Review of "No More Goodbyes"

by A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., MBA, MPH

The advertisement in part reads, "Looking for Stories From or About Gay Members of Religious Families...the tragic and unnecessary goodbyes that arise from family alienation, ill-fated marriages based on unrealistic expectations of change and suicide."¹

No writer, even of book reviews, can completely disengage from his or her worldview. Most writers don't (though perhaps they should) offer a window into their worldviews so readers can factor those perspectives into what they read.

So here is my attempt, if you will, to offer that window into my worldview. I was raised in a large Buddhist, Southern Baptist family. Both of my parents exerted influences, somewhat complementary, on me.

From my mother, I learned the value of sadness in the true Buddhist tradition, sadness which one seeks as a positive emotion, an emotion that will help deal with the losses in life.

From my father, I learned that there were certain truths that were discovered, not constructed--they were truths that emerged from the Divine--it didn't matter whether or not you agreed with the truths: they just were.

One of the truths that I learned from my father was the importance of grace in our lives. He always said that grace would take us the last mile of the way. The discovery of grace in my own life has validated this truth. This truth was the most important discovery in my life's journey, and perhaps made me vulnerable to the gospel when it came to my door.

When I was introduced to the gospel of Jesus Christ, I embraced it without exception or reservation. I believed the Joseph Smith Story because I, too, had discovered the truth. The truths of the gospel found, and continue to find, their way into my daily life whether it is lecturing at the medical school, preparing a scientific article for publication, or teaching a Sunday School class. I suspect these truths will also find their way into this review. And I offer no apologies.

Another disclosure that I need to make is that I know Carol Lynn Pearson--at a distance, primarily through Gerald (her husband), members of her family and through what she has written.

I first became acquainted with Pearson in the fall of 1969. My future wife, who was Chair of Cultural Events in her dorm at BYU, had invited Pearson to speak. I had read Pearson's first book, and dearly loved her poem, The Lesson, "Yes, my fretting, frowning child..." The poem resonated with me, was the source of much inspiration, and continues to be so even to this day. This book which included this poem and others was titled Beginnings, and was published 1967. I was quite excited to meet the author of this favorite poem.

Pearson was very gracious, but I really don't remember what she talked about. I talked to her briefly and she signed a copy of her book for my wife to be. But I was left with one impression: Carol Lynn Pearson had a sadness which my mother had taught me to recognize in myself and others.

I was better acquainted with Gerald. I met him in the late sixties during a time when many struggled with drug problems. Gerald worked with a group (in fact the group was called The Group) of such young men in the basement of the Provo Tabernacle. I was a young psychology student at the time.

I had a few talks with Gerald. His heart seemed unusually good, but there was something about him that tended to "hide in broad daylight." Outwardly, he appeared confident but in personal conversations, he seemed preoccupied and insecure. He seemed very interested in those men who struggled with homosexuality.

Finally, I am a psychologist--university educated and board licensed. I am well into my fourth decade of practice, research and teaching. Initially, as a newly minted psychologist, I worked with men who struggled with homosexuality because no one else would. Later in my career, I worked with these men because I wanted to.

Two Books

As I read Pearson's book, I felt that I was actually reading two books. The "first book" (referring to the first reading of the book) focused on the very difficult times that men and women who struggle with the issues of homosexuality face. Some indeed have been rejected by family and friends and find solace in the gay community. And some do suffer from a variety of psychological problems such as anxiety and depression. Some even take their own lives.

But fortunately things are getting better. We are a tolerant society. The Mormon community especially has become very tolerant, in fact so tolerant that in an Ensign article, Elder Oaks expressed concerned about unlimited tolerance. He noted that "Love and tolerance are incomplete unless they are accompanied by a concern for truth and a commitment to the unity God has commanded of his servants."² He further noted that "Carried to an undisciplined excess, love and tolerance can produce indifference to truth and justice, and opposition to unity."³

As well, Elder Packer concluded, "The word tolerance is also invoked as though it overrules everything else. Tolerance may be a virtue, but it is not the commanding one. There is a difference between what one is and what one does. What one is may deserve unlimited tolerance, what one does, only a measured amount. A virtue when pressed to the extreme may turn into a vice."⁴

As we look around us, we can surely witness evidence for the turning of tolerance from virtue to vice, particularly in areas involving sexuality such as cohabitation, promiscuity, pornography and homosexuality. In fact, the slippery slope of unlimited tolerance expressed by Alexander Pope seems truer each day. Indeed, "we first endure, then pity, then embrace."

Certainly, the advice and counsel from two of the Lord's Anointed is worth considering when dealing with issues such as those associated with homosexuality, particularly when accompanied by the abundance of scientific evidence associated with the consequences of homosexual activities.

In my first reading of her book, I noted that Pearson counsels family members to maintain contact with and to love their children. She urges family members to get to know their children and to value them. Story after story was heart wrenching (some, even tragic) in their messages--each, in some fashion or another, stressed the importance of Christ-like love.

I take no issues with these sentiments. In fact, I can think of no one who would.

However, noticeably lacking was a discussion or even mention of men and women who had traveled other routes, who had managed to make different choices about their homosexual challenges and are happy. These are the men and women who have been able to eliminate or diminish homosexual attractions and have made lasting changes in their lives. These men and women were given no place in Pearson's book, as if they did not exist or their stories had no merit. Such individuals are many. I know hundreds of them; they DO exist. They serve as Church leaders at almost every level. Many attribute their success to the gospel and its resources. I know these men because I assisted them on their journey out of homosexuality. Some of them were even Gerald's friends. They are the quiet heroes whose stories are often written under pseudonyms because they do not want attention brought to themselves or their families. But these men and women are very much present in every walk of life.

So this is my review of the first book: Well written, a plea for compassion for those who suffer, but woefully biased against those who have successfully made their way out of homosexuality, to the point of Pearson actually excluding them. Had Pearson been more balanced and had she included narratives of those who had successfully navigated out of homosexuality, the book would have been a more important and valued resource. For Pearson to achieve this balance now, she would have to write another book and would need to advertise differently for stories, perhaps even in a venue other than Sunstone. The advertisement might read: "Left Homosexuality? Looking for Stories of Those Who Have, and How Their Faith Tradition Was Helpful."

I should note that some of Pearson's facts are incorrect. For example, contrary to her claim, Allen Gundry (whose name she misspelled) never served as Head of the Department of Homosexual Concerns in LDS Social Services (now called LDS Family Services). There has never been such a department. Allen never conducted any research. I supervised Allen for a number of years. The only data Allen ever collected was under my supervision and offered evidence that a significant number of men he treated had been sexually abused as children.

In addition, David Hardy, whose letter to Elder Packer was excerpted in the book, never served on the Board of Evergreen International. I served on Evergreen's Board, and recently asked David Pruden, the current Executive Director, about David Hardy's alleged service on his board. Mr. Pruden's response was: "At no time has David Hardy ever served on the Board of Trustees of Evergreen International. He has never attended any Board meeting nor was he ever invited to do so...Several years ago Mr. Hardy made the statement in an article in the Salt Lake Tribune that he once served on the Board of Evergreen International. I contacted Mr. Hardy and challenged his statement. I reminded him that as an attorney he clearly understood fiduciary responsibility of Board members and reminded him that alluding to the idea that he had ever assumed such responsibility was unethical if not illegal. He apologized for the misunderstanding and the matter was dropped by Evergreen International. If this mischaracterization continues it concerns me very much."⁵

Such errors, even if they result from Pearson's carelessness, detract from the credibility of her book. As any good writer knows, such misinformation calls into question the legitimacy of the book's entirety and questions the motives of the author.

A second reading of Pearson's book was like reading an entirely different manuscript and was quite disturbing.

Sadness themes were overpowered by frustration and anger themes. Scientific findings were misinterpreted time and time again. The dissension from Church doctrine and the attacks on Church leaders were not few.

Some unnamed Church leaders were applauded for taking positions and actions contrary to the direction from the First Presidency. The Church was blamed for suicides of those who struggled with homosexuality because homosexual relationships were not incorporated into the fabric of Mormon society. Pearson demonstrated a kind of confirmation bias as she used a skewed, non-representative sample of narratives. That is, Pearson did not include the narratives of those who have successfully overcome homosexuality. Rather she sought evidence for her preconceived notions by selecting only those narratives/explanations that supported her views and ignored any data or information to the contrary.

Simply stated, Pearson selected those narratives and consulted those "experts" whose views matched her own about homosexuality. She interspersed her own opinions as a kind of commentary on the narratives, seeking support for the view that homosexuality is innate and immutable, and that the Church is in error for not changing its doctrine to fit these selected narratives. Of particular concern was the co-opting of the Stuart Matis story which Pearson interpreted to support her views.

Distortions and Misinterpretations of Science

Quoting two BYU professors, one whose son is living in a gay relationship, Pearson reports that homosexuality is a fait accompli. To support this innate, biological theory, she focused on the research on left-handedness and homosexuality and quoted one of the professors who stated that homosexuality was "hard wired" (I am aware of no research conducted by either of these professors in this area.)

I will spare the readers a detailed review of the research on homosexuality and left-handedness and simply cite the extensive review by the New Zealand scientist, Dr. N.E. Whitehead, who concluded:

...the overwhelming majority of those who are left-handed, do not become homosexual. The strength of any underlying factor producing both is weak. Something unusual appears to happen to a small number of left-handed people, and their sexual-orientation development is atypical. Conversely, however, and very importantly, most homosexual people are not left-handed.⁶

Two separate teams of world-class researchers reviewed the bulk of the research on the innate theory of homosexuality. The research teams were singular in their conclusion: there is no scientific support for a simple biological theory of homosexuality.⁷

According to the comprehensive review of the literature conducted by Byne and Parsons, the following summary was offered: "Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking. In an alternative model, temperamental and personality traits interact with the familial and social milieus as the individual's sexuality emerges."⁸

Independently, but in support of Byne and Parson's critical and thorough review, Friedman and Downey concluded, "...human sexual orientation is complex and diversely experienced and that a biopsychosocial model best fits the current state of knowledge in the field."⁹

Following this review is a more extensive description of the research literature (with citations) relative to the question of whether or not homosexuality is innate and immutable. This research makes it clear that the BYU professors on whom Pearson relies are missing some critical information.

If there is an area in Pearson's book where scientific findings are noticeably misrepresented, it has to be her discussion of animal research and homosexuality. To support her view that homosexuality occurs in nature (animals), she cited the story of Roy and Silo, the penguins in the Central Park Zoo. These chinstrap penguins made local headlines when, at the encouragement of zookeepers, they "adopted" a little penguin Tango and raised her as their own.

Books were written and media coverage was provided for this "alternative family." Roy and Silo were given celebrity status. Now, as Paul Harvey would say, let's look at "the rest of the story."

A female penguin, Scrappy was transferred from Sea World Zoo in San Diego. Silo moved out of the nest with Roy and has taken up with Scrappy, making Silo, the first ex-gay penguin in the nation, perhaps even in the world!¹⁰

Of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, LeVay concluded, "Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. That is, a homosexual orientation if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems a rarity."¹¹

There is simply no animal model that approximates human sexuality. Pigs don't date. Ducks don't go to church. And fruit flies don't fall in love.

Homosexuality and Suicidality

Though Pearson acknowledges that the genesis of suicide is complex, she makes the following statement that has no basis in science: "But to me it is clear that many suicides among young Mormon homosexuals....can be traced directly to a hostile social and religious environment" (p. 37). In other words, the Mormon Church's doctrine on homosexuality is directly responsible for suicides among those who struggle with homosexuality!

Again, Pearson misrepresented the research. Here is the truth of the matter.

Certainly, negative attitudes and unkind (perhaps even hostile) behavior can cause distress on individuals. But unless there is already some vulnerability in place, it's highly unlikely that suicide will follow. What is most interesting is what the researchers conclude about homosexuality and suicide.

From the "bible" of the American Psychiatric Association (the Archives of General Psychiatry), Herrell et al. concluded that "same-gender sexual orientation is significantly associated with each of the suicidality measures...the substantial increased lifetime risk of suicidal behaviors in homosexual men is unlikely to be due to substance abuse or other psychiatric co-morbidity".¹³

In a separate, but equally as well-conducted study, Ferguson et al. concluded that

Gay, lesbian and bisexual young people were at increased risks of major depression...generalized anxiety disorder...conduct disorder...nicotine dependence...multiple disorders...suicidal ideation...suicide attempts.¹⁴

Bailey, in his review of the above research, noted:

These studies contain arguably the best published data on the association between homosexuality and psychopathology, and both converge on the same unhappy conclusion: homosexual people are at substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicide, major depression, and anxiety disorder.¹⁵

Pearson would likely claim support for her views here as well, noting a "homophobic" society as the causative factor in the suicides of homosexual individuals.

But wait--there is another study published in a more recent edition of the same journal. Sandfort et al. concluded from their research that

Psychiatric disorders were more prevalent among homosexually active people compared to heterosexually active people. Homosexual men had a higher 12-month prevalence of mood disorders and anxiety disorders than heterosexual men. Homosexual women had a higher 12-month prevalence of substance use disorders than heterosexual women...More homosexual than heterosexual persons had 2 or more disorders during their lifetime...The findings support the assumption that people with same-sex behavior are at a greater risk for psychiatric disorders.¹⁶

Why the significance of this study? This study was conducted in The Netherlands. It is highly unlikely that society's oppression of homosexual people is a valid theory there. There is almost no "homophobia" in The Netherlands--arguably the most gay-affirming country in the world and the first to create same-sex marriage.

Bailey offers other possible explanations for the higher rates of mental illness among those who engage in homosexual practices.

1. 1. "Homosexuality represents a deviation from normal development and is associated with other such deviations that may lead to mental illness.¹⁷(p. 884). Since evolution naturally selects for heterosexuality, Bailey indicates that homosexuality may represent a 'developmental error'... noting that some research links homosexuality to 'developmental instability'." ¹⁸
2. 2. "Increased psychopathology among homosexual people is a consequence of lifestyle."¹⁹
3. 3. "Differences associated with sexual orientation...such as behavioral risk factors associated with male homosexuality such as receptive anal sex and promiscuity".²⁰

Bailey concluded with, "It would be a shame if sociopolitical concerns prevented researchers from conscientious consideration of any reasonable hypothesis."²¹

If Pearson is wrong on this issue--and science suggests the high probability that she is--she might be contributing to very problem that she is trying to help.

Dissension from Church Doctrine, Attacks on Church Leaders

The forward to Pearson's book, written by Robert A. Rees, provides support for her views thereby giving her license to seek after the causes of "one more disowned child, one more failed marriage, one more suicide (p. xv)." Pearson inevitably finds such causes in the Church's failure to agree with her views.

Either through her own commentary or through the voices of those whose narratives she has selected to voice her views, Pearson has made clear her dissension from Church doctrine and her displeasure with Church leaders.

To illustrate, consider that President Hinckley has re-affirmed Church doctrine on the matter of homosexuality. He has declared, "Prophets of God have repeatedly taught through the ages that practices of homosexual relations, fornication and adultery are grievous sins. Sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage are forbidden by the Lord. We affirm those teachings..."²²

In a more recent interview with Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman, there was a reiteration of Church doctrine: "Homosexual activity is and will always remain before the Lord and abominable sin."²³

In response to Church leaders and Church doctrine, Pearson declares: "I am reluctant to accept the precision of some as to what God considers an abomination (p. 9)."

She goes even further in not only rejecting the notion that homosexual acts are sinful, but voices the following view: "I wholeheartedly believe that intimate access to the body of another person is the most supreme of privileges, that being in love--real love--wanting both the other person, and the other person's highest good--is a breathtaking experience that brings about the closest we mortals will ever get to heaven (p. 9)."

So according to Pearson, not only are homosexual relationships not sinful, but such relationships can bring us closer to the Divine--a contradiction of Church doctrine on two levels.

Of same-gender marriages, the Church's position is clear:

The principle of the gospel and the sacred responsibilities given us require that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints oppose any efforts to give legal authorization to marriages between persons of the same gender.... We encourage members to appeal to legislatures, judges, and other government officials to preserve the purposes and sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, and to reject all efforts to give legal authorization or other official support to marriages between persons of the same gender.²⁴

In stark contradiction, Pearson responds:

Mormon edict gives threat of eternal loss to men and women who love and enter a relationship with someone of the same sex, as well as the promise of eternal exaltation to those who enter conventional marriage and are faithful to their vows. The results are tragic (p.70).

In further criticism of Church authorities, Pearson, speaking through one of the narratives, boldly states "I have come to believe that the words of tolerance spoken by current LDS authorities are aimed at the media, not really at healing families, and that the Church is still very homophobic, oppressive, and exclusive" (p. 95).

The Church has voiced its support of a constitutional amendment preserving marriage as the lawful union of a man and a woman.²⁵

In response to the Church's support of traditional marriage, Pearson notes "The heavy-handed orchestration of the Church [in support of Proposition 22]" (p. 83) and "The Church's antigay attitude creates a subculture of lies and deceit" (p. 76).

Pearson goes a step further by noting that some unnamed Church leaders (who she applauds) disagree and openly defy Church doctrine and direction from the First Presidency.

On page 157, an unnamed bishop refused to read the letter from the First Presidency re-affirming the Church's opposition to same-sex marriage in sacrament meeting.

Regarding Utah's campaign that resulted in amending the State constitution to prohibit gay marriage, Pearson noted that the bishop along with the stake president did not vote for the state initiative. According to Pearson, these ecclesiastical leaders had ward members remove signs supporting the amendment from their yards (p. 176).

Other unnamed Church leaders who take issue with Church doctrine on the matter of homosexuality are repeatedly noted, almost as if they are in the majority. Consider:

• The bishop's wife who was a lesbian (p. 38).
• The bishop too "disagrees with the Church's involvement in anti-gay politics" (p. 53).
• "Within days of coming out to my wife, I was released from being the bishop after 5 years." The "bishop" searches for a new faith. (p. 76).
• "....a large number of bishops and stake presidents who had significant reservations about the Church's heavy-handed orchestration" (p. 83).

Further, Pearson cites the "marriages" in the Bradshaw family. She first cites the marriage of the Bradshaws' son Ben to Clare, focusing on the noblest of all commitments: "fidelity, responsibility, work, patience, kindness, sacrifice and happiness" (p. 235). She notes that Heavenly Father was pleased at this "gay occasion."

In the same breath, she describes the commitment ceremony of the Bradshaws' son to another man, repeating the above scene, but adding, "some men danced with men...women danced with women...boy friends danced with girl friends...grandpas danced with granddaughters" concluding that it, too, was a gay occasion and Heavenly Father was pleased (p. 236).

Using the voices of others, Pearson makes repeated attacks on the Church. Consider the following:

• "I find it hypocritical for the Church to appeal to emotions" (p. 54).
• "The heavy-handed orchestration of the Church" (p. 83).
• "...the Church is still very homophobic, oppressive, and exclusive" (p. 95).
• She describes the "dark side of religion as practiced by our congregations" (p. 46).

The attacks on specific Church leaders were directed to Elder Boyd K. Packer and President Spencer W. Kimball. The selected venue for the attack on Elder Packer was David Hardy's letter.

The letter in its entirety was published on the Internet and was venomous in its rhetoric. Elder Packer was accused of inflicting "personal heartache and damage" on Hardy's immediate family.²⁶

Similar venom was aimed at President Kimball, one of the most beloved of all modern-day prophets. Pearson attempted to use the words of President Kimball's own son to diminish the messages of The Miracle of Forgiveness. And yet, The Miracle of Forgiveness, the messages and admonitions of President Kimball continue to be center stage in the Church's position on homosexual relationships. Consider the following excerpt from our current Priesthood and Relief Society manuals:

If one has [homosexual] desires and tendencies, he overcomes them the same as if he had the urge toward petting or fornication or adultery. The Lord condemns and forbids this practice with a vigor equal to his condemnation of adultery and other such sex acts....again contrary to the belief and statement of many people, this [practice], like fornication, is overcomable and forgivable, but again, only upon a deep and abiding repentance, which means total abandonment and complete transformation of thought and act. The fact that some governments and some churches and numerous corrupted individuals have tried to reduce such behavior from criminal offense to personal privilege does not change the nature nor the seriousness of the practice. Good men, wise men, God-fearing men everywhere still denounce the practice as being unworthy of sons and daughters of God; and Christ's church denounces it and condemns it...This heinous homosexual sin is of the ages. Many cities and civilizations have gone out of existence because of it.²⁷

Could any summary of Church doctrine be clearer or more relevant on this issue for our day?

Co-opting of the Stuart Matis Story

One of the most disturbing aspects of Pearson's book was the co-opting of the Stuart Matis story in support of her criticism of the Church and its leaders.

I am acquainted with Fred and Marilyn Matis. They are good people who have experienced a horrific tragedy in their lives. Both have repeatedly stated that their book was not intended to provide a venue for criticism of the Church, to question Church doctrine or to in any way demean the Church. The Matises have emphasized they do not want to be included among Church detractors in attacking the Church or its leaders. In fact, in open forums, they have repeatedly denied any affiliation or approval of organizations like Affirmation, The Family Fellowship, GLSEN, HRC and PFLAG, all of which Pearson extols in her book. Certainly, Pearson's book is at cross purposes with the Matises' book.

From the very first page in Pearson's book, she insists that Stuart committed suicide over the issue of homosexuality. In the foreword Robert A. Rees states, "Stuart, like so many others who have committed suicide over this issue, eventually come to feel he couldn't live in such a world" (p. xi).

The Matises have provided this author with additional information about Stuart's suicide that was not included in their book. Perhaps, at some point in time, they will feel comfortable in sharing this information with the public--such information would negate Pearson's theories on suicides.

Pearson devoted an entire chapter to Stuart Matis. With a voice of "authority", Pearson

• Wishes that Stuart "had grabbed his soul and run for his life, out the chapel door never to look back" (p. 52).
• Notes the harm to Stuart from those voices from the outside, "speaking with authority and spelling out the conditions under which God's love would be available" (p. 52).
• Holds the Church responsible for Stuart's death--"The final straw that drove Stuart to suicide was the intense distress he felt around the politics of California's 'Protection of Marriage Initiative, Proposition 22, for which the Mormon Church was perhaps the leading proponent" (p. 52).

Conclusion

Activism masquerading as science has been clearly documented and addressed.²⁸ There is clear and compelling evidence that the national mental health organizations have offered Position Statements and Resolutions without adequate scientific support.²⁹

However, activism masquerading as spirituality has been rarely addressed.

In her book, Pearson attempts to present scientific support for her notions about the innate immutable theory of homosexuality. She overreaches and clearly fails.

She attempts to garner support from Church leaders, both named and unnamed, a kind of activism masquerading as spirituality. She again fails.

In direct opposition to Church doctrine, she sees no immorality in homosexual relationships. She not only disagrees with Church doctrine, but blames the Church for the unhappiness, the promiscuity and even the suicides of self-identified homosexual individuals.

Though she includes Orrin Hatch, Lenore Romney and even President Hinckley in her group of supporters, she claims most of her support from unnamed Church leaders--"large number of bishops and stake presidents who had significant reservations [about the Church's direction on marriage]" (p. 83), a bishop who "disagrees with the Church's involvement in anti-gay politics [is cited as an example]" (p. 53), a bishop who "comes out to his wife" within days of being released as a bishop" (p. 76)--this same bishop searches for a new church which will ostensibly embrace his homosexual relationships [another example of dissension].

Pearson reports that unnamed Church leaders refuse to read the First Presidency statements in sacrament meetings as directed, ward members remove placards supporting traditional marriage amendments from their yards as directed by Pearson's unnamed Church leaders, bishops whose wives are lesbians, and the list goes on.

Pearson makes no allowance for those who, unlike Gerald and her son-in-law, have navigated their way out of homosexuality and who are peaceful and happy. Unlike the world-class scientists with whom she disagrees, she claims that there is a gay gene--homosexuality is innate and immutable--and she is intolerant of those with whom she disagrees. She takes on the role of scientist, religious leader, activist and crusader, none of which she admits, all of which she praises or emulates.

Through the voice of the self-identified gay, Episcopal bishop, Pearson claims that "...gay activism is a godly and holy work" (p. 208).

Homosexual "marriages" like heterosexual marriages are "gay occasions." To Pearson, there are no differences--"men danced with men, women danced with women, boy friends danced with girl friends, grandpas danced with granddaughters" (p. 236).

She has hopes that Heavenly Father will change His mind on homosexuality (p. 265).

Maybe it's time to stop circling the wagons and for the wagon train to move on. For those who are committed to the destination, it is time to climb aboard. For those who choose to remain behind, agency affords them that freedom. They will come later, either in this life or the life to come. And perhaps when they do decide to follow, those in the wagon train will see them at a distance and send a party to guide them safely. And by the Grace of God, all will be well.

Appendix: Literature Review

There are basically three studies that led activists to trumpet the idea that homosexuality is biologically determined. However, the authors of all of these studies have contradicted such media-touted notions. Each, separately, has arrived at the following conclusion: homosexuality is not simply a biological phenomenon.

These studies were conducted by Simon LeVay, Dean Hamer and the team of Bailey and Pillard.

LeVay's research was a comparative study of cluster of cells in the hypothalamus of nineteen homosexual men and sixteen presumed heterosexual men. The following is LeVay's interpretation of his own research.

But it is important to stress several limitations of the study. First, the observations were made on adults who had already been sexually active for a number of years. To make a real compelling case, one would have to show that these neuroanatomical differences existed early in life preferably at birth. Without such data, there is always at least the theoretical possibility that the structural differences are actually the result of differences in sexual behavior perhaps the 'use it or lose it' principle. Furthermore, even if the differences in the hypothalamus rise before birth, they might still come about from a variety of causes, including genetic differences, differences in stress exposure, and many others. It is possible that the development of the INAH-3 (and perhaps other brain regions) represent a 'final common path' in the determination of sexual orientation, a path to which innumerable factors may contribute.³⁰

Quoting LeVay,

Another limitation arises because most of the gay men whose brains I studied died of the complications of AIDS. Although I am confident that the small size of INAH-3 in these men was not an effect of the disease, there is always the possibility that gay men who died of AIDs are not representative of the entire population of gay men. For example, they might have a stronger preference for receptive anal intercourse, the major risk factor for acquiring HIV Infection. Thus, if one wished, one could make an argument that structural differences in INAH-3 relate more to actual behavioral patterns of copulation than to sexual orientation as such. It will not be possible to settle this issue definitively until some method becomes available to measure the size of INAH-3 in living people who can be interviewed in detail about their sexuality.³¹

LeVay summarized his research in the following way:

It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality was genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men were born that way, the most common mistake people may in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. INAH-3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than a part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women's sexual behavior...Since I looked at adult brains we don't know if the differences I found were there at birth, or if they appeared later.³²

Finally LeVay concluded,

Although there are significant differences between the attitudes of lesbians and gay men it is clear that both groups are far more inclined to consider their sexual orientation a biological given than is the general population ...Should we take these assertions seriously? Not entirely, of course. No one even remembers being born, let alone being born gay or straight. When a gay man, for example, says that he was born gay he generally means that he felt different from other boys at the earliest age he can remember. Sometimes the differences involved sexual feelings, but more commonly it involved some kind of gender noncomformist or sex atypical traits--disliking rough, and tumble play for example, that were not explicitly sexual. These differences, which have been verified in a number of ways suggest that sexual orientation is influenced by factors operating very early in life, but these factors could still consist of environmental factors such as parental treatment in the early post natal period.³³

The research conducted by J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard focused on identical twins, non-identical twins, non-adopted siblings and adopted siblings. In their sample, they had 56 pairs of identical twins and 54 pairs of non-identical twins. They found a 52% concordance rate for the homosexual twin; the chances were about 50% that his twin would also be homosexual. For non-identical twins, the rate was about 22%, showing that about one in five twins who were homosexual had a homosexual brother. For non-twin brothers, the concordance rate was 9.2 %. Interestingly enough, Bailey and Pillard found the concordance rate in adopted brothers was 11.2%. The most fascinating question, however is, "If there something in the genetic code that makes an individual homosexual, why did not all of the identical twins become homosexual since they have the exact same genetic endowment?"³⁴ From this study, one has to conclude that environmental influences play a strong role in the development of homosexuality.

The Bailey and Pillard study garnered a tremendous amount of support from both the media and activist community. However, no such coverage was provided for Bailey's second study. In the discussion section of this study, Bailey admitted the probability of selection bias in his first study--he recruited in venues where participants "probably considered the sexual orientation of their co-twins before consenting to participate."³⁵ The second study conducted by Bailey used the Australian Twin Registry, which, with its anonymous response format, made such bias unlikely. In this study, Bailey reported a concordance rate as low as 20%, depending on how loosely one defines homosexuality.³⁶

The third, and perhaps the most sensationalized, of the three studies emerged at the time of the controversy surrounding gays in the military during the Clinton era. Conducted by Hamer et al., the researchers attempted to link male homosexuality to a stretch of DNA located at the tip of the X chromosome, the chromosome that some men inherit from their mothers. In Hamer's study, the researchers examined 40 pairs of non-identical twin gay brothers and asserted that 33 pairs--a number significantly higher than the 20 pairs that chance would dictate--had inherited the same X-linked genetic markers from their mothers.³⁷

Criticism of Hamer's research came from a surprising source: George Risch, the scientist at Yale University School of Medicine who invented the method used by Hamer. Risch commented:

Hamer et al. suggest that their results are consistent with X-linkage because maternal uncles have a higher rate of homosexual orientation than paternal uncles, and cousins related through a maternal aunt have a higher rate than other types of cousins. However, neither of these studies are statistically significant.³⁸

Commenting on his own research Hamer noted, "We knew genes were only part of the answer. We assumed that environment also played a role in sexual orientation, as it does in most, if not all behaviors...".³⁹ "Homosexuality is not purely genetic....environment plays a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay....I don't think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay."⁴⁰

Citing the failure of his research, Hamer further wrote, "The pedigree failed to produce what we had originally hoped to find: simple Mendelian inheritance. In fact, we never found a single family in which homosexuality was distributed in the obvious pattern that Mendel observed in his pea plants."⁴¹

What is more intriguing is when Hamer's study was replicated by Rice et al. with research that was more robust, the genetic markers were found to be non-significant. Rice et al. concluded:

It is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Hamer's original study. Because our study was larger than that of Hamer et al's, we certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as reported in that study. Nonetheless, our data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation at position XQ 28.⁴²

When asked by Anastasia Toufexis, a Time's reporter, whether his theory ruled out social and psychological influences, Hamer's response was "Absolutely not...from twin studies we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors, not to negate the psychosocial factors."⁴³

Of the biological theory of homosexuality, the world-renowned Columbia University scientists provided a strongly worded summary of the research:

At clinical conferences one often hears...that homosexual orientation is fixed and unmodifiable. Neither assertion is true...The assertion that homosexuality is genetic is so reductionistic that it must be dismissed out of hand as a general principle of psychology.⁴⁴

A developmental biologist at Brown University, a self-identified lesbian, commented on the born-that-way theory:

It provides a legal argument that is, at the moment, actually having some sway in court. For me, it's a very shaky place. It's bad science and bad politics. It seems to me that the way we consider homosexuality in our culture is an ethical and a moral question.⁴⁵

Perhaps Camille Paglia, a self-identified lesbian, stated it best when she declared:

Homosexuality is not normal. On the contrary it is a challenge to the norm...Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm...Our bodies were designed for reproduction...No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous...homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait. Is the gay identity so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may not wish to be gay? Sexuality is highly fluid, and reversals are theoretically possible. However, habit is refractory, once sensory pathways have been blazed and deepened by repetition--a phenomenon obvious with obesity, smoking, alcoholism or drug addiction--helping gays to learn how to function heterosexually, if they wish, is a perfectly worthy aim. We should be honest enough to consider whether or not homosexuality may not indeed, be a pausing at the prepubescent stage where children band together by gender--Current gay cant insists that homosexuality is not a choice; that no one would choose to be gay in a homophobic society. But there is an element of choice in all behavior, sexual or otherwise. It takes an effort to deal with the opposite sex; it is safer with your own kind. The issue is one of challenge versus comfort.⁴⁶

Camille Paglia finds significant support for her position from the Francis S. Collins, MD, Ph.D., the Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute at NIH and the world's leading scientist who works at the cutting edge of DNA:

An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality. Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality. However, the likelihood that the identical twin of a homosexual male will also be gay is about 20% (compared with 2-4 percent of males in the general population), indicating that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations.⁴⁷

Dr. Collins further noted, "...environment, particularly childhood experiences as well as the role of free will choices affect all of us in profound ways."⁴⁸

Notes

¹ C.L. Pearson "Looking for Stories," Sunstone, Issue 141 (2006), 57.

² Dallin Oaks, "Our strengths can become our downfall," Ensign (October 1994), 19.

³ Ibid.

⁴ Boyd K. Packer, "Covenants," Speaking Out on Moral Issues (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1992), 35.

⁵ D. Pruden, e-mail correspondence, June 5, 2007.

⁶ N.E. Whitehead, "Is there a link between left-handedness and homosexuality?" (2004), online at http://www.narth.com/docs/lefthand/html.

⁷ W. Byne and B. Parsons, "Human sexual orientation: the biologic theories reappraised," Archives of General Psychiatry 50 (1993), 229-239; and R.C. Friedman and J.I. Downey, "Neurobiology and sexual orientation: current relationships," Journal of Neuropsychiatry 5 (1993), 131-153.

⁸ W. Byne and B. Parsons, "Human sexual orientation: the biologic theories reappraised," Archives of General Psychiatry 50 (1993), 229.

⁹ R.C. Friedman and J.I. Downey, "Neurobiology and sexual orientation: current relationships," Journal of Neuropsychiatry 5 (1993), 131.

¹⁰ W.E. Throckmorton, "Silo rains on the penguin pride parade", online at http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0101.html. Last accessed April 30, 2007.

¹¹ Simon LeVay, Queer science. (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1996), 207.

¹² Ibid, 282.

¹³ R. Herrell, J. Goldberg, W.R. True, V. Ramakrishnan, M. Lyons, S. Eisen, et al. "Sexual orientation and suicidality," Archives of General Psychiatry, 56 (1999), 867.

¹⁴ D.M. Ferguson, L.J. Horwood, and A.L. Beautrais, "Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people?" Archives of General Psychiatry, 56 (1999), 876.

¹⁵ J.M. Bailey, "Homosexuality and mental illness," Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999), 883.

¹⁶ T.G. Sandfort, R. de Graaf, R.V. Bijl, and P. Schnabel, P., "Same-sex behavior and psychiatric disorders," Archives of General Psychiatry 58 (2001), 85.

¹⁷ J.M. Bailey, "Homosexuality and mental illness," Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999), 884.

¹⁸ Ibid.

¹⁹ Ibid.

²⁰ Ibid.

²¹ Ibid.

²² Hinckley, Gordon B. Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1997), 8.

²³ "Same-Gender Attraction" (August 14, 2006), online at http://www.lds.org/newsroom/issues/answer/0,19491,6056-1-202-4-202l00/html. Last accessed August 21, 2006.

²⁴ Official Statement issued from the First Presidency on February 1, 1994.

²⁵ Press Release, First Presidency Issues Statement on Marriage, July 7, 2004.

²⁶ Online at http://www.lds-mormon.com/hardy.shtml. Last accessed April 11, 2006.

²⁷ The Teachings of Presidents of the Church, Spencer W. Kimball (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2006), 181.

²⁸ R.H. Wright and N.A. Cummings, Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm. (New York: Routledge, 2006).

²⁹ Ibid.

³⁰ Simon LeVay, Queer science. (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1996), 143.

³¹ Ibid, 144-145.

³² D. Nimmons, "Sex and the brain," Discover (March 1994), 64.

³³ Simon LeVay, Queer science. (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1996), 6.

³⁴ J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, "A genetic study of male sexual orientation," Archives of General Psychiatry 48 (1991), 1089-1096.

³⁵ J.M. Bailey, M.P. Dunne, and N.G. Martin, "Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlation in an Australian twin sample," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78 (2000), 533.

³⁶ Ibid., 524-536.

³⁷ D.H. Hamer, S. Hu, V.L. Magnuson, N. Hu, and A.M.L. Pattatuchi, "A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation," Science 261 (July 1993), 321-327.

³⁸ N. Risch, E. Squires-Wheller, and B.J. Keen, "Male sexual orientation and genetic evidence," Nature 262 (1993), 2063-2064.

³⁹ D. Hamer and P. Copeland, The science of desire: the search for the gay gene and the biology of behavior (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994), 82.

⁴⁰ N. Mitchell, "Genetics, sexuality, linked study says," Standard Examiner (April 30, 1995).

⁴¹ D. Hamer and P. Copeland, The science of desire: the search for the gay gene and the biology of behavior (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994), 104.

⁴² G.A. Rice, C. Anderson, N. Risch, and G. Ebers, "Male homosexuality: absence of linkage to microsatellite markers at XQ28," Science 284 (1999), 667.

⁴³ A. Toufexis, "New evidence of a gay gene," Time 146 (November 13, 1995).

⁴⁴ R. C. Friedman and J.I. Downey, Sexual Orientati1on and psychoanalysis: sexual science and clinical practice. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002), 131.

⁴⁵ C. Dreifus, "Exploring what makes us male or female," New York Times, Science section (January 2, 2001).

⁴⁶ C. Paglia, Vamps and tramps (New York: Vintage Books, 1994), 70, 72, 76, 77, 78, 91.

⁴⁷ F.S. Collins, The language of god, a scientist presents evidence for belief, (New York, Free Press, 2006), 260.

⁴⁸ Ibid.

FAIR is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of FAIR, and should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.

If you like what FAIR does and you agree with our mission, we invite you to support FAIR in any way you are able. You can make a donation, or visit our Membership page for additional support ideas. FAIR only succeeds through the efforts of our gracious volunteers.

Welcome | Topical Guide | FAIR Publications | Join & Support FAIR | Message Boards
FAIR LDS Bookstore | News | FAIR Links | Contact FAIR | Home

Last Updated July 16, 2007
Copyright © 2007 by The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research. All Rights Reserved.
No portion of this site may be reproduced on any other Web site or in any other print publication
without the express written consent of FAIR. You may freely link to this information, however, or you
may print out copies to give to others, provided this copyright notice is included in your printout.

You can send comments/suggestions using our contact page.