Exposing Scientific Misconduct (Gay, Homosexual, Transsex)

For thousands of years, Jews and Christians regarded those who practiced homosexuality as severely deficient in character and morally tainted. While no one - including homosexuals - always does wrong, those of the Jewish-Christian philosophy regarded the so-called “sodomites” as fundamentally deficient - belonging to that class of people the Bible calls ‘the wicked.’ So deep was their sin that sodomites could not be trusted to be honest or reliable in other areas of their lives.

No one, of course, always lies; still, the testimony of those who engaged in sodomy was regarded as inherently suspect. Likewise, while no one is always dishonest, their honesty was held in question. The same moral taint also applied to those who practiced other sexually deviant acts, such as sadomasochism or bestiality.

Until recently, societies heavily influenced by Judaism or Christianity adopted these assumptions. Literary works by the Marquis de Sade and Walt Whitman were held under a cloud as a consequence of their deviant behaviors. On the scientific front, Havelock Ellis (1859-1939) - the pioneering English sexologist who popularized sexology (e.g., Studies in the Psychology of Sex) - at one point wrote an apology for homosexuality and other sexual deviations. But even though he was ostensibly a “scientist,” Ellis’ writings were still considered suspect. Why? Because Ellis married a lesbian, probably did not consummate his marriage, and may not have had conventional sexual relationships with anyone at any time. He was also given to a number of rather bizarre sexual practices - his biggest sexual thrill was watching women urinate, for instance. Indeed, a British judge barred publication of his first sexological book, Ellis’ “scientific” apology for homosexuality, because it was, he said, “a pretense, adopted for the purpose of selling a filthy publication.”

Alfred Kinsey (1894-1956) was well aware of this attitude. Since he also engaged in homosexuality, he made sure that that fact was not known either before or after the publication of his two books on sexuality in 1948 and 1953 or before his death. Indeed, only in the past few years has it become widely known that Kinsey was a homosexual practitioner. Had it been known at the outset, it is likely that the Kinsey reports would have garnered much, much less popular attention. They would also have been held in even lower regard by the academic community than they were at the time they were published. As it was, although they attracted attention, few scholars initially credited Kinsey’s books with much scientific merit.

Times have changed. Today, many scientists who engage in homosexuality are quite open about it. In the field of sexology, a large fraction of the professionals are homosexuals. Not all of these professionals are “out” about their personal sexual activities, but you can often detect ‘where they are coming from’ by closely studying their writings. In any case, part of the spillover of the sexual revolution into science is that homosexual professionals are now associated with much less suspicion and distrust.

In the field of study of homosexual parenting, probably most of the professionals who have published are themselves homosexual. Indeed, a substantial part of the literature is housed in the Journal of Homosexuality. And the ‘condition’ of being a transsexual (e.g., a man ‘trapped’ in the body of a woman) is dominated by professionals who participate in homosexuality. And even if these professionals don’t, they are dyed-in-the-wool sexual liberals or libertines.

Which brings us to Richard Green and his colleagues. Dr. Green currently shepherds people through their sex change operations at Charring Cross Hospital in London, England. Apparently, they are doing about two a month right now. Green, with a post at Cambridge University, has been a dogged supporter of gay rights, and is responsible for one of the most oft-cited studies about how children turn out when one of their parents is homosexual. This study by Green has been used by just about all the liberal organizations to ‘prove’ that the homosexuality of parents is irrelevant. So argues the American Psychological Association (APA), so argues the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), etc., etc. In turn, the major legal associations - leaning on the expertise of the APA and NASW - have cited the Green, et al. study as ‘proving’ that homosexual parenting is essentially no different from heterosexual parenting. In 1997, FRI scientists documented several problems with both the Green study and how it has been interpreted (see, for instance, our article “Did the APA misrepresent the scientific literature to counts in support of homosexual custody?” Journal of Psychology, 131:313-332). But now FRI has gone further. It turns out that Green’s much heralded and cited study was published not only in its ‘final form’ in 1986, but was also partially published three other times in the early 1980s.

FRI scientists carefully examined these reports. And we found something very interesting - the ‘facts’ described in these reports were different! That is, in instance after instance, the material reported in one publication could not be reconciled with the same material reported in another publication, even though all the information was supposedly gotten from the same sample!

We, of course, don’t know what motivated Green’s research team. Perhaps they ‘made up’ the data, or perhaps they made up part of the data. Maybe they kept absolutely miserable records. Since Green was the editor of the journal in which the article appeared, maybe he and they thought they could ‘game’ the system. Indeed, by calling the unmatched homosexual and heterosexual samples “matched”, it would seem that they were playing a joke on the gullible scientific public. But whatever these investigators did, since a federal grant was involved, they did it at U.S. taxpayer expense.

By any standard, the Green, et al. effort was one of the most contradictory and confusing ‘famous’ scientific studies ever performed. Clearly some degree of scientific sloppiness and/or misconduct was involved. Because the study itself is so important and its utility to the gay rights side has been so great, pointing out these problems raises a number of questions anew. To wit, should the reports of homosexual scientists automatically be trusted? After all, a number of the authors of the Green study were homosexual. Further, should those who are staunchly pro-gay be automatically regarded as reliable? Green himself figures to be in some trouble. At the very least he mismanaged a study paid for by the government. Green is also one of the most influential sexologists in the world. Might he join John Money in some degree of disgrace? Money was, after all, recently embarrassed by the revelation that he was not entirely candid about what he claimed was a good outcome after surgically turning a boy into a girl. And different editors of British journals have indicated to FRI that they will ‘put the heat on Green’ as soon as the facts of the misconduct are published.

The facts FRI has uncovered are going to be published in a refereed scientific journal within just a few weeks! So the fat is finally going to ‘hit the fire.’ Time will tell if Green - and those who worked with him on this bit of flotsam - will have to ‘stand trial’ before the court of scientific opinion. If so, they will have to answer a number of highly embarrassing questions. Kinsey died and was rotting for 40 years before his ‘homosexual secret’ came out. We don’t know whether Green is just ultra liberal or something else. But unless he dies right quickly, he may have to defend himself - and so will his co-authors. If, as is possible, the Green team did their study, but then ‘added and subtracted data’ as suited their purposes, some sorting out will be in order.

This study by Green has been used by just about all the liberal organizations to ‘prove’ that the homosexuality of parents is irrelevant.

In July, if my recollection is correct, psychologist Peggy Drexler of Stanford University’s Institute for Research on Women was interviewed on Fox News by Britt Hume regarding her study on children of “families” with “homosexual” parents. Britt asked Ms. Drexler how many children in her study went on to practice “homosexuality”. After several diversionary answers, she admitted that 25% of these children were ”open” (her words) to the practice.

Now if we were to extrapolate the percentage of children (of the 25% open to practicing “homosexuality”) how many actually go on to practice “homosexuality”? What percentage, of these poor misguided children, can we agree to actually go on to practice “homosexuality”? Half or 12.5%, a fourth or 6.25% or an eighth which is 3.125%. If those who practice “homosexuality” are 2% or less of the population, it is easy to surmise that “homosexuality” is not innate condition but rather a conscious act, one that is chosen and one that is a product of ones environment.

The theories brought forth by “gay” science have been, at best, self-serving and in many cases fraudulent or manipulated. And, in no way should the insidious act of “gay” adoption ever be a legal option for the innocent and the abandoned.

Are homosexual attractions innate?

Excellent post, Manny. However, the innate argument is a strawman at best. It is totally irrelevant. My sister-in-law had a son born with his hands and feet not fully developed. This was an innate trait. Was she wrong to arrange surgeries to try to give him more normal hands? Children are born with spina biffida. Should we do nothing? The March of Dimes is all about ending birth defects. To hear the homosexual argument, ending birth defects isn't reasonable. We need to learn to accept them.

Whether homosexuality is inborn or not isn't the question. It's interesting, but not decisive. The question is whether it is destructive to the individual and to society. If it is, then it should be countered whether inborn or not.

My youngest has a terriffic temper. She's had it since she was an infant. I believe it was inborn. I am still doing everything I can to teach her how to control it. I am not trying to learn to accept it. Homosexuality should be treated no differently.

Shalom.

"Ever since the Hammer/LeVey and twin studies, in the early 90’s were regularly reported as fact and truth, the public at large believes that perversion is innate condition. When these studies were discredited, the media, under if not totally ignored reporting the findings, and as a consequence the sheeple still believe we are born that way and predisposed to the behavior.. "

References:

"A Change In Thinking" by Linda Bowles, TownHall.com, May 22, 2001

From "THE GAY GENE: GOING, GOING … GONE" by Yvette C. Schneider, Family Research Council:

In the March 1993 edition of the Archives of General Psychiatry (AGP), Drs. William Byne and Bruce Parsons examined past and current claims and concluded that "there is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory. The 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."...

Science published an article in 1994 that included the following statement:

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. ‘Unfortunately,’ says Yale’s [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, ‘it’s hard to come up with many’ findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. ‘All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."...

CONCLUSION

Scientists have not even come close to proving a genetic or biological cause for homosexuality, yet homosexual activists continue to say that sexual activity between members of the same sex is "just the same" as race or gender. Using "biology" as a stamp of legitimacy, activists have pushed for special rights, from sex-partner subsidies to "gay marriage" to adoption. Without scientific evidence to support such claims, it is wrong and dangerously misleading to say that people are born homosexual and cannot change.

From The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science:

"...LeVay made a interesting observation about the emphasis on the biology of homosexuality. He noted, "...people who think that gays and lesbians are born that way are also more likely to support gay rights...

Is Change Possible?

Is homosexuality immutable? Is it fixed, or is it amenable to change? The 1973 decision to delete homosexuality from the diagnostic manual of the American Psychiatric Association had a chilling effect on research. The A.P.A. decision was not made based on new scientific evidence--in fact, as gay-activist researcher Simon LeVay admitted, "Gay activism was clearly the force that propelled the APA to declassify homosexuality."

From The Fading "Gay Gene":

"The idea of a 'gay gene' offered an ironclad defense of homosexuality; if it was genetically predetermined, then being gay could not be cast as 'deviant' behavior, something 'correctable.'

From Is There a "Gay Gene"?:

"Many laymen now believe that homosexuality is part of who a person really is from the moment of conception.

The "genetic and unchangeable" theory has been actively promoted by gay activists and the popular media. Is homosexuality really an inborn and normal variant of human nature?

No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public...

How The Public Was Misled

In July of 1993, the prestigious research journal Science published a study by Dean Hamer which claims that there might be a gene for homosexuality. Research seemed to be on the verge of proving that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeablea normal variant of human nature.

Soon afterward, National Public Radio trumpeted those findings. Newsweek ran the cover story, "Gay Gene?" The Wall Street Journal announced, "Research Points Toward a Gay Gene...Normal Variation."

Of course, certain necessary qualifiers were added within those news stories. But only an expert knew what those qualifiers meant. The vast majority of readers were urged to believe that homosexuals had been proven to be "born that way."...

"...Thus, to their fellow scientists, the researchers have been honestly acknowledging the limitations of their research. However, the media doesn't understand that message. Columnist Ann Landers, for example, tells her readers that "homosexuals are born, not made." The media offers partial truths because the scientific reality is simply too unexciting to make the evening news; too complex for mass consumption; and furthermore, not fully and accurately understood by reporters...

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.