I was planning on getting into a long response on how the methodology of most of these research studies is flawed, thus the outcomes can't be trusted as accurate, but I don't want to clutter the thread with an argument that will end up going nowhere.
I'll come with documentation refuting the validity of your documentation, then you'll concede on that piece of info, but you'll immediately come with another study and I'll show how the methodology was flawed in that one and then you'll concede on that one...etc. It's not like there are only a handful of studies professing biological ties to homosexuality. There are tons. This argument could last for months. Most people have forgotten some basics about science from high school.
I'm going to try this again for you and anyone else listening.
The idea that homosexuality can be cured was the prevailing belief from whatever year they began to treat homosexuality up until 1973. This is the
oldest and first idea.
The idea that homosexuality has strong biological ties came
after 1973. This is the
newer and second idea.
In science, whomever comes to the table with a new theory, must prove it under great scrutiny from those in his branch of science. Otherwise we would believe 100 different theories about gravity.
The biological/genetic people have to prove their case. Not the other way around.
I can guess what's coming next. "But they have hundreds of studies that prove otherwise."
No, the studies always
imply otherwise. They don't
prove jack.
If the people at narth are religious, it doesn't matter. The science is solid and that's all that matters in the end. Many of the scientists who advocate the bio standpoint are gay or have ties to gay activism. That doesn't matter to me either. The facts are the only important part of this discussion.
Homosexuality and the
Possibility of Change
An Ongoing Research Project
http://www.newdirection.ca/research/index.html
The Three Myths
About Homosexuality
http://narth.com/menus/myths.html
excerpt:
There is no scientific research indicating a biological or genetic cause for homosexuality. Biological factors
may play a role in the
predisposition to homosexuality. However, this is true of many other psychological conditions.
http://narth.com/menus/statement.html
excerpt:
Most NARTH members consider homosexuality to represent a developmental disorder. Some of our clinician-members, however, do not consider the condition disordered, but simply defend the right to treatment for those who desire it. They have joined NARTH because they know that the client's right to choose his own direction of treatment must be protected.
There is also a wide range of religious and life philosophies represented among our members, including Catholic, Jewish, Mormon, Bah'ai, Protestant, Muslim, and secular humanist/atheist.
What is "Normal"?
Fifty years ago, researcher C.D. King offered a very useful definition of "normal." The practical wisdom of that definition is still apparent. Normality, he said, is "that which functions according to its design."
As clinicians, we have witnessed the intense suffering caused by homosexuality, which many of our members see as a "failure to function according to design." Homosexuality distorts the natural bond of friendship that would naturally unite persons of the same sex. It threatens the continuity of traditional male-female marriage--a bond which is naturally anchored by the complementarity of the sexes, and has long been considered essential for the protection of children.
In males, homosexuality it is associated with poor relationship with father; difficulty individuating from mother; a sense of masculine deficit; and a persistent belief of having been different from, and misunderstood by, same-sex childhood peers. In adulthood we also see a persistent pattern of maladaptive behaviors and a documented higher level of psychiatric complaints.
http://narth.com/menus/right.html
excerpt:
THE RIGHT TO TREATMENT
NARTH seeks to support the many homosexual men and women who are profoundly distressed by their condition. Homosexuality is experienced by them as completely contrary to their value system and their conviction that all men and women would normally be heterosexual were it not for disturbances in their early lives.
We acknowledge that many homosexual men and women do not wish to change their psychosexual adaptation, and we respect their wishes not to seek therapy. Furthermore we do not wish to diminish the rights of homosexually oriented people in society.
However, we believe that treatment should be offered to those who voluntarily seek it. NARTH works to protect the rights of clients who do seek treatment, as well as the rights of the therapists who treat them. We stand by the conviction that while biological factors may influence gender identity (and subsequent homosexuality) in some people, the condition is primarily developmental in origin, and it is--to differing degrees--responsive to psychotherapeutic measures. Therapy is aimed at decreasing unwanted homosexual attractions and increasing heterosexual responsiveness, with the understanding that substantial change will require a longterm growth process.
NARTH will serve, we hope, to balance the one-sided perspective disseminated by the media and our own psychological and psychiatric professional organizations.
http://narth.com/menus/future.html
excerpt:
[Commentary from
A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., M.B.A., M.P.H.
Our organization has come a long way. The Spitzer study offers up-to-date, published evidence of the reality of change. Our 2003 annual conference featured a strong roster of academic speakers.
In 1973, I was providing treatment to men who struggled with unwanted homosexual attractions. The substantial majority of these men were not suffering from "internalized homophobia." In fact, I don't recall even hearing the term. Most were self-referred, and were not particularly religious. Certainly, they were not religiously motivated to seek therapy.]
[I was equally surprised at the activism that seemed to be emanating from the professional organizations, all of which aimed at forbidding the treatment of homosexuality even when the patient specifically requested such therapy. What had happened to patient self-determination, the cornerstone of all of the mental health professions? How could the national organizations state that homosexuality was not a disorder, and at the same time, suggest that homosexual men and women were not competent to make decisions about whether or not they wanted to pursue treatment? How could the the profession simply refuse to help clients bring their sexual desires and behaviors into harmony with their values?]
Whistler, Even if it were bio./genetically determined, the info in the first link(newdirection.ca) says that a third of homosexual patients who seek therapy have changed their sexual orientation. If they're born gay, the bio. component isn't strong enough for a third of them to stay gay after therapy.
