Perhaps that was a bad, (or cheap), reference.
I shall proceed to the next:
Scientific analysis by James E. Phelan, LCSW, BCD
NARTH Scientific Advisory Committee;
He writes:
"...........The authors suggest that these factors could include prenatal effects, idiosyncratic experiences, unequal parental treatment, interactions with siblings, or influences outside the family (e.g., teachers and peers). They go on to suggest that, whatever the specific environmental factors were, they seemed not to overlap much at the population level with the environmental factors underlying Neuroticism or Psychoticism levels, given the very low environmental correlations found. The authors admit that this does not discount the possibility that, in individual cases, an environmental influence during development could lead to a nonheterosexual orientation as well as psychiatric vulnerability.
The authors -- unable to give a definitive answer to whether or not homosexuality is genetically caused -- made a plea that further research be conducted, and stated that if there is a biological correlate of both sexual orientation and psychiatric vulnerability, it might be more clearly observed in brain imaging research.
The authors state clearly,
If noncommon environmental factors accounted for more than 50%, and the genetic factors were less, than this in itself shows that the genetic contribution was not 100% and therefore cannot give a "definitive yes" answer to the question "Are people born gay?" Erratic, noncommon (i.e., idiosyncratic) environmental factors are predominant, and this finding is significant.
It should also be pointed out that the finding of elevated psychoticism done in such a standard way is almost unique in the modern literature. Although historically it has been clear that some elements of psychoticism have been associated with various subpopulations of homosexually oriented people, older studies lack the rigor of the current paper. While it is more common to find older papers reporting neurotic aspects of homosexually oriented people, this current paper uses a more general client population and is better controlled methodologically.
The NARTH Journal of Human Sexuality (2009), explored the extensive evidence for increased neuroticism among homosexually oriented people. The Zietsch et al. paper is important in that it adds psychoticism as well as neuroticism (in the particular meaning given both terms by the EPQ-R and others) to the surprisingly long list of ills experienced by homosexually oriented people to a significantly greater extent than heterosexuals."
Another sterling example of being sure about absolutely nothing.
I shall proceed no further as these references have already become tiresome.
I shall proceed to the next:
Scientific analysis by James E. Phelan, LCSW, BCD
NARTH Scientific Advisory Committee;
He writes:
"...........The authors suggest that these factors could include prenatal effects, idiosyncratic experiences, unequal parental treatment, interactions with siblings, or influences outside the family (e.g., teachers and peers). They go on to suggest that, whatever the specific environmental factors were, they seemed not to overlap much at the population level with the environmental factors underlying Neuroticism or Psychoticism levels, given the very low environmental correlations found. The authors admit that this does not discount the possibility that, in individual cases, an environmental influence during development could lead to a nonheterosexual orientation as well as psychiatric vulnerability.
The authors -- unable to give a definitive answer to whether or not homosexuality is genetically caused -- made a plea that further research be conducted, and stated that if there is a biological correlate of both sexual orientation and psychiatric vulnerability, it might be more clearly observed in brain imaging research.
The authors state clearly,
The finding in our data of genetic correlations between sexual orientation and psychiatric vulnerability should be interpreted with caution, as it does not necessitate that pleiotropic genetic factors are at work. Other causal relationships could also manifest as genetic correlation between sexual orientation and psychiatric vulnerability. It is likely that there are several contributing factors to the elevated psychiatric risk in nonheterosexuals, genetics being one of these factors.
"Caution" indeed. Another key word they used is "likely," but in reality, their estimate of "likelihood" is not definitive. Even those correlates that were discovered (e.g. gender nonconformity), do not explain a genetic basis in totality, as environmental factors also have been observed in some cases (Zucker & Bradley, 1995).
If noncommon environmental factors accounted for more than 50%, and the genetic factors were less, than this in itself shows that the genetic contribution was not 100% and therefore cannot give a "definitive yes" answer to the question "Are people born gay?" Erratic, noncommon (i.e., idiosyncratic) environmental factors are predominant, and this finding is significant.
It should also be pointed out that the finding of elevated psychoticism done in such a standard way is almost unique in the modern literature. Although historically it has been clear that some elements of psychoticism have been associated with various subpopulations of homosexually oriented people, older studies lack the rigor of the current paper. While it is more common to find older papers reporting neurotic aspects of homosexually oriented people, this current paper uses a more general client population and is better controlled methodologically.
The NARTH Journal of Human Sexuality (2009), explored the extensive evidence for increased neuroticism among homosexually oriented people. The Zietsch et al. paper is important in that it adds psychoticism as well as neuroticism (in the particular meaning given both terms by the EPQ-R and others) to the surprisingly long list of ills experienced by homosexually oriented people to a significantly greater extent than heterosexuals."
Another sterling example of being sure about absolutely nothing.
I shall proceed no further as these references have already become tiresome.
Why would anyone look to a hate group for scientificevidence?