexual orientation be changed? Is it a permanent state, or can a homosexual Latter-day Saint become heterosexual through force of will or some therapeutic process?


How should we regard same-sex relationships? It is important to recognize that each of these is complex and not resolved by a simplistic answer, and further that they are inextricably connected.

Even if an absolutely correct and complete answer were available for Question 1, we would still be required to proceed to wrestle with Question 2, whose complications will naturally lead us to ponder the third.


I. Is the cause of homosexuality known?

The answer is that there is clear evidence that biological factors are involved, but the data are somewhat scant and it is not possible to outline an unequivocal biochemical or physiological mechanism that explains why some individuals are attracted to persons of their same sex. The evidence can be summarized as follows (a small sample of the information available):

A. Homosexuality runs in families, suggesting that it has a genetic basis [1; I cite only one reference for these observations, each of which contains citations of earlier important work.].

In a random sample, gay men have from 2-5 times more gay brothers than do heterosexual men. Lesbians have a high incidence of lesbian sisters.


Comparisons (for both gay men and lesbians) of the incidence of homosexuality among identical twins, fraternal twins, and non-twin siblings suggest that it has a hereditary basis, but that other non-genetic factors are involved.

B. Both sexual anatomy and sexual behavior is under hormonal control.

In research studies (especially with rats), sexual behavior can be altered by treatments that change the hormonal state of the animals during early development. Structures in the brain known to be connected to sexual differentiation are also affected [2].

C. Some anatomical (and other) characteristics of homosexual and heterosexual people differ.

Anatomy of the human brain. A structure in the hypothalamus (the third interstitial nucleus, INAH-3) is sexually dimorphic (of significantly larger volume in men than women). For homosexual males this measure is intermediate between heterosexual men and women (due to a greater density, but not number of neurons) [3].


Anatomy of the hand. The ratio of the length of the index finger to the 4th finger is greater in women than in men. This digit length measure is smaller in lesbians than in heterosexual women, and hypermasculinized in homosexual men with two or more older male siblings [4].


Handedness. Homosexual women, in contrast to heterosexual women, are more often left handed or ambidextrous [5].


Aspects of the physiology of hearing. In homosexual and bisexual women the strength of otoacoustic emissions, OAEs (tiny "echos" produced by the inner ear), is intermediate to that of heterosexual females and heterosexual males. Certain measures of auditory evoked potentials, AEPs, in homosexual males are hypermasculinzed [6].


Fraternal birth order. In men, there is a correlation between sexual orientation and the number of older brothers [7].


Cognitive abilities. In certain verbal, quantitative, and visual-spatial tests, heterosexual men and women perform differently. Homosexual males perform in the male direction, but more extreme than their heterosexual male counterparts [8].

A number of these observations are consistent with a greater-than-normal exposure during prenatal development to androgens (like testosterone) and their impact on the sexual differentiation of the brain. Other possible biochemical mechanisms have also been proposed [9]. It is probably true that there are a number of different routes to the homosexual state for different persons.

I have examined the arguments suggesting psychological causes for homosexuality, including parental failures by domineering mothers or inadequate fathers [10]. These propositions are contradicted by the bulk of the evidence from controlled studies [11], and rely on highly suspect methods, such as picking and choosing excerpts from the autobiographies of gay people in an attempt to find support. Most importantly, I believe we should lift from the souls of the parents of gay children the unjust torment they bear by incorrectly assuming that they are responsible for the sexual orientation of their sons or daughters.

I believe that the whole body of this empirical evidence justifies the following conclusion. There are causal genetic and biochemical factors operating (in a highly complex fashion) during development that contribute to make some persons romantically oriented to others of the same sex. These biological factors are innate. Homosexual orientation does not appear to be the result of a conscious choice. At the same time, one should not exempt homosexuality from considerations of morality just because it might be explained in biological terms. Behavior like anger, dishonesty, or theft, for example, should not be excused because they are connected to a certain state or function of the brain, and are therefore biological [12].


II. Can someone change his or her sexual orientation?

The answer is that whereas homosexual persons have control over the expression of their sexuality, the behavior that they engage in, they cannot change their same-sex orientation. This issue is highly controversial. Nevertheless, neither empirical scholarship nor the experience of many, many LDS people supports the claims made by proponents of "reparative therapy" that gay people can become heterosexual.

How shall we go about answering this question? Shall we follow our own intuitive sense about the ability of people to change? Shall we appeal to religious principles? Is there relevant scholarship? I have decided that this issue is only satisfactorily resolved by listening attentively and spiritually to the experience of our gay family members and friends, and making a decision about whether or not they are telling us the truth.

To suggest that a person cannot change a particular aspect of his or her personality probably flies in the face of one of our most cherished concepts, the notion that we possess free will and are able to make of ourselves whatever we choose. Repentance and accountability for one's actions are at the heart of the doctrine of the atonement. Still, we have to consider very seriously the possibility that the object of one's sexual attraction is a unique human condition that is unalterable for most people. The need for us to be open on the issue of homosexual choice is especially strong since, in contrast to fear, or anger, or greed, or any one of a number of negative character traits to be resisted and overcome, love for another human being is a fundamentally positive and noble attribute.

Any woman or man who is dubious that sexual orientation in gay people is unalterable should seriously ask, "Could I reverse my own heterosexual romantic attraction to men or women?" "Can I remember deciding that I was going to be a someone who would fall in love with a person of the opposite sex?" "Can I envision any argument or program of persuasion that would cause me to change the object of my romantic feelings?" I have yet to find a straight person who said "yes" to any of these questions.

There are counseling programs offering "conversion" or "reparative" therapy that hold out the promise of changing homosexual orientation. There are at least two concerns that should be raised about these efforts. The first is that while claiming success at effecting change these programs usually fail to quantitatively report their results or substantiate that the alleged change is long-term. When results are reported, the evidence for change is not compelling. For example, following participation in such programs 84% of persons self-report that they continue to maintain some degree of same-sex attraction [13]. The second consideration in evaluating change therapy is that a significant number of gay people are bisexual, capable, in varying degrees, of romantic feelings for persons of either gender. There is a very strong possibility that those who report success in changing their homosexuality are bisexuals who have achieved an accommodation to focus on one only (the heterosexual attraction) of the two they are capable of. There is a very strong professional sentiment that change therapy is ineffective and inappropriate [14].

Finally, honesty compels us to consider the experience of a very large number of LDS gay people, who in spite of exhaustive, lengthy, and totally sincere efforts have not been able to change the fact of who they are sexually. A testimony of the truthfulness of the restoration of the gospel, faithful church activity, fasting, prayer, missionary service, temple service - all of these are important, gratifying motivating and allow us to increase in power and goodness, but none, in any combination, has been able to alter sexual orientation [15]. I am convinced that this assertion is true because I have heard it expressed in any number of variations from my gay brothers and sisters and the witness of the spirit to me is that they are telling the truth. Whatever other religious or social or personal standards we choose to use in attempting to understand homosexuality and respond appropriately to it, we cannot ignore this fact from the life experience of those most closely affected.


III. How should we regard homosexual relationships?

A reasonable, conservative estimate is that there are over 500,000 gay Latter-day Saints, 5% of church membership. Based on the preceding I conclude that these important human beings, my brothers and sisters, have a romantic attraction to persons of the same sex that is rooted in inherent biological factors over which they have had no control, and that this is a condition that they will not be able to change, even with Herculean effort. What should they do? My primary response is one of compassion at the realization that these people are unable to make, in full honesty, a complete commitment to a wife or husband that characterizes the temple marriage covenant. What then? It seems proper to apply a standard of conduct in which an individual gay Latter-day Saint finds a path in life that most fully permits the acquisition of goodness and the practice of service, traits and behavior that find their highest expression in the life of the Savior. It seems to me that there may be several different paths appropriate to that end.

There are, of course, many married, gay members of the church. Often they entered marriage with the false hope that a heterosexual relationship would allow them to change their orientation. That doesn't happen. Some, with the help of understanding and highly courageous spouses, have opted to remain in those families, finding it the best, if difficult, individual solution to their situation. Others have not, driven, I believe, by a sense that they can not continue to live a lie and must find some other way to be true to themselves - a principle they have been taught in the church. Single gay people have the same dilemma.

I propose, as have others before me, that when the two or three Biblical writers denounced homosexual behavior they were addressing the issue of heterosexual persons engaging in homosexual acts. We can join them in viewing such behavior sinful. I can believe, however, that for most of human history it has been generally inconceivable that there were persons whose natural state was to be romantically oriented to those of their same gender. Such a possibility just did not occur. I note the absence of a reference to homosexuality in the Book of Mormon, or Pearl of Great Price, or, especially, in the The Doctrine and Covenants. I submit that our current perspective should take into account recent knowledge and experience. Human understanding of what is true changes over time. Truth may be eternal, but our comprehension of it is neither automatic nor complete. It takes time, usually a long time, for us to learn. What seems apparent is that God doesn't jump in and correct our knowledge deficiencies; He waits patiently while we figure things out for ourselves. I offer these last sentiments in the spirit that we are woefully ignorant of many of the aspects of homosexuality, and ought to be open to the further light to be shed on the subject, from whatever source.

I know that at the present time there is a great deal of animosity, ill will, intemperate language, and ignorance with regard to gay people among the Latter-day Saints. Our gay brothers and sisters are labeled as perverts and deviants unworthy of our association. They find activity with us too painful. We lose the blessings of their gifts. I cannot believe that the Savior is pleased, but do believe that He will do all He can to help us find a better way.


IV. References

Pillard, R.C. The Search for a Genetic Influence on Sexual Orientation. In Science and Homosexualities, Rosario, V.A. Ed. Routledge, New York, 1997.


Lephart, E.D. et al. Neuroendocrine Regulation of Sexually Dimorphic Brain Structure and Associated Sexual Behavior in Male Rats Is Genetically Controlled, Biology of Reproduction, 64, 571-578 (2001).


Byne, W., et al. The Interstitial Nuclei of the Human Anterior Hypothalamus: An Investigation of Variation with Sex, Sexual Orientation, and HIV Status. Hormones and Behavior, 40, 86-92 (2001).


Brown, W.M., et al. Differences in Finger Length Ratios Between Self-Identified "Butch" and "Femme" Lesbians. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31, 124-127 (2002).


Mustanski, B.A., Bailey, J.M., and Kaspar, S. Dermatoglyphics, Handedness, Sex, and Sexual Orientation. Archives Of Sexual Behavior, 31, 113-122 (2002).


McFadden, D. Masculinization Effects in the Auditory System, Archives Of Sexual Behavior, 31, 98-111 (2002).


Cantor, J.M., et al. How many Gay Men Owe Their Sexual Orientation to Fraternal Birth Order. Archives Of Sexual Behavior, 31, 63-71 (2002).


Halpern, D.F. and Crothers, M. Sex, Sexual Orientation, and Cognition. In Sexual Orientation: Toward Biological Understanding. L. Ellis and L. Ebertz, Eds. Praeger, Westport, CT. London, 1997.


Bailey, J.M. Biological Perspectives on Sexual Orientation. In Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identities Over the Lifespan, A.R. D;Augelli and C.J. Patterson, Eds. Oxford University Press, New York, 1995.


Nicolosi, J. and Byrd A.D. A critique of Bem's "Exotic Becomes Erotic" theory of sexual orientation development. Psychological Reports, 90, 931-946 (2002).


Bell, A.P., Weinberg, M.S., and Hammersmith, S. K. Sexual Preference. Its Development In Men Women. Indiana University Press, 1981.


Oaks, D.H. Same-Gender Attraction. The Ensign, October 1995, pp. 7-14.


Nicolosi, J, Byrd, A.D., and Potts, R.W. Retrospective self-reports of changes in homosexual orientation: A consumer survey of conversion therapy clients. Psychological Reports, 86, 1071-1088 (2000).


See joint statement on Reparative Therapy: http://www.glsen.org/binary-data/GLSEN_ ... le/424.pdf


Decisions Of The Soul, Cook, D, Killian R., and Wannack K., Eds. The Intermountain Conference on Sexuality and Homosexuality, April 1995.

[_Droopy]

http://www.ldsresources.information/professionals/bradshaw.shtml

Biology and Homosexuality

William S. Bradshaw, Ph.D

Dr. Bradshaw and his wife Marjorie are the parents of five children. He is Professor of Microbiology and Molecular Biology at Brigham Young University. He served as the President of the Hong Kong Mission, 1971-1974.

Over the past three decades I have had periodic opportunities to respond to questions and engage in conversations with Latter-day Saints about the subject of homosexuality. These have come to me in several contexts: one through my students enrolled in biology and religion courses at BYU, and a second through my ecclesiastic service as a mission president, and as a bishop and in a stake presidency at BYU. It is clear that this subject elicits strong emotions, that it is not openly discussed in the church, and that there is a need for both accurate information (when that is available) and for sensitivity to the significant number of LDS families that are directly or indirectly affected. The personal views about homosexuality which follow are the result of both my investigation of the research evidence, my experience, and my commitment to the teachings of the Savior, and are offered in the spirit of helpfulness and concern.

Three questions, not independent, but related to one another as a nested set, lie at the heart of this issue:

Is there an explanation for why some of our brothers and sisters are homosexual? What is its cause?


Can a person's sexual orientation be changed? Is it a permanent state, or can a homosexual Latter-day Saint become heterosexual through force of will or some therapeutic process?


How should we regard same-sex relationships? It is important to recognize that each of these is complex and not resolved by a simplistic answer, and further that they are inextricably connected.

Even if an absolutely correct and complete answer were available for Question 1, we would still be required to proceed to wrestle with Question 2, whose complications will naturally lead us to ponder the third.


I. Is the cause of homosexuality known?

The answer is that there is clear evidence that biological factors are involved, but the data are somewhat scant and it is not possible to outline an unequivocal biochemical or physiological mechanism that explains why some individuals are attracted to persons of their same sex. The evidence can be summarized as follows (a small sample of the information available):

A. Homosexuality runs in families, suggesting that it has a genetic basis [1; I cite only one reference for these observations, each of which contains citations of earlier important work.].

In a random sample, gay men have from 2-5 times more gay brothers than do heterosexual men. Lesbians have a high incidence of lesbian sisters.


Comparisons (for both gay men and lesbians) of the incidence of homosexuality among identical twins, fraternal twins, and non-twin siblings suggest that it has a hereditary basis, but that other non-genetic factors are involved.

B. Both sexual anatomy and sexual behavior is under hormonal control.

In research studies (especially with rats), sexual behavior can be altered by treatments that change the hormonal state of the animals during early development. Structures in the brain known to be connected to sexual differentiation are also affected [2].

C. Some anatomical (and other) characteristics of homosexual and heterosexual people differ.

Anatomy of the human brain. A structure in the hypothalamus (the third interstitial nucleus, INAH-3) is sexually dimorphic (of significantly larger volume in men than women). For homosexual males this measure is intermediate between heterosexual men and women (due to a greater density, but not number of neurons) [3].


Anatomy of the hand. The ratio of the length of the index finger to the 4th finger is greater in women than in men. This digit length measure is smaller in lesbians than in heterosexual women, and hypermasculinized in homosexual men with two or more older male siblings [4].


Handedness. Homosexual women, in contrast to heterosexual women, are more often left handed or ambidextrous [5].


Aspects of the physiology of hearing. In homosexual and bisexual women the strength of otoacoustic emissions, OAEs (tiny "echos" produced by the inner ear), is intermediate to that of heterosexual females and heterosexual males. Certain measures of auditory evoked potentials, AEPs, in homosexual males are hypermasculinzed [6].


Fraternal birth order. In men, there is a correlation between sexual orientation and the number of older brothers [7].


Cognitive abilities. In certain verbal, quantitative, and visual-spatial tests, heterosexual men and women perform differently. Homosexual males perform in the male direction, but more extreme than their heterosexual male counterparts [8].

A number of these observations are consistent with a greater-than-normal exposure during prenatal development to androgens (like testosterone) and their impact on the sexual differentiation of the brain. Other possible biochemical mechanisms have also been proposed [9]. It is probably true that there are a number of different routes to the homosexual state for different persons.

I have examined the arguments suggesting psychological causes for homosexuality, including parental failures by domineering mothers or inadequate fathers [10]. These propositions are contradicted by the bulk of the evidence from controlled studies [11], and rely on highly suspect methods, such as picking and choosing excerpts from the autobiographies of gay people in an attempt to find support. Most importantly, I believe we should lift from the souls of the parents of gay children the unjust torment they bear by incorrectly assuming that they are responsible for the sexual orientation of their sons or daughters.

I believe that the whole body of this empirical evidence justifies the following conclusion. There are causal genetic and biochemical factors operating (in a highly complex fashion) during development that contribute to make some persons romantically oriented to others of the same sex. These biological factors are innate. Homosexual orientation does not appear to be the result of a conscious choice. At the same time, one should not exempt homosexuality from considerations of morality just because it might be explained in biological terms. Behavior like anger, dishonesty, or theft, for example, should not be excused because they are connected to a certain state or function of the brain, and are therefore biological [12].


II. Can someone change his or her sexual orientation?

The answer is that whereas homosexual persons have control over the expression of their sexuality, the behavior that they engage in, they cannot change their same-sex orientation. This issue is highly controversial. Nevertheless, neither empirical scholarship nor the experience of many, many LDS people supports the claims made by proponents of "reparative therapy" that gay people can become heterosexual.

How shall we go about answering this question? Shall we follow our own intuitive sense about the ability of people to change? Shall we appeal to religious principles? Is there relevant scholarship? I have decided that this issue is only satisfactorily resolved by listening attentively and spiritually to the experience of our gay family members and friends, and making a decision about whether or not they are telling us the truth.

To suggest that a person cannot change a particular aspect of his or her personality probably flies in the face of one of our most cherished concepts, the notion that we possess free will and are able to make of ourselves whatever we choose. Repentance and accountability for one's actions are at the heart of the doctrine of the atonement. Still, we have to consider very seriously the possibility that the object of one's sexual attraction is a unique human condition that is unalterable for most people. The need for us to be open on the issue of homosexual choice is especially strong since, in contrast to fear, or anger, or greed, or any one of a number of negative character traits to be resisted and overcome, love for another human being is a fundamentally positive and noble attribute.

Any woman or man who is dubious that sexual orientation in gay people is unalterable should seriously ask, "Could I reverse my own heterosexual romantic attraction to men or women?" "Can I remember deciding that I was going to be a someone who would fall in love with a person of the opposite sex?" "Can I envision any argument or program of persuasion that would cause me to change the object of my romantic feelings?" I have yet to find a straight person who said "yes" to any of these questions.

There are counseling programs offering "conversion" or "reparative" therapy that hold out the promise of changing homosexual orientation. There are at least two concerns that should be raised about these efforts. The first is that while claiming success at effecting change these programs usually fail to quantitatively report their results or substantiate that the alleged change is long-term. When results are reported, the evidence for change is not compelling. For example, following participation in such programs 84% of persons self-report that they continue to maintain some degree of same-sex attraction [13]. The second consideration in evaluating change therapy is that a significant number of gay people are bisexual, capable, in varying degrees, of romantic feelings for persons of either gender. There is a very strong possibility that those who report success in changing their homosexuality are bisexuals who have achieved an accommodation to focus on one only (the heterosexual attraction) of the two they are capable of. There is a very strong professional sentiment that change therapy is ineffective and inappropriate [14].

Finally, honesty compels us to consider the experience of a very large number of LDS gay people, who in spite of exhaustive, lengthy, and totally sincere efforts have not been able to change the fact of who they are sexually. A testimony of the truthfulness of the restoration of the gospel, faithful church activity, fasting, prayer, missionary service, temple service - all of these are important, gratifying motivating and allow us to increase in power and goodness, but none, in any combination, has been able to alter sexual orientation [15]. I am convinced that this assertion is true because I have heard it expressed in any number of variations from my gay brothers and sisters and the witness of the spirit to me is that they are telling the truth. Whatever other religious or social or personal standards we choose to use in attempting to understand homosexuality and respond appropriately to it, we cannot ignore this fact from the life experience of those most closely affected.


III. How should we regard homosexual relationships?

A reasonable, conservative estimate is that there are over 500,000 gay Latter-day Saints, 5% of church membership. Based on the preceding I conclude that these important human beings, my brothers and sisters, have a romantic attraction to persons of the same sex that is rooted in inherent biological factors over which they have had no control, and that this is a condition that they will not be able to change, even with Herculean effort. What should they do? My primary response is one of compassion at the realization that these people are unable to make, in full honesty, a complete commitment to a wife or husband that characterizes the temple marriage covenant. What then? It seems proper to apply a standard of conduct in which an individual gay Latter-day Saint finds a path in life that most fully permits the acquisition of goodness and the practice of service, traits and behavior that find their highest expression in the life of the Savior. It seems to me that there may be several different paths appropriate to that end.

There are, of course, many married, gay members of the church. Often they entered marriage with the false hope that a heterosexual relationship would allow them to change their orientation. That doesn't happen. Some, with the help of understanding and highly courageous spouses, have opted to remain in those families, finding it the best, if difficult, individual solution to their situation. Others have not, driven, I believe, by a sense that they can not continue to live a lie and must find some other way to be true to themselves - a principle they have been taught in the church. Single gay people have the same dilemma.

I propose, as have others before me, that when the two or three Biblical writers denounced homosexual behavior they were addressing the issue of heterosexual persons engaging in homosexual acts. We can join them in viewing such behavior sinful. I can believe, however, that for most of human history it has been generally inconceivable that there were persons whose natural state was to be romantically oriented to those of their same gender. Such a possibility just did not occur. I note the absence of a reference to homosexuality in the Book of Mormon, or Pearl of Great Price, or, especially, in the The Doctrine and Covenants. I submit that our current perspective should take into account recent knowledge and experience. Human understanding of what is true changes over time. Truth may be eternal, but our comprehension of it is neither automatic nor complete. It takes time, usually a long time, for us to learn. What seems apparent is that God doesn't jump in and correct our knowledge deficiencies; He waits patiently while we figure things out for ourselves. I offer these last sentiments in the spirit that we are woefully ignorant of many of the aspects of homosexuality, and ought to be open to the further light to be shed on the subject, from whatever source.

I know that at the present time there is a great deal of animosity, ill will, intemperate language, and ignorance with regard to gay people among the Latter-day Saints. Our gay brothers and sisters are labeled as perverts and deviants unworthy of our association. They find activity with us too painful. We lose the blessings of their gifts. I cannot believe that the Savior is pleased, but do believe that He will do all He can to help us find a better way.


IV. References

Pillard, R.C. The Search for a Genetic Influence on Sexual Orientation. In Science and Homosexualities, Rosario, V.A. Ed. Routledge, New York, 1997.


Lephart, E.D. et al. Neuroendocrine Regulation of Sexually Dimorphic Brain Structure and Associated Sexual Behavior in Male Rats Is Genetically Controlled, Biology of Reproduction, 64, 571-578 (2001).


Byne, W., et al. The Interstitial Nuclei of the Human Anterior Hypothalamus: An Investigation of Variation with Sex, Sexual Orientation, and HIV Status. Hormones and Behavior, 40, 86-92 (2001).


Brown, W.M., et al. Differences in Finger Length Ratios Between Self-Identified "Butch" and "Femme" Lesbians. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31, 124-127 (2002).


Mustanski, B.A., Bailey, J.M., and Kaspar, S. Dermatoglyphics, Handedness, Sex, and Sexual Orientation. Archives Of Sexual Behavior, 31, 113-122 (2002).


McFadden, D. Masculinization Effects in the Auditory System, Archives Of Sexual Behavior, 31, 98-111 (2002).


Cantor, J.M., et al. How many Gay Men Owe Their Sexual Orientation to Fraternal Birth Order. Archives Of Sexual Behavior, 31, 63-71 (2002).


Halpern, D.F. and Crothers, M. Sex, Sexual Orientation, and Cognition. In Sexual Orientation: Toward Biological Understanding. L. Ellis and L. Ebertz, Eds. Praeger, Westport, CT. London, 1997.


Bailey, J.M. Biological Perspectives on Sexual Orientation. In Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identities Over the Lifespan, A.R. D;Augelli and C.J. Patterson, Eds. Oxford University Press, New York, 1995.


Nicolosi, J. and Byrd A.D. A critique of Bem's "Exotic Becomes Erotic" theory of sexual orientation development. Psychological Reports, 90, 931-946 (2002).


Bell, A.P., Weinberg, M.S., and Hammersmith, S. K. Sexual Preference. Its Development In Men Women. Indiana University Press, 1981.


Oaks, D.H. Same-Gender Attraction. The Ensign, October 1995, pp. 7-14.


Nicolosi, J, Byrd, A.D., and Potts, R.W. Retrospective self-reports of changes in homosexual orientation: A consumer survey of conversion therapy clients. Psychological Reports, 86, 1071-1088 (2000).


See joint statement on Reparative Therapy: http://www.glsen.org/binary-data/GLSEN_ ... le/424.pdf


Decisions Of The Soul, Cook, D, Killian R., and Wannack K., Eds. The Intermountain Conference on Sexuality and Homosexuality, April 1995.

Going around and around and around and around the sugar bowl, again and again and again and again, repeating the same mantras and assertions, does not increase the cogency of your position or the viability of the evidence presented as evidence.

At present, neuroscience can tell us nothing regarding the "cause" of homosexuality beyond theoretical conjectures extrapolated from ambiguous and inconclusive studies that suggest nothing beyond tendency, predisposition, and bias.

I can give you a similar laundry list of sources, from professional journals and competent researchers, poking holes in any claim of genetic "cause."

There's no point in doing so, in your case, at least, as you are not open to education or serious thinking on the matter (note: Oaks speech on SSA, which you craftily snuck into the mix as if it had been a scientific paper, agrees with my general position as expressed here and in other forums. Joseph Nicolosi is a distinguished clinical psychologist who has done pioneering work in reparative therapy, and is a founding member of NARTH. Nice bluff, Sir Bluffalot.

http://www.josephnicolosi.com/resume/

[_EAllusion]

They're not canards...

I've never seen as single particle of my AGW arguments refuted here. All I've ever seen is what you've just done above, argue by assertion and turn red in the face while wailing, "Global Warming is here, its real, and we must ACT NOW!!!"

I like how you say this even though I offered a direct link to a thread where you offer a classic skeptic's canard and I post an extensive refutation backed with volumous links to the research. You insist you are undefeated and all you hear is assertions. Humorously this is pretty much what you do, in the full content of this post and elsewhere. You make false and misleading assertions and cover them with intense bluster. You habititually fail to back yourself up through anything but linking ideological sources that are hopelessly biased that tend to do the same. The net effect is that sourcing Science - one of the two most prestigious scientific journals in the world - is "leftist propaganda" but some crank rightwing thinktank is a-Ok.

[_EAllusion]

Pseudoscience.

Big talk for someone who takes his arguments from organizations like Narth, which actually are pseudoscientific. Apparently what I said set off some conditioned bell in your head, but what I was referring to was this type of research:

http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/85/5/2034.full

which is far more extensive than you imply or probably are aware of given the reference.

You might want to do a better job sourcing what is about to follow. I guess linking anti-gay pseudoscientific oganizations like here:

http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp? ... yid=papers

would kind of do damage to your attempt to paint the other side that way.

We must also mention that, as with the lesbian finger length studies, all that is demonstrated is a correlation without any plausible causal mechanism for which "predictions" could possibly even be entertained.

Digit ratio is mediated by endocrine regulation of sexual differentiation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18161017?

Yet in your world no plausible mechanism can even be entertained. Go figure.

A great many woman have finger lengths comparable to those of the small subset of lesbians who have a similar morphological trait, without in any sense being homosexual.

Yes, there's good research to indicate that it's a subset of lesbians who have that trait. Those women that have it tend to be lesbians. And they tend to correlate strongly with what we think of as "butch" lesbians, which strongly indicates a congential basis for their sexual orientation. No one is suggesting that the path to homosexual orientation is the same for all people, and you don't understand my previous post if you think I said anything contrayr to that.

The Archives of General Psychiatry mention that: ...

I'm sure you were reading the Archives of General Psychiatry one day and came across this. It's not at all like you pulled these quotes from noted scientific sourceslike Conservapedia where concidentally they are linked together in their article on homosexuality and genetics?

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_Genetics

While your reading such great scientific sources as this, check out their article where they argue "the scientific evidence points to a young age of the earth and the universe"

http://www.conservapedia.com/Age_of_the_Earth

Science!

To take the last quote first, it is still accurate even though it has now been updated. There is no specific biological etiology of homosexuality that has been shown. The operative word is "specific." That is to say, no one has thus far outlined a specific biological cause that produces homosexual orientation. That doesn't mean there aren't understood biological factors that predispose same sex attraction or help us predict it.

It comes from what amounts to a phamplet put out by the APA. The full text contradicts all manner of things you are assert regarding homosexuality, which suggests you haven't read it at all, but instead are just repeating this cherry-picked line rend from the greater context. If you regard this source as credible, do you regard the other content in it likewise?

The other quote is one paper published in a meh journal in the early 90's that asserts a position that is obviously contradicted by a substantial body of researchers. Using the abstract to make an assertion by proxy does not do your case any favors. I guess you shoud get a pat on the head for stumbling your way to an actual article, though.