Skip to comments.Study Claiming Biological Basis for Homosexuality “Absolute Rubbish”: NARTH Psychiatrist
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 mens 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 studys 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 I suspect it was not peer-reviewed properly or was reviewed by someone so biased and ignorant that they were unable to see the huge flaws and [are] essentially ignorant of the literature, he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 studys 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 [authors 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 fantasysuch 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 mens sexual orientation:
See previous LifeSiteNews coverage:
If Gay Brother Research is Correct It Shows Homosexuality is Abnormal
I don't believe that precludes certain restrictions on their behavior, legal issues.
"I would not believe anything they said."
Amen. These are the same people who say they knew they were gay from age 5 or all their lives. Absoloute BS.
That's certainly a possibility, but we also have to look at all the available evidence and not just one study. And since all the available evidence includes ex-gays, any one study would have to be looked at from the bigger picture.
It's a complex issue.
You may find the following helpful:
My profile has more information.
Our weekly edition of the land of make believe or so some would like.
Waiting (but not holding my breath) for this to show up tonight (or any other night) in MSM.
Actually, there may be a biological basis for all manner of perverted and criminal behavior. Nevertheless, this doesn't make it normal, desirable, or acceptable. Pedophiles, necrophiles, beastophiles, rapists, and pederasts can all make the same claim but, regardless, that is not an excuse to claim acceptability.
As they say if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth, and no one knows how to lie like a homosexual propagandist.
You are probably looking at a number of different factors, some biological, some gnentic and some enviromental. If that is the case then 'A" reason may not be established.
First you have possible genetic factors, then in the womb there are chemical being release that affect development. I imagine if you look at the level of the chemicals you would see a bell curve type of distribution with normal for male and female and then stanard deviations (no pun intended) from that norm. Then at puberty there are all sorts of hormones being released and the individual is sensitive to sexually inprinted patterns of behavior (which is why parents are so sensitive about having their kids protected from possible sexual predators).
If the behavioral patterns are out of sync with the biological disposition there is a lot of conflict for the individual.
This isn't a simple equation.
I don't understand the "in vain" part. In terms of physical relationships, there is NOTHING a male can do with a male that they cannot do with a female. If you put a bag on your partner's head, how would you know what it is you were having sex with, if sex consisted only of non-vaginal activity?
Moreso, it is hard to imagine that vaginal sex would be different enough from anal sex to say that one "works" for you while the other doesn't.
It is much easier to get sexual gratification within the homosexual community, and some (many) women won't participate in the other types of activities that are related to homosexuality. But that's probably not what they meant either.
If they are talking about the attraction with the other personality, then things are much more complicated. Most heterosexuals are only attracted to a small number of people anyway. And many people DO have that attraction with people of the same sex, as that attraction does not HAVE to be associated with physical sexual activity.
My theory is that those close attractions COULD lead to sex if not for the societal "taboo" of having sex with someone of the same sex. History is replete with examples of cultural differences effecting what turns people on, and what people will do with others.
Many men would love to get oral sex. Again, with a bag over the head, would one be able to tell the sex of a person providing oral sex? Probably not -- so if you can overcome the "aversion" to contact with the same sex, you can get a lot more sexual pleasure accepting the homosexual lifestyle.
Going back to attractions, people are attracted to "types", and there are very masculine women and "feminine" men. A man might be attracted to a woman that has a more manly personality than the average man does, and be a heterosexual. Actually, that begs the question -- what IS the mechanism that wires a brain so that a male-personality female would NOT be attractive to a homosexual?
We know that a man can dress up like a woman, and men will date them and go home with them and kiss them and eventually will be grossed out only when they learn the truth.
But that just means that whatever it is that is wired in the brain which causes attractions, it is NOT the actual physical being (since the dressed-up man IS a man), but rather the brain's PERCEPTION of the person (who is dressed like a woman).
So why couldn't a homosexual be happy in a relationship with a woman who has male personality characteristics and dresses more like a man than a woman?
There was just a story about a lesbian who dressed up like a man and dated women. She said the women were not gay, although many of them wanted to have sex with her after they learned the truth -- I think because they were attracted to her maleness, and women aren't taught to be grossed out by other women's naked bodies like men are.
For example, men don't have partitions in the showers because we are taught not to look at each other, while women almost always have partitions because they don't want others looking at them.
Ex-hubby too dumb to know that the gene for maleness comes through him?
"I can't comment on the particular study being debated, but I think that conservatives (like me) may be begging the question when we argue strenuously against a biological basis for homosexuality."
You are correct. "Queer Theory" advocates argue against biological basis and says it is cultural. "Environment" is actually the liberal position on many things, eg, Freudianism, whether IQ is inherited, etc.
Anyway, NARTH is hardly unbiased themselves. Take grain o' salt in critiques.
I tend to think most homosexuals are born that way. Most not all. The kids I knew that turned out to be gay as adults were pretty gay as kids. At least the men were.
Is it different in Canada?
Interesting point indeed. A parallel line of inquiry has focussed on the question of "resilience" in people who, as children, experienced all manner of trauma and deprivation yet who overcame what would have appeared to be insurmountable obstacles and made a success of their lives.
They would if it was a biological predisposition
In other words, if being gay was a result of biology AND environment, they would want to have every possible biologically-predisposed kid be exposed to a pro-hay environment to as to ensure they "turn" every potential recruit
ping for later reference
I am sure it is the same. I have seen Joseph Berger listed as either M.D. or Ph.D. -maybe he is both?
We agree: perhaps one's sexual inclinations may be influenced of dictated by biology, but your ACTIONS are freely chosen.
EXACTLY.....there is a moment of truth for all homosexuals whether to engage in the activity or not.