Frank Carrasco of Exodus Youth asks, "What Does the Science Say?"

Exodus Youth, Frank Carrasco
What Does Science Say?

April 9, 2009

Frank Carrasco: The headline in the July 16th, 1993 issue of the Wall Street Journal read “Research Points Towards Gay Gene.” … homosexuality may actually be an inborn trait rather than learned.

But apart from the politics of science, what does the research actually say? Is homosexuality learned or innate? Furthermore, is change possible?

To get it out of the way, Carrasco mentions all three of these studies -- as BoxTurtleBulletin puts it so accurately:

Those studies include Simon LeVay’s 1994 brain study, Bailey and Pillard’s 1991 twins study, and Dean Hamer’s 1993 X-chromosome study. As far as activists are concerned, these are the only studies that have ever been published, and none of them “proved” that homosexuality is biological or genetic.

The truth is however that there have literally been hundreds of studies published in peer-reviewed journals in the past twenty years or more, the preponderance of which suggest a biological basis for homosexuality in many people. Anti-gay activists refuse to acknowledge those studies. Instead, they only pick on the three weakest and easiest to disprove studies.

Best not mention the Identical twins apparently do not have identical DNA study from '08.

Frank Carrasco: In fact, Dr. Jeffrey Satinover in his book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth makes the illustration that a person could be born with genes making him tall with great eye-hand coordination, but his genes alone did not make him a basketball player, in fact he had to train and be exposed to basketball before he could become a basketball player.

Running with the analogy, therefore one would have to train and be exposed to human sexuality before becoming a sexual human being. But don't train before marriage or you'll go to hell.

Carrasco conveniently neglects to mention how VIRULENTLY anti-gay Mr. Satinover is.

Dr. Jeffrey Satinover Testifies Before Massachusetts Senate Committee Studying Gay Marriage

On April 28, 2003, psychiatrist Dr. Jeffrey Satinover testified before the Massachusetts Senate Judicial Committee on various issues surrounding the subject homosexuality and the future of the family in America. Dr. Satinover is a member of NARTH's Scientific Advisory Committee.

Dr. Satinover's testimony is reprinted below...

And this all comes from NARTH, so everything Satinover says is true.

I especially enjoyed the Dr's warning to Exodus Youngins that they only have a 2/3 chance of living to 30:

innumerable studies from major centers around the US and elsewhere note that a twenty-year-old man who identified himself as gay carries 30% (or greater) risk of being HIV positive or dead of AIDS by age 30.

You monogamous lesbians are apparently in the clear, but I guess as a Doctor of hate, one's allowed to throw words like homosexuality around willy-nilly, even when all you really mean by the word is two guys pokin each other in the arse.

Frank Carrasco: An interesting interpretation concerning twin studies comes from lesbian author and researcher Lisa Diamond in her latest book titled Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women’s Love and Desire in which she chronicles the natural shift of sexual identity in women over a ten year period.

She demonstrated that women can not only to go from heterosexual to homosexual but from homosexual to heterosexual as well.

So according to Lisa Diamond, it's a choice? (Video and full transcript at link)

Dr. Lisa Diamond: The women who I’ve studied, have experienced changes in the way that they characterize and experience their sexuality over time, are quite clear about the fact that they don’t experience those changes as willful.

I have bent over backwards to make it difficult for my work to be misused, and to no avail. When people are motivated to twist something for political purposes, they’re going to find a way to do it.

And what "being gay is a choice but I can't say that out loud" rant would be complete without a reference to the resounding success of the Jones and Yarhouse study?

Beginning with the bar at which their objectives were set: To see if it's ever possible for a gay person to feel attracted to the opposite sex, and if ex-gay therapy is always harmful.

Frank Carrasco: Is change possible? Recent studies as well as first hand accounts confirm that sexuality is fluid... Researchers are careful not to claim that everyone can change their sexual orientation. Such absolute statements are as irresponsible as statements saying “people are born gay.”

So if research "confirms" that sexuality is a choice fluid, then it's confirmed that homosexuality is also a choice fluid, but to say it as fact, would be just as "irresponsible" as taking the word of a gay person as fact.

Yet another rung.

Frank Carrasco: In the end, I like the way psychologist John Money put it. He compared sexuality to the development of language.

A bit about Mr. Money...

David Reimer (August 22, 1965 as Bruce Reimer – May 4, 2004) was a Canadian man who was born as a healthy boy, but was sexually reassigned and raised as female after his penis was accidentally destroyed during circumcision. Psychologist John Money oversaw the case and reported the reassignment as successful, as evidence that gender identity is primarily learned.

Milton Diamond later reported that Reimer never identified as female, and that he began living as male at age 14. Reimer later went public with his story to discourage similar medical practices. He committed suicide at the age of 38.

During his professional life, Money was respected as an expert on sexual behavior, especially for allegedly demonstrating that gender was learned rather than innate.

Money continued to publish that his work with Reimer was a "success" even 30 years later in various publications.

Remember where we came from:

Frank Carrasco: But apart from the politics of science, what does the research actually say? Is homosexuality learned or innate? Furthermore, is change possible?

So we have the use of outdated science for political purposes, the manipulation of current science, the implication that same-sex attraction is a choice, and the ever ubiquitous use of the ambiguous word "change" in order to imply same-sex attraction is a choice, while leaving room for the option to define "change" as relating exclusively to same-sex sexual "behavior."

Once again demonstrating that Exodus' primary purpose is to define, socially, and thus politically, that same-sex attraction is a choice, in order to prevent equal protection under the law for LGBT Americans.
________________
Some touch ups made April 17 AM