Scott L, you bring up a couple of points here I feel compelled to respond to. A couple of others have referenced psychology courses, professors and PhD's in some other posts as well. I chose your post to quote as it covered three points in particular. My apologies in advance for the long post, but I chose to address this in one shot vs doing so in a number of posts.
A little background as way of introduction and to let folks know where I am coming from. In '85-'86, I did my Masters in Education (MSEd) at a Catholic University. In '87-'90, I did my Doctoral work at a midwestern university because it had a highly reputable Developmental Psychology program within its broader Educational Psychology Department. Received my PhD with a major in Developmental Psych and a minor in Research and Measurement.
I have over 12 years experience teaching at 3 different universities (one a state land grant university, one a private university, and the last a Black university in the mid-atlantic. As tenure and promotion is dependent upon research, grant writing, etc., I was engaged in all of those professorial type activities during that time. During the 12 years university teaching I primarily taught in teacher and counselor training programs as well as teaching courses on research design, research consumption, stats and data collection methods. Co-led in one and developed another inner-city educational project which was geared toward helping disadvantaged children and their families thru educational and parenting programs. Both projects were grant funded, connected to public education districts, and supported by the local social services departments. Both projects were housed right in the section 8 housing complexes in which the families lived.
I left the university setting in the early '90s to pursue my own professional business ventures and to be more actively involved in parenting my children. Since that time I have worked as a developmental psychologist whose practice has focused on children with developmental issues, parenting, developmental appropriateness of practices and curricula in schools. Over the past 20+ years of private practice, I have witnessed numerous changes in children's development as a result of what society and schools are forcing upon, have seen parenting fad after parenting fad come and go, and have watched as many, many parents have turned over their responsibilities to the State which has been all too happy to assume those responsibilities. Strangely enough, this shift to move and more responsibility being taken on by the State (via the schools) has been accompanied by an ever growing antagonism between educators and parents.
Point 1 as it relates to your post and some of the other comments I have seen in the thread (so this isnt only being directed at Scott). "On the science we disagree. And many scientists disagree with your scientists." I am not sure what science you or anybody else on either side of the topic (gay being genetically caused or not) is referring to when such a claim is made. The "science" which exists to this point is primarily rooted in attempts to isolate genetic variations (used loosely as I an not a geneticist) as predictors for behavior, personality, disease, physical traits, and in this case, sexual orientation. Making predictions about a baby's eye color, for example, is 100% accurate if the child's genetics are known. It is fail proof due to the fact that eye color is not influenced by one's environment and experiences. The same cannot be said for predicting sexual orientation. Without going into an exhaustive analysis of the research models employed, current research on genetic predispositions toward one's sexual orientation can only produce correlational data. For example, if a study finds a 20% correlation between a genetic type and one's sexual orientation, the MOST that any truthful researcher can say is "20% of people born with gene condition A are self reported homosexuals." In English, it does not mean gene condition A causes 20% of those who are born with it to be homosexuals. They are coincidental occurrences and not predictive, cause and effect variables. And, as neuroscience has been advancing exponentially over the last decade or so, we are finding that some of the things we thought were genetically fixed by nature can be profoundly affected by nurture, experience & the environment. Bottom line IMHO, neither side of the genetics vs choice has science on their side at this point. Technological advances may change that as well as improvements in the research methodologies which will likely accompany those advances.
Point 2 : Again, only using your quote to share my perspective on a couple of things. "I went to Penn State 1978-82. Took many pysch courses. The consensus was gays are born that way among the professors I had, all with doctorates." I wonder what those professors were basing their conclusions on as little to no research on the topic even existed at that time. Did they cite specific studies or did they simply use the "research says" argument knowing they would not be challenged. Do a simple search of research on the topic from that time period and see for yourself what was "scientifically proven" at that time. The way the system is set up in higher education, professors have vested interests in what they do and say on campus, this is especially true at a land grant institution such as Penn State. And, truth often gets trampled under by those interests. Tenure, access to grant money, getting published, being invited to speak, etc. are all major priorities in one's career. Coupled with the fact there is virtually no accountability for what a professor says in a class and you have a system which promotes something other than true education.
Point 3 : "The reason you search for studies that support your beliefs is because for the way you CHOOSE to worship God you need homosexuality to be termed a disease." Every research study conducted is based on the hypothesis researcher. That hypothesis drives the study from start to finish. It determines the study's research design, methodology, data collection tools, data analysis methods, and so on. If conducted soundly and professionally, the study will yield results which are reliable (same results every time the study is done) and valid (the findings answer and apply to the hypothesis/question at hand). If I conduct a study whose methods cannot be followed or whose results cannot be replicated, I have contributed nothing to the field. I say all of that to make this point--you or I can go searching for studies which support a belief. If you reference a study which you say supports your belief but which cannot be duplicated and/or replicated, then your belief is still just a belief. The same is true of the flip side. Professional research doesnt yield opinions or beliefs, it yields verifiable facts which anyone who conducts the same study can reproduce. We are not even close to reaching that objective criteria with regards to definitively proving whether one's sexual orientation is a function of genetics, of experience, or an interaction of the two.
One thing to watch out for in the next few years. Research is driven by the $$$'s which fund it. You will see fields of research which are given high priority due to the funding being made available now and in the near future:
1. the sexual orientation question
2. neuroscience and brain research
3. earlier childhood education (early childhood education as we know it today was advanced on the basis of shoddy, misapplied research which is another topic for another time).
who all wore dresses (LOL) and were exceptionally HOT that day. Took my last class with psych professor Jacobs (married with two kids). He and I were the only ones wearing jeans. He gave a smiling dress-down (pun intended) to the rest of the class.
