How Gay Activists Will Respond to a Major Scientific Report That Refutes Their Talking Points

By Michael Brown Published on August 23, 2016

The internet has been abuzz with headlines declaring, “Almost Everything the Media Tell You About Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Is Wrong,” and “Johns Hopkins Shrinks Warn Against Kids Going Transgender.”

As reported by Ryan T. Anderson on Monday, “A major new report, published today in the journal The New Atlantis, challenges the leading narratives that the media has pushed regarding sexual orientation and gender identity.”

How significant was this report?

“Co-authored by two of the nation’s leading scholars on mental health and sexuality, the 143-page report discusses over 200 peer-reviewed studies in the biological, psychological, and social sciences, painstakingly documenting what scientific research shows and does not show about sexuality and gender.”

What were the conclusions of this study? “The major takeaway, as the editor of the journal explains, is that ‘some of the most frequently heard claims about sexuality and gender are not supported by scientific evidence.’”

How will gay activists respond? They will shoot the messengers. Watch and see. We’ve seen the pattern for years.

Gay activists and their allies will try to discredit an individual or a group, then when that individual or group challenges their position, they reply, “No one listens to him/her/them. They’ve been totally discredited!”

The SPLC has often been complicit in this, branding a conservative Christian organization as a hate group or classifying a conservative spokesman as a new leader of the radical right, therefore, whatever they say can be safely dismissed. After all, they’re haters and bigots!

When it comes to the authors of this important new study, they are hardly rightwing, fundamentalist, conservatives. Hardly!

One of the authors, Dr. Lawrence S. Mayer, “is a scholar in residence in the Department of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a professor of statistics and biostatistics at Arizona State University.”

He has taught at 8 universities (including Princeton and Stanford) and, “His full-time and part-time appointments have been in twenty-three disciplines, including statistics, biostatistics, epidemiology, public health, social methodology, psychiatry, mathematics, sociology, political science, economics and biomedical informatics.”

The other author is even more acclaimed. Dr. Paul McHugh is “University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry and a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. He was for twenty-five years the psychiatrist-in-chief at the Johns Hopkins Hospital.”

Dr. McHugh “was elected a member of the National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) in 1992. From 2002 to 2009, he was a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics,” among his many accomplishments.

These certainly sound like formidable scholars, and so their 143-page report, which, as stated, “discusses over 200 peer-reviewed studies,” should be taken very seriously when it challenges many of the major talking points put forward by gay activists arguing: gays are not born that way and can possibly change; “non-heterosexuals are about two to three times as likely to have experienced childhood sexual abuse”; when compared to the general population, “non-heterosexual subpopulations are at an elevated risk for a variety of adverse health and mental health outcomes”; and the idea that “a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ — is not supported by scientific evidence.”

Note carefully those closing words, which are a theme of the entire study: These foundational LGBT talking points are “not supported by scientific evidence.”

I can assure you, though, that rather than interacting with the scientific evidence presented in this formidable study, the vast majority of LGBT activists and their allies will dismiss it out of hand.

They will say, Dr. McHugh is an infamous transphobe who is totally out of touch with modern science while Dr. Mayer is unqualified to write on this topic.

As I said before, watch and see.

When it comes to Dr. McHugh, he committed the cardinal sin of opposing sex-change surgery during his tenure at Johns Hopkins Hospital, which is why that surgical procedure was dropped under his leadership. But he did this based on years of interaction with those who identified as transgender, interviewing them before and after surgery, ultimately concluding that, “We psychiatrists … would do better to concentrate on trying to fix their minds and not their genitalia.”

I reached out to him in November before I appeared on the Tyra Banks show to discuss transgender children, wanting to know if his views had changed based on more current research. He replied to me on November 18, 2009: “I hold that interfering medically or surgically with the natural development of young people claiming to be ‘transgendered’ is a form of child abuse.”

Not surprisingly, there are few psychiatrists hated more by LGBT leaders than Paul McHugh.

Just within the last few years, the TransAdvocate.com website accused him of “clinging to a dangerous past”; the Huffington Post claimed that he “endangers the lives of transgender youth”; the Advocate.com website referred to the “scary science at John Hopkins University”; and a ThinkProgress.org headline declared, “Meet The Doctor Social Conservatives Depend On To Justify Anti-Transgender Hate.”

So, when it comes to Dr. McHugh, the script has already been written, and no matter what the scientific evidence states and no matter how carefully he has presented it, he will be viciously attacked and his research will be flatly rejected.

As for Dr. Mayer, again, my expectation is that he will be dismissed as unqualified, while his guilt by association with Dr. McHugh and Johns Hopkins will be used against him as well.

The good news is that, over time, truth will triumph, which is why Principle #6 in my book Outlasting the Gay Revolution was “Keep Propagating the Truth Until the Lies Are Dispelled.”

Those who want to know the truth owe it to themselves to study this new report carefully, determined to follow the truth wherever it leads. Those choosing to shoot the messengers will only hurt themselves in the end.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Cowboy

    Augustine – Truth is like a lion; you don’t have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself.

  • Braden_Campbell

    If this report is accurate, then the Anglican Church of Canada’s recent decision to approve same-sex marriages is effectively torpedoed – because it would no longer be a question of “Why would the God who loves me make me in such a way as to exclude me from His worship?”, and once again be a question of sin and personal choice.

    Very interesting.

    • Stephen_Phelan

      The distinctions still matter: a person does not necessarily choose homosexuality as an inclination. As the study finds, many who identify this way have suffered abuse and/or a disordered home life, which leads to deep seated issues including those around sexuality. But one does choose to act on inclinations and to identify a certain way, though his freedom will be somewhat undermined by the nonstop lgbt propaganda and porn that many young people are subjected to.

    • kaliaxx

      It’s a question of sin and personal choice regardless. Just because you feel inclined to do evil doesn’t make that evil okay–in fact, the whole problem with sins is that we’re tempted to do them. If we didn’t ever want to do them, nobody would need to talk about stopping them. For example, I regularly feel tempted to fornicate with members of the opposite sex. And I suppose you could say God made me this way, though it would be far more accurate to say that I like every other human am fallen, a broken version of the creature God created. The solution in my case is not to say, “Well, I feel like having sex with him, so if I do so, the church cannot condemn that act!” As another example, some people feel inclined to cheat on their spouses for the sake of “true love,” but we would still think they are behaving immorally if they do so; their emotions do not excuse the act. Similarly, if you feel attracted to members of the same sex, as many people do or can be taught to do (especially women, whose sexual preferences are much more fluid and subject to external influence according to various studies), the solution is not to say, “Oh, I’ll just marry someone of the same sex then!” The solution is to resist your same sex attraction, just as you ought to resist your urge to sneak around beyond your spouse’s back or explore your attractive friend’s body. If I knew I was biologically programmed to be aroused by only animals or orgies or members of the same sex, I would try to change this inclination, or, if it proved unchangeable, remain celibate for the rest of my life so as to avoid committing the sin in question.

      In all of this, I am not saying that a homosexual relationship is a worse sin than fornication or adultery. It is simply another sexual sin, one that the church ought to disapprove of to stay true to very obvious Biblical principles while showing forgiveness, support, and love for the sinner. (Love does not consist in Christianizing the sinful fads touted by society.)

      • Andrew Ryan

        “If I knew I was biologically programmed to be aroused by members of the same sex, I would try to change this inclination, or, if it proved unchangeable, remain celibate for the rest of my life so as to avoid committing the sin in question.”

        Easy for you to say as you don’t have that inclination. You’re welcome to see it as a sin, just other religions see eating beef or bacon as a sin. But that doesn’t make it so, and of course laws shouldn’t be passed based on the religious dogma of individuals.

        • kaliaxx

          Sure, non-Christians don’t have to be bound by the purview of sins since they don’t beljeve in sins. But the original commenter was talking about the Anglican Church endorsing same sex marriage. From a Christian standpoint, same sex marriage is a sin, and the only way to deem it otherwise when the New Testament clearly states over and over again that homosexual relations are wrong is to cave to the entirely anti-Biblical trends of the world.

          • Andrew Ryan

            “Sure, non-Christians (and therefore secular law) don’t have to be bound by the purview of sins since they don’t beljeve in sins. ”

            I think they can, they might just disagree with you on what in particular counts as a sin. Such as my example of foods forbidden in some religions but not in Christianity.

      • Mo86

        “It’s a question of sin and personal choice regardless. Just because you feel inclined to do evil doesn’t make that evil okay–in fact, the whole problem with sins is that we’re tempted to do them. If we didn’t ever want to do them, nobody would need to talk about stopping them. ”

        Absolutely right. Your entire comment is spot on.

    • Mo86

      It’s always been a question of sin and personal choice, just like it is with any other sin!

      What if someone claimed they were born an adulterer, or a child molester, or a rapist, or a murderer? What if it could even somehow be proven that they were born that way? Would this then mean such people could not be held morally responsible for their behaviors? How about legally? Anyone could claim such a thing for any bad behavior. We’d have to throw out the entire justice system and empty all the prisons! If they were “born that way”, why should they be held responsible for anything they do?

      We are all tempted to do certain things. That doesn’t mean we 1) should act on them, or 2) are incapable of self control in refraining from acting on them!

      • Andrew Ryan

        “What if someone claimed they were born an adulterer, or a child molester, or a rapist, or a murderer? What if it could even somehow be proven that they were born that way?”

        There’s no comparison between raping someone, murdering someone or molesting a child, and two consenting adults having sex. The latter involves consent of all parties concerned, the former three do not.

        “We’d have to throw out the entire justice system”

        You’re comparing a bunch of things that are already illegal with something that is completely legal.

  • Thank you Dr. Brown! Gavin Newsom is a big Gay supporter and he has been turning California into a Sodom and Gomorrah state. He plans on running for POTUS one day and must be stopped.

  • Brent Hoefling

    would love to read the actual report. there appears to be a link at the start of the blog/article, but it just wnats me to login to some outlook on teh web server.

    • Andy Garner

      If you click on the ”report” at he end of the “How signficant was this report?” it takes you to The New Atlantis website. If you scroll down the page slightly, underneath the image of the report in the middle of the page is a link to download the “PDF of this issue. Hope this work for you. I downloaded a 144 page PDF.

      • Brent Hoefling

        thanks. they apparently fixed the link.

  • RoundRocker

    So if two or more scholars with doctoral degrees said a strong and passionate belief in a deity or higher power is a mental illness, it must be true as well. After all, very smart people with a lot of initials after their name said so.

    • Patmos

      I like how you cited a study to back up your… Oh wait, you did no such thing, pretty much confirming Dr. Browns assertion that this study would be rejected on the grounds of selfishness.

      • RoundRocker

        No. Rejected on the grounds of groundlessness. I was pointing out the absurdity of accepting at face value anything that is produced by a person with sufficient initials after their name.

        • Eve

          He didn’t accept it solely because of credentials and you know that. There are plenty of people with credentials mutilating people’s genitals out there, stop with the straw manning.

    • Kim Kaze

      They didn’t ‘say it’, they produced a very detailed paper in a journal that refers to 200 odd research pieces. It is not their opinion, it is a study. So you’re comparing apples to oranges.

    • Eve

      Since people who believe in God have been shown to have better mental health, less anxiety, less depression, better coping skills, longer life span etc… that would be a flop.

  • Patmos

    The whole drive of The LGBT Movement has been one of selfishness fueled by lies. Even with all that they need to be viewed with compassion in light of the fact that it is highly likely that they are victims of abuse of some sort. Look at it from their perspective: They were likely abused at a young age, something they didn’t ask for, then because of the effects of that abuse they are then rejected by society. Wow, great deal for them!

    That being said, accepting and embracing the effects of their abuse is the wrong way to go. It would be like viewing a soldier with PTSD and telling them to embrace it rather than get care for it.

    The LGBT Movement has to take the next step and recognize the abuse victims in their members and stop trying to hide that aspect of it. By neglecting it they are just handing out more abuse.

    • Patmos

      Also, any care given should be with the goal of facing the abuse, not to “get rid of the gay”. Confront that which is pushing them, so that they are no longer pushed. Easier said than done.

    • Mo86

      “The LGBT Movement has to take the next step and recognize the abuse victims in their members and stop trying to hide that aspect of it. By neglecting it they are just handing out more abuse.”

      But they never will, because that would be admitting these are aberrant lifestyles to begin with. And we can’t have THAT! We must celebrate it!

  • Time Walker

    Logical. One cant say homosexuality is healthy considering the high std rates and mentall ailments even in countries where homosexuality is approved and thaught at a young age.

  • James Chilton

    The so-called “gay revolution” is just an aspect of the moral decay which has been festering in Western societies for at least a generation.

    • Jeanette Victoria ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      Longer for over 50 years

  • Truthislove

    Thank you Michael Brown for your unwavering courage in pushing back against this cultural tsunami which we are experiencing. You know far better than I how the LGBTQ folks will respond to the report. What you’ve written makes perfect sense, especially in light of Dr. McHugh’s history. However I wonder if the LGBTQ community hasn’t already begun to change its tactics in regard to human sexuality and gender identity. It seems to me that, now that they’ve been so successful in advancing their agenda, they don’t really care about providing scientific evidence, or a biological root cause for their urges and/or identities. Now the mantra is “Love wins.” They may reject the science, or they might say, “We don’t care what the scientific findings are. We can love whomever we want to. We can be whomever we want to be. Sexual mores and identities are simply determined by culture.”

  • Jed

    I’m always amazed at the contradictions:

    1) Gays are born this way, it’s DNA — cannot be changed
    … … but ‘straights’ have 10-15% latent homosexual tendencies and should explore them

    2) DNA is deterministic and unalterable, unassailable, incontrovertible for gays
    … … but NOT for other complex behaviors like intelligence, crime
    … … EXCEPT — male — propensity toward aggression, violence, rape, etc

    3) Race has NO biological basis AT ALL
    … … race is a completely social construct (to keep the man down, of course)

    4) DNA used in ancestry analysis or racial admixture …
    … … DANGEROUS pseudoscience

    5) Self-reporting variables in sociological studies ..
    … … cutting edge research with applications to health, psychology, politics, etc

    • Andrew Ryan

      “) DNA is deterministic and unalterable, unassailable, incontrovertible for gays
      … … but NOT for other complex behaviors like intelligence, crime
      … … EXCEPT — male — propensity toward aggression, violence, rape, etc”

      So which is it? Is complex behaviour like intelligence, crime etc deterministic, and homosexuality isn’t, or is it the other way around? Because if you’re saying that intelligence, crime etc IS deterministic but homosexuality isn’t, then isn’t your view just as much a contradiction?

      • Daniel Pierce

        WOW dude simply wow I have read through your other comments and you have done nothing but nitpick and try to blur and muddy the water it appears that you are looking for an argument by twisting and connecting dots that don’t exist. but I digress lets take this for example. if you had bothered to read the comment it was a comparison of the contradictions from the LGBT community. the poster was not saying anything just repeating what the LGBT has said that is a contradiction. its obvious to me that you will attempt to twist what I am saying here as well. but as I said if you cant see or refuse to understand that what the Jed said was nothing more than repeating what the LGBT has said at different time then any reply you have is asinine. FYI here is another for you Gays are born that way they cant change their DNA but Gender fluidity is real and should be protected.

        • Andrew Ryan

          “if you had bothered to read the comment it was a comparison of the contradictions from the LGBT community. the poster was not saying anything just repeating what the LGBT has said that is a contradiction”

          Yes, I got that. But the flip side is that if that particular is a contradiction then the Conservative position on the same issue is also a contradiction. Which is what I pointed out and which you didn’t address.

          “you have done nothing but nitpick and try to blur and muddy the water”

          I’ve presented counter arguments. That’s not blurring or muddying waters. In fact it’s the reverse: I’m trying to find clarity.

          To me the ‘born that way’ vs ‘not born that way’ seems to much more a conservative Christian preoccupation. Gay rights are not affected by whether it’s a choice or not. It seems to be much more important to opposers of gay rights to insist that it is a choice.

          • Daniel Pierce

            nice blur there man, in actuality you are trying to dis prove something by using the reverse Ad Hominem fallacy. the poster never said that Is complex behavior like intelligence, crime etc. were deterministic only that the LGBT said it was not . it was as I said a comparison of things the LGBT put out. your trying to connect dots that don’t exist or A = Z so M must be true is nothing more than blur in order to make a case for the LGBT and contradict any and all arguments. So no you are not trying to :clarify” as you say.
            As far as the born that way or not born that way goes there are very few things we are born with things like eye, skin and hair color, and sex. who you are attracted to, love or actions you take are a choice otherwise what you are saying is that you will always be attracted to the first girl/boy you found attractive or always love every single person you fell in love with or that you can not help the actions you take. all of which science, physiology and many other areas of study have disproved repeatedly.
            As for your response to my gender fluidity comment nice dodge, while yes there are different view and just about everything, we are not talking about different views on anything here we are talking about the contradictions of the LGBT. which the fact that they preach that homosexuality is a genetic thing (even though no evidence has been found to prove this and as stated above is choice as you are not attracted to or love the same person you were in grade school or even most likely many of your EXs.) but they also preach that a person can change who they are attracted to even to the extent of which sex they are attracted to. that by the very definition is a contradiction.

          • Andrew Ryan

            Crikey Daniel, you’re prose is almost impossible to read. Try consistently starting sentences with capitals, introducing more paragraph breaks etc . Extra proof-reading would help too, to avoid mistakes like colons instead of speech marks. I don’t normally pick people out on their poor grammar (e.g. ‘your’ instead of ‘you’re’) but cumulatively here it really makes your posts hard to parse.

            So forgive me if I fail to work out your intended meaning in some of your points.

            “what you are saying is that you will always be attracted to the first girl/boy you found attractive”

            That’s not what I’m saying at all. It’s not what I’ve implied, and it’s not the logical conclusion of any point I’ve made either.

            “even though no evidence has been found to prove this”

            We’ve never found a ‘gene for tallness’ but I don’t know anyone who doubts that height is heredity. And science deals in evidence to support theories – PROOF is saved mostly for maths. Further, it’s reductive to simply talk aabout whether it’s hereditary – things can be fixed in utero without being hereditary. There’s plenty of evidence that what happens in the womb can shape your sexuality, e.g. from hormone levels received there. That’s not the same as ‘hereditary’; it’s nothing to do with your genes. And that you’ve failed to read up on evidence for a view doesn’t mean that evidence doesn’t exist.

            “but they also preach that a person can change who they are attracted to”

            Who is ‘they’? Again, for all I know you’re talking about two different groups of activists, who are welcome to disagree with each other. As I already pointed out, any two different churches will have differing stances on religious dogma. That’s not the same as contradictions WITHIN the same church.

            At any rate, the view that people can actively seek to change their attractions is more the realm of Fundamentalist Christians with their ‘conversion therapy’. Perhaps it’s a view shared by some activists, but it’s rejected by most I’ve come across.

          • Daniel Pierce

            So let me get this straight first as evidenced by the rest of you reply you have no real answers to my post so you attack my paragraph structure which is typical.

            As I have said before you are blurring, picking and reducing in order to have a stance here. You state that I said

            “what you are saying is that you will always be attracted to the first girl/boy you found attractive”

            When what I really said was

            “Who you are attracted to, love, or actions you take are a choice. Otherwise what you are saying is that you will always be attracted to the first girl/boy you found attractive or always love every single person you fell in love with or that you can not help the actions you take.”

            My statement there was a comparison of you cant have it both ways you can not say something is set unless it pertains to this if it is set it is set if it is a variable (such as choice) then it is a variable. so let me break this part down since you seem to either ignore or actually have an issue with comparisons and/or comments as they relate to what others have said, (as has been evidenced to your responses to me and others). the LGBT has repeatedly stated that (as Eve stated) DNA is deterministic and unalterable, unassailable, incontrovertible for gays. but in the very next breath they say that (through the very definition of gender fluidity) that people can change between a homo and hetero sexual nature.

            Next we move on to your quoting me saying

            “even though no evidence has been found to prove this”

            you state:

            “There’s plenty of evidence that what happens in the womb can shape your sexuality, e.g. from hormone levels received there. That’s not the same as ‘hereditary’; it’s nothing to do with your genes. And that you’ve failed to read up on evidence for a view doesn’t mean that evidence doesn’t exist.”

            Ok then so answer me this, why is it that in 97% of Identical twins where one is gay, only one is gay and not both? if as you say there’s plenty of evidence that what happens in the womb can shape your sexuality. why is the percentage so low are you expecting people to believe that someone the vast majority of these identical twins somehow received something different than the other in the womb? Also to the last part of your statement there actually I have read a lot I have been in many discussions just like this one and done a lot of research on the matter. just because you seem to think that my not agreeing with you some how makes me less intelligent than you, does not make it so. but again what did I really expect I have not seen much from you except the usual liberal rhetoric and thinly veiled insults to my intelligence.

            Next you go on to try to quote me but yet again you try to blur, pick and choose and reduce in order to have a stance. You state that I said:

            “but they also preach that a person can change who they are attracted to”

            but in realty what I said was:

            “We are not talking about different views on anything here we are talking about the contradictions of the LGBT. Which is, the fact that they preach that homosexuality is a genetic thing (even though no evidence has been found to prove this and as stated above is a choice as you are not attracted to or love the same person you were/did in grade school or even most likely many of your EXs.) but they also preach that a person can change who they are attracted to even to the extent of which sex they are attracted to.

            If you had bothered to read the entire your question of who is they is, is easily answered they = the LGBT. but this is something the I suspect you already know this and are doing nothing more than trying to dodge or switch topics as you repeat you earlier verbiage of different people seeing things differently.

            Lastly you go into more liberal rhetoric stating that:

            “The view that people can actively seek to change their attractions is more the realm of Fundamentalist Christians with their ‘conversion therapy’. Perhaps it’s a view shared by some activists, but it’s rejected by most I’ve come across.” Really well I guess you haven’t come across many because the entire LGBT is all about gender fluidity, as well as there are national and global psychology and sociology groups dedicated to answering this question care to guess what they have found? here let me help you what they have found it that sexual attraction has more to do with factors in everyday life than genetics. They have also found that a person can determine how these factors affect them through attitude and determination to name a few. Guess what else what you allow yourself to be subjected to or influenced by is 99% of the time a choice you make.

          • Andrew Ryan

            “If you had bothered to read the entire your question of who is they is, is easily answered they = the LGBT”

            The LGBT – what EVERY gay, lesbian, bi and transgender person in the world? You’re lumping them all together as one monolith group? You think every single member of that huge group agrees with each other on every issue? Again, that’s like me saying “The Right” is a contradiction because some support Trump and some don’t. And I don’t take you as an expert on what “the entire LBGT” is about. Do you base that on conversations with multiple LGBT activists, or just reading second-hand articles about them on right-wing websites?

            Are you aware at all of objections to so-called gay-conversion therapies from members of the LGBT community? In other words, have you ever come across gay/lesbians etc saying they disagree with the efficacy of such therapies?

            “Ok then so answer me this, why is it that in 97% of Identical twins where one is gay, only one is gay and not both?”

            What, in EVERY study? I don’t think so:
            A meta-study by Hershberger (2001)[6] compares the results of eight different twin studies: among those, all but two showed MZ twins having much higher concordance of sexual orientation than DZ twins, suggesting a non-negligible genetic component.
            Also, Google your way to the New Scientist article: “Largest study of gay brothers homes in on ‘gay genes’”

            Also it’s a straw man argument to say that EVERY identical twin has to share the other’s sexual preference. Many studies show a greater correlation than for non-identical twins, which supports that in-utero/genetic causes play a factor. Plus many studies show that for every male child a woman has the likelihood of the next one being gay increases. And other studies show that SISTERS of gay men have on average more children than sisters of straight men. You can google your way to these studies, and also explanations of why this is significant – I’m done discussing them with you now.

          • Daniel Pierce

            To your first response, what, do you want a cookie for being able to point out that I missed a comma? Although I do find it funny how you were still able to read it. As far as attacking my grammar, you even said “I don’t normally pick people out on their poor grammar”. Yes it was an attack and you want me to congratulate you on it. SMH, but I digress I am not going to get in a pissing match with you over grammar. You could read it and you did. You just chose what to pick and resound to in an attempt to twist what I was saying into something that you might have an answer for, while being able to ignore the rest.

          • Andrew Ryan

            “To your first response, what, do you want a cookie for being able to point out that I missed a comma? ”

            You think it’s just about missing commas? I already said it’s the COMBINATION of capped down first words, several sentences run into one, bad grammar, bad spelling, and all sorts of other atrocities.

            “As far as attacking my grammar, you even said “I don’t normally pick people out on their poor grammar””

            Right, I was making the point that yours was so egregious that comprehension suffered. Normally I overlook these things, but if when it’s getting in the way of understanding what the other person is trying to say, then it’s a problem.

            “Although I do find it funny how you were still able to read it. ”

            And I said that I had to read some sentences several times to decipher them. Not to mention that you had to clarify your meaning after accusing me of deliberately misunderstanding you!

            “you want me to congratulate you on it”

            No, I was just suggesting you proofread a little more carefully, introduce more paragraph breaks and, if you really can’t punctuate, at least use shorter sentences rather than just run all the clauses together without commas, colons or semi-colons.

            And note that my last response to you was split between one again explaining why the poor writing was getting in the way of your points and a separate response that addressed those points. Again, I didn’t ignore your points – I even put them into a separate post to avoid any ‘blur’, as you put it, with the grammar issue.

          • Daniel Pierce

            Reposting due to the site putting this above other of our post
            To your second post, you can try to minimize the facts by trying to muddy the water
            with your rhetoric about “every member”. Repeat it as much as you want it
            amounts to absolutely zero. It is quite obvious that, within any group, you are going to have differences of opinion and thoughts. Also not every homosexual person belongs to the LGBT either, but that does not negate the fact that the LGBT has repeatedly stated these things and
            many others that are in direct opposition to each other nice try though.

            Next you go onto respond to my study of identical twins and yet again try to muddy
            the water. Firstly, did I say everystudy? No. Also I like how you copy and
            paste Wikipedia. That not only can be edited by just about anyone as well as say
            just about what ever anyone wants it to say; if they provide some sort of
            reference no matter what actual validity it has to the subject. Watch I can do
            it to. Right under what you copy and pasted, the very next part states:

            “Bearman and Brückner (2002) criticized early studies concentrating on small, select
            samples and non-representative selection of their subjects. They studied 289
            pairs of identical twins (monozygotic or from one fertilized egg) and 495 pairs
            of fraternal twins (dizygotic or from two fertilized eggs) and found concordance rates for same-sex attraction of only 7.7% for male identical twins and 5.3% for females, a pattern which
            they say “does not suggest genetic influence independent of social context.”

            If fact right below that is a study from Sweden that I looked up and read. The abstract states:

            “Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34-.39 of the
            variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment
            .61-.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18-.19 for
            genetic factors, .16-.17 for shared environmental, and 64-.66 for unique
            environmental factors. Although wide confidence intervals suggest cautious
            interpretation, the results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic,
            familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment
            (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior.”

            When I went a read the study, the genetic factors they referenced had to do more with how feminine a male may be or how masculine a female may be. Yet again those genetic traits do not mean that a person will be hetero or homosexual; Only that people with those traits lean more towards
            being homo rather than heterosexual. Yet again it is a matter of choice and
            preference of the individual in question. Then you end that part with trying to direct me to a study that proves your point. No I don’t think so. Not that I will not read studies that contradict what I think. I am not going to be influenced and directed to studies that you suggest simply based on the fact that by you using them I already know what they say.

            Next you attempt the fallacy of Reductio ad absurdum or “reduction to absurdity”. I never said that
            EVERY identical twin had to share of have the exact sexual preference. In fact I have repeatedly said it is a choice. But then after that you again attempt to muddy the water by bringing in a false statement:

            “Many studies show a greater correlation than for non-identical twins, which supports that
            in-utero/genetic causes, play a factor.”

            Firstly which is it genetic or outside influences? I ask as your stance has repeatedly been that
            it is not genetic and it is outside causes in utero. In fact you have stated several times the following or something very close to the following:

            “Things can be fixed in utero without being hereditary. There’s plenty of evidence that what
            happens in the womb can shape your sexuality, e.g. from hormone levels received
            there. That’s not the same as ‘hereditary’; it’s nothing to do with your genes.”

            Secondly no they don’t, most studies show external factors like nonshared environment
            (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior. Just like the Swedish and Bearman
            and Brückner (2002) studies pointed out.

            Lastly you go on to state that:

            “Plus many studies show that for every male child a woman has the likelihood of the next
            one being gay increases.”

            No REALLY!! I mean it could not have anything to do with a sociological push towards to homosexuality being natural and people should explore that. Could it? As well as with every
            child the likelihood of them being influenced by something different than the last increases. Could it?

            To end I am happy to see that you are finished discussing this with me as I find it completely
            asinine to continue in a debate with someone that can only blur twist and ignore facts and factors that disagree with their own thoughts and feeling.

          • Daniel Pierce

            To your
            second post, you can try to minimize the facts by trying to muddy the water
            with your rhetoric about “every member” repeat it as much as you want it
            amounts to absolutely zero. It is quite obvious
            that within any group you are going to have differences of opinion and
            thoughts. Also not ever homosexual person belongs to the LGBT either, but that
            does not negate the fact that the LGBT has repeatedly stated these things and
            many others that are in direct opposition to each other nice try though.

            Next
            you go onto respond to my study of identical twins and yet again try to muddy
            the water. Firstly did I say every
            study? No. Also I like how you copy and
            paste Wikipedia which not only can be edited by just about anyone as well as say
            just about what ever anyone wants it to say if they provide some sort of
            reference no matter what actual validity it has to the subject. Watch I can do
            it to. Right under what you copy and pasted the very next part states:

            “Bearman
            and Brückner (2002) criticized early studies concentrating on small, select
            samples and non-representative selection of their subjects. They studied 289
            pairs of identical twins (monozygotic or from one fertilized egg) and 495 pairs
            of fraternal twins (dizygotic or from two fertilized eggs) and found concordance rates for same-sex attraction
            of only 7.7% for male identical twins and 5.3% for females, a pattern which
            they say “does not suggest genetic influence independent of social
            context.”

            If fact
            right below that is a study from Sweden that I looked up and read the abstract states:

            “Biometric
            modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34-.39 of the
            variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment
            .61-.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18-.19 for
            genetic factors, .16-.17 for shared environmental, and 64-.66 for unique
            environmental factors. Although wide confidence intervals suggest cautious
            interpretation, the results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic,
            familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment
            (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior.”

            When I went a read the study the genetic factors they
            referenced had to do more with how feminine a male may be or how masculine a
            female may be. Yet again those genetic traits do not mean that a person will be
            hetero or homo sexual. Only that people with those traits lean more towards
            being homo rather than heterosexual. Yet again it is a matter of choice and
            preference of the individual of the person in question. Then you end that part
            with trying to direct me to a study that proves your point. No I don’t think
            so. Not that I will not read studies that contradict what I think I am not
            going to be influenced and directed to studies that you suggest simply based on
            the fact that by you using them I already know what they say.

            Next you attempt the fallacy of Reductio ad absurdum or “reduction to absurdity”. I never said that
            EVERY identical twin had to share of have the exact sexual preference. In fact I
            have repeatedly said it is a choice. But then after that you again attempt to
            muddy the water by bringing in a false statement:

            “Many studies
            show a greater correlation than for non-identical twins, which supports that
            in-utero/genetic causes, play a factor.”

            Firstly which is
            it genetic or outside influences? I ask as your stance has repeatedly been that
            it is not genetic it is outside causes in utero. In fact you have stated
            several times the following or something very close to the following

            “Things can be
            fixed in utero without being hereditary. There’s plenty of evidence that what
            happens in the womb can shape your sexuality, e.g. from hormone levels received
            there. That’s not the same as ‘hereditary’; it’s nothing to do with your genes.”

            Secondly no they don’t,
            most studies show external factors like nonshared environment
            (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior. Just like
            the Swedish and Bearman
            and Brückner (2002) studies pointed out.

            Lastly you go on
            to state that:

            “Plus many
            studies show that for every male child a woman has the likelihood of the next
            one being gay increases.

            No REALLY!! I mean
            it could not have anything to do with a sociological push towards to homosexuality
            being natural and people should explore that could it. As well as with every
            child the likelihood of them being influenced by something different than the
            last increases could it.

            To end
            I am happy to see that you are finished discussing this with me as I find it completely
            asinine to continue in a debate with someone that can only blur twist and
            ignore facts and factors that disagree with their own thoughts and feeling.

          • Andrew Ryan

            ” the LGBT has repeatedly stated these things and many others that are in direct opposition to each other nice try though.”

            Right, because it’s a huge group of diverse people with differing opinions. I’ve answered that several times. If you’re just going to repeat points I’ve already dealt with then there’s little point in me reading the rest of your post (though I can see you’ve now at least introduced paragraph breaks).

          • Andrew Ryan

            “you attack my paragraph structure which is typical.”

            I didn’t attack it – I just pointed out that your writing was so poor (not just paragraph structure) that it was hard to work out your meaning. Read your closing sentence: “Guess what else what you allow yourself to be subjected to or influenced by is 99% of the time a choice you make.”

            “Guess what else what you”? You need punctuation. I had to read it several times to make sense of it. Learn to use commas, semi-colons, colons, hyphens etc to separate your clauses. If you can’t manage that, use shorter sentences.

            “My statement there was a comparison of you cant have it both ways you can not say something is set unless it pertains to this if it is set it is set if it is a variable (such as choice) then it is a variable”

            Without punctuation that’s just word salad.

            I guess you meant something like this:
            “My statement there was that you can’t have it both ways – you can not say: “Something is set unless it pertains to this”. If it is set, then it is set; if it is a variable (such as choice) then it is a variable”

            You should be congratulating me for working through all that, not blaming me for struggling to to work out what you’re trying to say.

      • Eve

        In my opinion neither is 100% immutable or genetic but environment has a major effect that can make these traits appear that way. Some things like intelligence can’t really be improved upon after a certain point, like if a person never learns to read there is a point where they just won’t ever be as smart as someone who did learn in childhood. At the end of the day we all have a sin nature though and are prone to evil one way or another.

    • Jed

      Ahemmm…

      My point is more general …
      that The Left bends ‘science’ to support — whatever — agenda needs it.

      High above the details …
      … empirical science is portrayed as a male white capitalist imperialist pursuit with no broader relevance than the white euro-centric male culture it developed under

      that is, unless …

      the agenda is _C.L.I.M.A.T.E__C.H.A.N.G.E_
      … in that case … the data is clear, in study after study …
      … in case you lowbrows don’t believe our claptrap …
      … here’s Dr. Whitemale with a sophisticated European accent to explain the maths.

  • Andrew Ryan

    “They are hardly right wing, fundamentalist Conservatives!”

    McHugh is a Catholic in his mid-80s who has described himself as “religiously orthodox, politically liberal, and culturally conservative – a believer in marriage and the Marines, a supporter of institutions and family values. He sounds pretty Conservative to me. Culturally speaking he describes himself as one. I’m not saying that undercuts his claims, just that I don’t get why you’d say he’s “hardly conservative”.

    That aside, has this study been peer reviewed? I was interested to see if Brown is correct with regards to how activists would receive it. Googling the study just got anti-LGBT groups discussing the study, many saying it “proved” the LGBT claims were wrong – the best a study can do is offer solid evidence; proofs are saved for maths and perhaps physics. But I read no-one reacting to it from the other side. Are they too scared to address it? Maybe. Or maybe, if it hasn’t been subject to peer review, there’s actually nothing to even respond to.

    And I’ll point out again that Brown has argued here before that America should be shaping its policies on gays to appease African countries who currently have the death penalty for people who fail to rat out gays they know. Do YOU want such laws in America? It seems Brown does.

    • RoundRocker

      Exactly. Just because the authors claim they have no bias doesn’t make it so, and a legitimate researcher enters into study without preconceived ideas of what they want the outcome to be. I haven’t taken the time to delve into the article, but a meta-analysis of flawed studies and data can only produce flawed conclusions. Nothing new to see here.

      • So there’s “nothing new to see here” even though you admit not taking the time to read the article? That’s exactly the problem – people who refuse to actually explore where the data leads…

      • Eve

        There is no such thing as “unbiased” everyone has some bias but that does not really change numbers. The numbers clearly showed the LGBT crowd has more mental health issues and that these issues do not magically disappear once they get “married” and/or mutilate their genitals. Any bias comes only in interpreting the data not in the data itself.

        But we don’t need studies to know that LGBT ideology makes no sense.

        Accordingly sexual orientation is immutable but biological sex is not you know because sexual orientation is genetic or inborn. Wait—

        Accordingly a gay man is a man attracted to men but the word man does not mean anything in particular under trans ideology, so is our “gay man” a person with ovaries and a vagina attracted to people with penises and testes? I don’t know trans says bio sex means nothing, gay says bio sex means everything. So if a person with testes can’t “marry” another person with testes they will kill themselves, testes matter that much, except when women are using the bathroom then testes must be totally ignored.

        Very confusing stuff here as you can see and that’s only the tip of the iceberg. I think any one conservative or not can see the many inconsistencies in LGBT ideology it’s purely emotional black mailing and indoctrination that makes people support it without question.

    • Liz Litts

      Nice emotional rant–no facts presented. No logic.

      • Micah Lewis Perry

        Says the person who assigns a subjective value, and obviously doesn’t understand logic if he thinks the comment contained none.

      • Andrew Ryan

        Was it an emotional, illogical, fact-free rant for Brown to say the authors are “hardly Conservative”? If not then it’s fair game for me to counter his claim. Are they conservative or not? At least one of the authors calls HIMSELF culturally conservative – that IS a fact that I presented. In response, you’ve said nothing to argue against my point. Ironically, it is YOUR reply that presents no facts or logic.

        • Jimmy

          Conservatism is generally the belief or attitude of wanting to preserve traditional institutions within society and culture. Within conservatism, there are two somewhat distinct groups; conservatives who focus on stability, resisting change and generally want to keep things “the way things are”, and other conservatives who are against modern developments and changes and want to return to “the way things were”.

          Fundamentalism, especially within religion, is a part of the latter group of conservatism. Fundamentalists usually believe that beliefs or ideologies have drifted or strayed away from their original, often literal, meaning and interpretation. Fundamentalists therefore believe that strict, literal, pure and unwavering interpretations of past beliefs or texts are important, and that there should be a return to what they see as an ideal.

          Understanding the differences, Brown is well within the boundries that these people aren’t “fundamentalist Conservatives!”

          • Andrew Ryan

            So you’re saying “religiously orthodox, culturally conservative – a believer in marriage and the Marines, a supporter of institutions and family values” can’t apply to “conservatives who are against modern developments and changes and want to return to “the way things were”.

            “Fundamentalists therefore believe that strict, literal, pure and unwavering interpretations of past beliefs or texts are important”

            That sounds like ‘religiously orthodox’ to me, but feel free to explain where I’m going wrong.

          • Jimmy

            You are trying to use a Straw Man argument and then want to defend it. This thread isn’t about marriage. I stand with my post.

          • Andrew Ryan

            No, I’m just asking you how the scientist being a self-described ‘religiously orthodox’ doesn’t match the description you gave – “Fundamentalists therefore believe that strict, literal, pure and unwavering interpretations of past beliefs or texts are important”. Doesn’t ‘orthodox’ match that?

            I stand with my own questioning of how McHugh is “hardly rightwing, fundamentalist, conservative”.

            I also stand by questioning how a study that hasn’t been peer-reviewed can be described as ‘major’. Peer review is a basic requirement for an important study, let alone a ‘major’ one.

          • Kristen P

            I suspect that you simply dislike the conclusion of the study. Therefore you are working your way back from an unpalatable result to find some or other (largely irrelevant) reason to reject the study, instead of considering it on its own terms.

          • Andrew Ryan

            That’s an ad hominem response, offering no argument against my point. Note that my own questioning of the authors is not an ad hominem response as I am directly addressing a claim that Brown made about the study authors. If discussing the authors of the study rather than the study itself is wrong then take that up with the article’s author, not me.

            In short: feel free to defend Brown’s claim, but your speculation or ‘suspicions’ about my reasons are irrelevant.

          • thinkingabovemypaygrade

            Mommy’s explanation of the main groups is nuanced and in my opinion basically on target.

            But from what I have seen…media plays up a monolithic partly distorted view of the conservative movements…

          • Andrew Ryan

            Mommy? Sure, the description is nuanced and on target, but it doesn’t refute the point that I made that McHugh’s self-description matches the label that Brown rejects.

        • thinkingabovemypaygrade

          The prime point is…the researchers’ conclusion.

          The degree of any conservatism…a side issue.

          • Andrew Ryan

            “The prime point is…the researchers’ conclusion.”

            Sure… so why did Brown bother to describe them as being “hardly conservatives”? He must have considered it a point in his favour to make it. If it’s not important he shouldn’t have brought it up. Especially as it doesn’t even match how they describe themselves.

        • Eve

          So far you only pointed out one author that does not say much.

          • Andrew Ryan

            There are only two authors, so yes that says plenty. Even if you want to argue that the other author is a bleeding heart liberal, Brown could have said that one of them was no right wing conservative etc. But he said neither were. So was he making it or not?

          • Eve

            I thought he was talking about the authors of the 200 studies that the authors referred to not only the 2 authors anyways it doesn’t matter I mean he also could been sarcastic as he repeated himself.

          • Andrew Ryan

            Fair enough, yes I guess he could have meant all 200 study authors.

          • Andrew Ryan

            No, he was talking about just those two guys. Read for yourself.

            “When it comes to the authors of this important new study, they are hardly rightwing, fundamentalist, conservatives. Hardly!
            One of the authors, Dr. Lawrence S. Mayer,…
            The other author is even more acclaimed. Dr. Paul McHugh is …”

            Note that he lists their accomplishments – he says nothing to back up that they’re not right wing conservatives etc. And it would make no sense in the context for it to be sarcasm. He’s trying to back up his argument that the report can’t be dismissed on the basis of its authors.

    • RandyRider

      zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    • G-Man

      So there now!

  • Gary

    It does not make any difference at all whether homosexuals are “born that way” or whether they choose to be homosexual. God has condemned homosexuality and Christians agree with God’s condemnation of it. The matter is settled. No one can use the excuse that they can’t help what they do because they were born that way.

  • calduncan

    Given the 300,000+ gay Americans who died of AIDS, science is something this group would definitely want to avoid. Scientifically, their lifestyle is deadly.

    • Allen

      I wonder if the same can be said about the lifestyle of millions of
      heterosexual who lead to whole civilizations being wiped out by sexually
      transmitted diseases like gonorrhea. Before the Christians from the old world killed all the Native Americans they gave them gonorrhea ……

      • G-Man

        Most STDs are not lethal, you dope.
        But all the gay ones are.

        • Allen

          going refer back to what i said…..

  • mm

    I don’t know if this makes a difference here, but I was sexually abused as a child, even before that I was ” a tom boy” I identified as a boy more than a girl. I hated girly things I would rather do things like fishing digging in the dirt… than doing my hair make up… I was even bullied in school being called GAY. I don’t like to dress in dresses my favorite clothes are ripped not because I cant afford new I just hate shopping… even today after having been pageant I have 3 kids I still identify more as a boy. don’t get me wrong even though I am a tom boy I love the fact I am female. just because I don’t identify as the traditional girl I don’t want to change my self to conform to look more what the world thinks I should look just because I like more of the male things… I could have listened to all the kids bulling me telling me I was something I wasn’t… but I am happy being who I was born as. I am happy I was able to give birth to my wonderful kids I am happy I was able to nurse them… and my wonderful male spouse of 23 yrs loves me… so even though I still identify more as a male I wouldn’t give up being a female to conform to the worlds traditional rolls. and I would never want to use a male bathroom sorry guys you have bad aim. and I know my hubby wouldn’t want to go in a woman bathroom sanitary items make him sick…

    • Eve

      The problem with transgender ideology is it makes all the gendered stuff more important then sex even though gendering can’t exist without sex in the first place. That is, something is masculine by association with males, the males make the masculine the masculine does not make the males therefore a female who enjoys the masculine is an atypical female not a male trapped in a female body, not someone with a male “identity”.

    • Dena

      There’s nothing wrong with a girl not liking girly things. I was labeled a “Tom boy” as well. If I was a kid in today’s society I would hope grown ups or teachers wouldn’t tell me I’m really a man trapped in a woman’s body, because I don’t like playing with Barbies or playing dress up! That would have confused me and messed me up.

      I like playing football catch with my brother and Dad and going fishing. I liked playing in the dirt and catching frogs. I like science and became a field biologist. I don’t like wearing dresses, but will at weddings and events. I like dressing very casual.

      I know girls who like working on cars or running construction equipment. Others who like playing tackle football or hockey. It doesn’t make them a boy if they do. Some of us girls just like adventure.

    • Mo86

      “I don’t know if this makes a difference here, but I was sexually abused as a child,”

      Unfortunately, that is the case for many people in the Rainbow Crowd. They are already vulnerable, and then they are told lie after lie. It’s very sad.

      ” even before that I was ” a tom boy” I identified as a boy more than a girl.”

      Yet you were still a female and always will be. That’s thing that gets me about this “transgender” issue. Feelings and “identifying” as this or that does not biological reality!

  • Aliquantillus

    Our respons should be to do the same to gay activist groups and individuals. Discredit them one by one, and don’t forget to hit hard!

  • thinkingabovemypaygrade

    The usually ignored question…are we slaves to what….might…be in our genes? If someone has a learning issue that might be genetic…must their learning issue go uncorrected because maybe they were born that way? But it looks here like the two doctors are relying on much evidence to establish that “born this way” might not be valid…but even if it were…its incredibly harmful…is better…corrected

  • thinkingabovemypaygrade

    Sadly…I agree with the writer. Most disagreeing with the study results…which disprove much of the heavily marketed issues in the recent gay agenda….most will depend on name calling …or willdivert the argument into unimportant sub topics.

    Meanwhile so many of our young…Will be damaged …as they are marketed the gay lifestyle…they too will suffer the tragic personal and medical bad consequences…

  • Laura B.

    I am sure there are now and have been many such “studies”.The fact is that this is a drop in the bucket of many such studies.For all the minds that think they know the truth there are equal amounts of minds that think only THEY do.This is nothing new.People are now and always will be PEOPLE, and they will always be who they are, in spite of “studies” telling then they are not.

  • Eve

    How is it that sexual orientation is claimed to be genetic and therefore immutable (without any evidence) while sex which we know without a shred of a doubt is a genetic can be changed with surgeries? That LGBT ideology withstands it’s own contradictions like that one among many others is testament enough to how anti science and anti logic it is.

  • Cindi-Bill Duerfeldt

    It’s inconsistent with Biblical theology that God would call something an “abomination” if being “gay” or “lesbian” was something that someone is born with, rather than a “moral choice” of behavior. Of course, the LGBT community counters that point of view with the answer that “no one believes that the Bible is actually the Word of God anymore, and — if the truth be told — there is no God anyway, so people can do whatever they want to do.” Rabbi Sha’ul of Tarsus (aka the Apostle Paul) said it very well in the first chapter of his letter to the Romans: “Likewise also, the men, leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust for one another, men with men, committing what is shameful…who, knowing the righteous judgement of God…not only do the same, but also APPROVE of those who practice them.” Sounds pretty much like where we are today in America. I’m just sayin’.

    • Chip Crawford

      I understand there is legislation afoot to make certain Bible passages illegal to preach, that portion of Romans 1 being one of them.

  • FromWhereIAm

    That’s a home-run for the truth.

Inspiration
The Safest Hiding Place
Nancy Flory
More from The Stream
Connect with Us