Posted on 07/10/2006 11:22:43 AM PDT by DBeers
TORONTO, Ontario, July 10, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A recent study suggesting that homosexual orientation results from biological factors in the prenatal environment is based on severely flawed research and biased assumptions, a leading Canadian psychiatrist has charged.
Researchers at Brock University in St. Catharines, Ontario, conducted the study entitled “Biological versus nonbiological older brothers and men’s sexual orientation.” The study suggested that male same-sex attraction results from an immune reaction on the part of the mother to the presence of the male child in her womb, a reaction the study’s authors suggest stems from the gestation of previous male children. In other words, the study suggests, having biological older brothers leads to the development of homosexuality.
That suggestion is “absolute utter rubbish,” said psychiatrist Joseph Berger of the University of Toronto.
“It [the study] should never have been published. I suspect it was not peer-reviewed properly or was reviewed by someone so biased and ignorant that they were unable to see the huge flaws and [are] essentially ignorant of the literature,” he wrote in a review published by the National Association of Research and Therapy for Homosexuality (NARTH).
The study’s assumption of a biological basis for homosexuality is a “major glaring flaw,” said Berger, since existing research has not produced conclusive findings indicating grounds for such an assumption.
Secondly, he pointed out, the study relies on the “absolutely fatal flaw” of assuming that siblings in the same family are exposed to identical environments in growing up.
“Absolute utter rubbish. Even identical children are treated differently from birth. [In families,] this one is said to be more assertive, or calmer, or louder, or more anxious, etc, etc. When we come to children born at different times there are an ENORMOUS number of possible factors that might make for significant differences in upbringing that might effect how a child develops a sense of his identity and sexuality” [author’s emphasis].
The study also neglects to address other highly plausible explanations for the link between homosexual orientation and the presence of older biological brothers, Berger said, such as family tendencies to “baby” youngest children, delaying their maturity into an “adult masculine identity.”
“There are many alternative explanations to the findings. It is totally inappropriate for anyone to claim certainty in a study like this because such a claim is obviously political, not scientific in nature.”
“I could go on and on, but psycho-dynamically-oriented clinicians have learnt these things from long experience, while activist-propagandists produce ignorant papers with quite bizarre speculations based upon nothing more substantial than fantasy—such as this absurd notion of some maternal ‘immune response.”
Mr. Berger, Ph.D, is a Distinguished Fellow with the American Psychiatric Association and a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee for NARTH, as well as the author of The Independent Medical Examination in Psychiatry.
“Biological versus nonbiological older brothers and men’s sexual orientation”:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0511152103v1.pdf
NARTH coverage:
http://www.narth.com/docs/bogaert.html
See previous LifeSiteNews coverage:
If Gay Brother Research is Correct It Shows Homosexuality is Abnormal
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jun/06063003.html
-article disputing the latest round of well publicized "scientific" findings...
ROTFLMAO
Think about it for a second: if there were any sort of a biological basis for being gay, the idiots would not be prosyletizing and trying to make converts in the public schools, would they?
I think a difference should be noted. Eye and height color may be genetically caused with not much that can be done with it; however, homosexuality may have a genetic predisposition, but that does not mean one's genes mandate (no pun intended) that one be a homosexual.
I know a few gay men and they all say that they resisted homosexuality throughout puberty and tried heterosexual relationships, including sex, but in vain. I don't know if it is a predisposition or biological, but I believe many gays are gay more for biological than environmental reasons.
Right. When nothing else makes sense, blame it on the woman. Just like my first husband - blamed ME for not giving him a son.
BTW, I wonder if this theory holds water for gay women?
And what about bi-sexuals? and "transgendered" individuals?
And, w h o c a r e s?
Speaking for myself only -arguing either way would necessarily require "proof". My position is that it is possible; however, UNLIKE a belief in God -such possibility requires proof...
I myself strongly oppose setting aside conventional wisdom, tradition, common law and enacted law based upon a leftist faith in homosexual sex that is premised in junk science and imposed by an activist judiciary...
We agree: perhaps one's sexual inclinations may be influenced of dictated by biology, but your ACTIONS are freely chosen.
I would not believe anything they said.
It is interesting - at this point the conservatives seem to want to argue that homosexuality is chosen and/or environmental while the liberals argue that is genetic or predetermined, so to speak. You make a good point, orientation and behavior are two different concepts. We can be attracted to all sorts of people, objects, whatever, but that doesn't mean we have to act on it. Hence, I think behavior almost always is a choice. Sexual orientation? At this point is appears to be both biological and environmental. One common misconception that people have is that if a trait or characteristic is determined by an experience or the environment it is easier to change. This is not necessarily true. We are born with somewhat undeveloped brains and our brains continue to develop via interaction with the environment. Therefore, early experiences can shape our brains in ways that very difficult to change later on. Perhaps children are born with a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality and then some critical childhood experiences (or lack thereof) lead to expression of this predisposition. One interesting line of research would involve studying those with the "genetic predisposition" who become heterosexual in orientation. Are there certain childhood experiences that may prevent homosexual orientation among vulnerable children?
The left argues feelings -which is why the left sponsors and pushes this type of "research" --WHICH as you and I both agree really is irrelevant to the legal question(s)...
There are a lot of things that feel perfectly natural that are environmentally induced. A single incident can influence your whole life, in small or big ways, but the same incident with another person's perspective may have no influence at all on him or her.
In my opinion, if you can "induce" homosexuality through child abuse or role model neglect, for example, the whole theory of genetics goes right out the window.
Maybe he should learn what ethical testing of psychiatric meds consists of and fix the peer reviews within his own scope of practice before spewing goo.
This is just one theory for homosexuality...
I didn't say that all homosexuality was bio related. I think it is a mix.
NEA Delegates Endorse Same-Sex "Marriage"
The National Education Association (NEA) has voted overwhelmingly to endorse same-sex "marriages." The action goes beyond "tolerance" to "acceptance" of the homosexual lifestyle as "normal" and "beautiful."
Critics of the measure have suggested that the union is venturing far afield from the objectives of educating the young and obtaining better pay and working conditions for teachers. "This whole issue is controversial and tangential to our goals," said Norman Person, an NEA member from California. "I don't see how it helps kids or teachers."
Franklin Butz, a gay member from New Jersey had the opposite view. "Educating the young about alternative lifestyles is central to our mission," said Butz. "Acceptance of alternative ways of living is more important than the mastery of mundane topics like math or reading. After all, computers can do our math. Television can supplant reading. But these devices can't replace the feelings we need to instill in our students."
Cynics assert that the foray into controversial political issues is aimed at diverting attention from poor test scores among public school students. "The endorsement of non-academic causes is symptomatic of the rot that pervades the NEA," said a disgruntled NEA member who asked to remain nameless. "I suppose if we get people riled over these issues they'll forget about the more fundamental failures of the system."
The NEA leadership's push for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender issues as a requirement for teacher credentialing has been impeded by the low reading comprehension of so many NEA members. It is a delicate matter since it is feared that the normal procedure of converting the message into pictographs might be too pornographic in this particular case.
read more...
http://www.azconservative.org/Semmens1.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.