The section on Homosexuality and Biology was well-done. I appreciated that they recognize the facts are useless by themselves, but must be properly interpreted. Other behaviors that are influenced by genetics are not guaranteed to be moral or permissible, so the question on the acceptability of homosexuality and homosexual behaviors still remains.
On the contrary, the Biology section is a perfect example of justifying an a priori conclusion. It represents deliberate distortion, including omission, of key research.
For example, it cites the 1991 Bailey and Pillard twins study. That study was widely peer-criticized because of a) the small sample set and b) subject recruiting only in gay-oriented publications. Despite this built-in bias and inaccuracy, the concordance rate was only @53%, well below that necessary to prove significant genetic causation.
Later twin studies (e.g. Minn. and Australian) used much larger samples and found much lower concordance. When other common factors – the most obvious being common environment – were removed, the concordance fell to a level not significantly different than the general population statistics. In fact the twin studies have virtually ruled out significant genetic causation in orientation.
The report overstates or even misrepresents the work of Drs. Hamer and LeVay. Both of them admitted they could find no genetic causation despite years of trying.
The omission of key contrary evidence and the introduction of research in areas tangential at best further weakens the case. It is also noteworthy that nearly all the primary research cited is 10-20 years old, while newer research and analysis is largely ignored (as it was by the HoB, reported on this blog).
Finally, the author approaches but then refuses to discuss the ample evidence of the harm of homosexual activity, assuming the implicit conclusion that it is not harmful.
All in all a superficially scholarly and inviting case that falls apart when the full picture is presented. I do agree with samh, however, that mere genetic causation, even if proven, does not make something moral.
The section on Homosexuality and Biology was well-done. I appreciated that they recognize the facts are useless by themselves, but must be properly interpreted. Other behaviors that are influenced by genetics are not guaranteed to be moral or permissible, so the question on the acceptability of homosexuality and homosexual behaviors still remains.
On the contrary, the Biology section is a perfect example of justifying an a priori conclusion. It represents deliberate distortion, including omission, of key research.
For example, it cites the 1991 Bailey and Pillard twins study. That study was widely peer-criticized because of a) the small sample set and b) subject recruiting only in gay-oriented publications. Despite this built-in bias and inaccuracy, the concordance rate was only @53%, well below that necessary to prove significant genetic causation.
Later twin studies (e.g. Minn. and Australian) used much larger samples and found much lower concordance. When other common factors – the most obvious being common environment – were removed, the concordance fell to a level not significantly different than the general population statistics. In fact the twin studies have virtually ruled out significant genetic causation in orientation.
The report overstates or even misrepresents the work of Drs. Hamer and LeVay. Both of them admitted they could find no genetic causation despite years of trying.
The omission of key contrary evidence and the introduction of research in areas tangential at best further weakens the case. It is also noteworthy that nearly all the primary research cited is 10-20 years old, while newer research and analysis is largely ignored (as it was by the HoB, reported on this blog).
Finally, the author approaches but then refuses to discuss the ample evidence of the harm of homosexual activity, assuming the implicit conclusion that it is not harmful.
All in all a superficially scholarly and inviting case that falls apart when the full picture is presented. I do agree with samh, however, that mere genetic causation, even if proven, does not make something moral.