Nonsense from GARTH (1 Viewer)

[Thinker]

I have just read an article published on http://www.religionandspiritualityforum.com/view.php?StoryID=20060711-080804-8031r

This is titled "Canadian scientist rips gay study" and is a perfect example of
how scientific work can be made to look bad by people with a vested interest
in minimising its impact.

The second paragraph states:

"Psychiatrist Joseph Berger of the University of Toronto said a recent study that attributed male homosexuality to birth order is based on severely flawed research and biased assumptions, LifeSiteNews.com reported Tuesday.

The remainder of the document is itself "severely flawed", but I suspect it will
be quoted ad nausiam by those wishing to deny any biological basis to homosexuality.

It's worth comparing a few of examples of what NARTH says with a less
rabid report: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060701/fob1.asp

The study suggested that male same-sex attraction results from an immune reaction on the part of the mother to the presence of the male child in her womb, a reaction the study's authors suggest stems from the gestation of previous male children. In other words, the study suggests, having biological older brothers leads to the development of homosexuality.

"Leads to the development of homosexuality" must be intended to make the
reader assume that if you have an older brother, you will be gay. Here's a
more likely report of what was actually said:

A new study finds that homosexuality grows more likely with the greater number of biological older brothers—those sharing both father and mother—that a male has.

In other words the chance of being homosexual goes up if you have older
biological brothers; it's a statistical thing. They are not claiming that having
older brothers will inevitably "lead to the development of homosexuality".

The study's assumption of a biological basis for homosexuality is a "major glaring flaw," said Berger, since existing research has not produced conclusive findings indicating grounds for such an assumption.

ScienceNews makes it clear that a biological basis for homosexuality is a
conclusion of the report, not an assumption.

Secondly, he pointed out, the study relies on the "absolutely fatal flaw" of assuming that siblings in the same family are exposed to identical environments in growing up.

This makes me think NARTH did not read what was said, but jumped to
conclusions. They certainly did not read:

Men display this tendency toward homosexuality even if they weren't raised with biological older brothers, finds psychologist Anthony F. Bogaert of Brock University in St. Catharines, Ontario.

Even a quick scan through the Science News report shows that they find
you have to have biological brothers for the effect to be seen, ruling
out environmental influences.

It is clear that the NARTH people are happy to resort to misinformation in order to
press their religious views; whatever happened to "do not bear false witness"?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Dont concern yourself with anyone who asserts their religious morality.

Your religion should be between you and your god, and I'm fine with being left out.

 

[JustineCredible]

I think your title kind of says it all. NARTH Usually only ever has nonsence to say. Their entire premis is to "cure" homosexuality, as if it's still some type of mental disease.

Even the APA has gotten over that bit of hogwash.

I'm just quite happy with the AAP study on Gay/Lesbian parenting myself...but of course the Family Research Council has done it's level best to debunk it as well.

There's always some party pooper out there.