The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 07/08/2006 10:37:12 AM MDT
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_4028271
No scientific basis for ‘born gay’ theory
Click here for the PDF version.
By David Clarke Pruden
Although the simple “born gay” theory has faded from the science
scene, activists continue to misrepresent scientific findings. When you assert
that individuals are born gay and cannot change, people naturally jump to the
conclusion that same-sex marriage is the only rational choice for same-sex
attracted individuals.
However, the innate-immutable theory of homosexuality has
no basis in science. The simplistic biological theory has been dismissed by all
of the researchers
whose studies have been cited to support the notion that homosexuality is so
deeply compelled by biology that it cannot change.
Let's examine the words of just one of those often incorrectly cited as providing
evidence for a “gay gene.” Simon LeVay notes, “It is important
to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality was genetic,
or find a cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men were born that
way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work.”
A new research study by a University of Illinois team, which
has screened the entire human genome, reported that there is no one gay gene.
Writing in the journal
Human Genetics, lead researcher Dr. Brian Mustanski noted that environmental
factors were also likely to be involved.
Of the innate-immutable argument, Dr. Richard C. Friedman and Dr. Jennifer Downey,
noted, “At clinical conferences one often hears . . . that homosexual
orientation is fixed and unmodifiable. Neither assertion is true . . . The
assertion that
homosexuality is genetic is so reductionistic that it must be dismissed out
of hand as a general principle of psychology.”
And the fluidity of homosexual attractions is well-established.
Dr. Ellen Schecter of the Fielding Institute studied women who had self-identified
as lesbian for
more than 10 years and who after age 30 were now in intimate relationships
with men lasting a year or longer.
Even more prominent was the research by Robert Spitzer, the very psychiatrist
who led the charge to remove homosexuality from the psychiatric manual. His study
of 200 gay men and lesbian women who had undergone re-orientation therapy concluded:
44 percent of the women and 66 percent of the men had arrived at what he called "good
heterosexual functioning" and 89 percent of the men and 95 percent of
the women reported that they were bothered slightly or not at all by unwanted
homosexual
feelings.
Mainstream gay-affirming publications like The Advocate are
changing their terminology to embrace the concept of fluid sexual attractions.
Matt Foreman, of the National
Gay and Lesbian Task Force, summarizes what the gay movement has done.
”
We as a movement can take pride that we opened the door for young people to be
much more fluid about sexuality, gender, gender roles, orientation and sexual
behavior than any other generation in history. That’s what the gay movement
has contributed to society, and that’s a tremendously good thing.”
But is it? If the innate-immutable theory of homosexuality has no basis in science
then why do so many activists still insist that individuals are born gay and
cannot change? LeVay provided the answer. He notes “ . . . people who
think that gays and lesbians are born that way are more likely to support gay
rights.”
This is not to say that anyone chooses homosexual attractions
nor do most of us choose many of the other challenges we face in life, but we
do choose how
we respond.
---
David Clarke Pruden is the executive director of Evergreen
International, a nonprofit Latter-Day Saint organization that provides resources
and educational services
for same-sex attracted members.