Troops quietly defy Scout policy on gays

Providence Journal ^ | July 20, 2003 | Jennifer Levitz

[Kahonek]

"I could read Kinsey, but it would be foolish to do so since Kinsey's methodologies are known to have been flawed."

I think Kinsey can be educational, even though flawed. You just have to be alert for the flaws and their implications.

"As I said, a 1981 work that was actually of value would not be obscure - especially one that had the capacity to prove wrong what we all know to be right - that sexual preferences are learned."

It certainly doesn't prove that sexual preferences aren't learned. There's no study out there that does that. We still don't know what causes sexual orientation, other than that there are likely both genetic and environmental components to the cause. It does address the points I noted, though.

All in all, I think there are at least three problems with much of the research done on the etiology of sexual orientation:

1. The question is inherently unanswerable using the scientific method with today's ethical limitations. The search for causation must involve use of the experimental method (manipulation of independent variables such as abuse, seduction, genetic makeup, hormone exposure, parenting style, and family structure, and observation of the dependent variable, sexual orientation).

2. Much of the research that can be done is of poor quality due to sampling problems, politically motivated but poorly trained/qualified researchers (on both sides of the issue), and methodological problems.

3. The good research that has been done is almost always misinterpreted. I don't think most people really WANT to know the truth about the etiology of sexual orientation. They want to continue to believe what they already believe about it, and they are frequently ready to distort (or simply ignore) existing research that is inconsistent with their views, but might be informative. This happens all the time in science, but it is especially egregious on this topic.

[ArGee]

I don't think most people really WANT to know the truth about the etiology of sexual orientation.

You may be correct here. Of far greater importance is what do we do with "sexual orientation," or, as would be more properly called, "sexual preference." You could show beyond the shadow of a doubt that a hot temper is entirely inbred, and we would still never excuse someone becoming violent because their temper flared.

Similarly, I believe homosexual behavior is pathological from a social point of view. (We will know for sure when it is too late based on the way things are going.) But a sexually healthy society would encourage those with a "homosexual orientation" to change, as many ex-gays have successfully done, for its own protection. It would do so regardless of whether the cause were known to be genetic or not.

Shalom.

[Kahonek]

"Of far greater importance is what do we do with 'sexual orientation,' or, as would be more properly called, 'sexual preference.'"

I agree with you on this, although I prefer the term "sexual orientation" for multiple reasons. I don't think the etiology issue is very informative when it comes to the morality issue.

"You could show beyond the shadow of a doubt that a hot temper is entirely inbred, and we would still never excuse someone becoming violent because their temper flared."

Exactly -- and even if you could show beyond the shadow of a doubt that someone's religion is entirely a matter of personal choice, we should still not condone hostile actions toward Christians, solely on the grounds that they CHOSE or LEARNED to be Christian. Etiology is uninformative on morality.

"But a sexually healthy society would encourage those with a "homosexual orientation" to change, as many ex-gays have successfully done, for its own protection. It would do so regardless of whether the cause were known to be genetic or not."

The morality issue is not easily addressed by science. It is also possible to argue, as some do, that society should encourage those with a homosexual orientation to embrace their sexuality and strive toward a stable, monogamous relationship based on mutual love and respect, as many gays have successfully done, for its own protection. It could do so regardless of whether the cause were known to be genetic or not.

Unfortunately, pathology is not an exact science. We've got no clear, unambiguous rules for defining what's a disease and what's not (although there are clear examples on either side, the boundary is fuzzy -- ask any pathologist). The only way to define the ambiguities is with a vote. The APA voted in 1973, the Supreme Court voted in 2003, and there will be plenty of votes (going both ways) in the future...