Is it really so bad that it's inaccurate?


Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2007
Horse Country
Everyone knows that homosexuality is biologically determined. The only problem is that to-date, there is no evidence demonstrating any biological link to same-sex attraction. Several attempts have been made, but none have succeeded, despite the media hype suggesting otherwise. For example, Simon LeVay’s study on the hypothalamus is often touted as proving that same-sex attraction is caused by the brain, and yet LeVay himself said of his study, “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality was genetic, or find a genetic 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. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.”

LeVay is not alone. Those who work in this field know that no biological link has been found, and yet some choose to allow the myth to continue, because as LeVay himself noted, “People who think that gays and lesbians are born that way are also more likely to support gay rights.” For example, consider American Psychological Association member, Lisa Diamond. Recently she wrote a book about sexuality in which she made the following, stunning admission:

Some activists feel that the climate is not yet right for such a shift in our thinking about sexual freedom. Given the recent resurgence of conservative antigay activism (much of it focused on banning same-sex marriage), it may well be that for now, the safest way to advocate for lesbian/gay/bisexual rights is to keep propagating a deterministic model: sexual minorities are born that way and can never be otherwise. If this is an easier route to acceptance (which may in fact be the case), is it really so bad that it is inaccurate?[1]

In other words, so long as the myth achieves the normalization of homosexuality, those who are in the know need not concern themselves with correcting the public’s misunderstanding. The end justifies the means. Such is the nature of advocacy.
I would love it if this were a discussion of the need for scientific integrity. I would love it if we all agreed that first we establish the facts then we talk about what they mean. I hope this is the first of a few threads that expose the conspiracy to mislead the American people in order to re-order society to be something that none of us would recognize and to move it to a place that few of us even think they are leading.

But I know it will get bogged down in debate about lifestyle versus biology. Perhaps we at least can all agree that the quotes I will provide in a moment prove that the APA knows it is lifestyle (which means a complex convergence of biological, environmental and internal cognitive factors that lead to ones way of living).


In his book, Destructive Trends in Mental Health, former APA president Nicholas Cummings notes that he and his co-author lived through the abominable McCarthy era and the Hollywood witch hunts; still he notes, there was "not the insidious sense of intellectual intimidation that currently exists under political correctness." He says, "Now, misguided political correctness tethers our intellects."

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..."

--From the APA publication titled, "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality."

"I don't think that anyone disagrees with the idea that people can change, because we know that straight people become gay and lesbian — so it seems totally reasonable that some gay and lesbian people would become straight. The issue is not whether sexual orientation changes...the issue is whether therapy changes sexual orientation."

--Clinton Anderson, director of the APA Office of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns


If gay people were not born that way does that mean that they can be targeted and denied rights? No. rights should be recognized on the basis of what a natural right is and not on the basis of one being born one way or another. If gays are born that way then the argument that they are defective and should be treated is a more compelling reasoning that could lead to a loss of rights than the idea that they are equal citizens with the right of self-determination over their own minds and bodies.

--Dr. Who