Focus on the Family Responds

So I finally got an email back from Focus on the Family on the 7th. It was long and kind of round-about. I'll try to sum it up as best I can.

They started off saying, "Permit us to respond in an equally straightforward fashion." Sounds good, right? The email is nowhere near straightforward.

The next paragraph starts off with them saying that they found my blog and read it and that I must have not read multiple articles on their website because I didn't mention all of them in my blog post. Really? That's kind of a cheap shot. Then they went on to say that if I had really read other articles, I would have seen that they examined a lot of different studies. (Remember, I wasn't concerned with the studies they were refuting, I was concerned that they didn't bring up studies to support their side.)

So then they talk about how in the 90s there was a big rush of scientists trying to find some answer as to where homosexuality comes from, pointing out that most of the studies were focusing on genetics and other ways it could be inborn. They did acknowledge that it's true nobody really knows that much about it.

But then they went on to tell me that none of that really matters because they look at it from a religious view.

We believe in the biblical doctrine of the fall of man, and we take the view that sexuality is just one of the areas of human life affected by the fall.  In one way or another, everybody struggles with sexuality and relationships.  Everybody needs God’s help to live according to His principles.  In other words, we see homosexual lust and homosexual behavior as manifestations of human sin.  And as in the case of every other sin, we believe that the only sure remedy is confession and repentance – turning back to God.

Then they gave me some recommendations for reading on the topic. "If you’d like to go deeper, we highly recommend  Dr. Jeffrey Satinover’s book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth.  This resource is available through the ministry of Focus on the Family and can by ordered from our Online Store." And then they go on to suggest some other writings about the possible origins of homosexuality. Namely, the links they provide are all on their side of the fence. Seriously, they gave me a link to NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality).

Finally, they attached "part of a booklet on male homosexuality that’s in the process of being rewritten by Jeff Johnston, a member of [their] staff." Guess which part they attached? The part about gay marriage. Rather than sticking with their biblical views in this section, though, they pulled in ideas about marriage from anthropologists to legitimize their bigotry. In fact, they said that since most definitions of marriage brought forth by those promoting marriage equality are as simple as two people making a life-long commitment to each other based on love, you could argue that some people are married to their employees. Cheap shot, guys. Cheap shot.

Anyways, that ends my saga with Focus on the Family for now.

My Letter to Focus on the Family

So, ever the ridiculous person I am, I decided to send an email to Focus on the Family. Why? It's a funny story actually.

In a google search to find an old article I remembered from a magazine I read in high school, I ended up on their website (they owned the magazine, Brio and Beyond, at the time of publication). That article linked to a number of other articles on homosexuality. One of them talked about their views on the origin of homosexuality.

The whole article took the stance that if homosexuality was inborn it would have a genetic marker, which is not the actual position of current researchers. They cited 3 studies which attempted to provide such evidence but either came up short or were faulty in some way (some were found difficult to replicate). Their conclusion seemed to be that since there was no evidence for a "gay gene," it must mean that their position of it being due to environmental factors must be the correct position. And then they failed to provide evidence to prove that environmental factors were the cause of homosexuality.

I, of course, found this to be faulty logic. First of all, bring up all the potential reasons for something to be inborn (some studies suggest perinatal hormones as a cause). Second of all, the lack of evidence for your opponent IS NOT evidence for your position. So I decided to inform them of their faulty logic along with a peer-reviewed journal article which basically says there's not enough evidence for anyone to claim anything as far as the causes of homosexuality. Being that it's a well-written peer-reviewed journal article, it came to this conclusion after compiling findings from a number of major studies into a large array of possible causes.

So here for all to read is my letter to Focus on the Family. I will report later on whether or not they choose to acknowledge any of this.

A number of your articles about homosexuality attack the view that it can be an inborn trait. It seems that your whole case against that view is based on the fact that they haven't found a "gay gene." While it's true that they haven't found a genetic marker directly linked to homosexuality, it is not the only possible cause for something to be inborn. Another possible link is perinatal hormones, which would explain why identical twins do not share the same sexual orientation 100% of the time. Though there has not been conclusive evidence for a biological origin, there has also not been conclusive evidence for an outside influence as the cause. I think it would be unfair to jump to conclusions, just as you say your opponents have.

An article written in the North American Journal of Psychology titled "Can Anyone Tell Me Why I'm Gay? What Research Suggests Regarding the Origin of Sexual Orientation" (published 2010, in Volume 12, issue 2), compiles the results and research of a number of studies into the origins of homosexuality. The article (which can be found at http://f04cat01.ohlone.edu:2060/login?url=http://f04cat01.ohlone.edu:2053/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pbh&AN=50614011&site=ehost-live) comes to the conclusion that there is no data to show conclusively what the cause of sexual orientation may be. In fact, the author, William J. Jenkins, expresses concern that environmental factors such as parenting styles and cultural influences have not been studied near enough.

I hope that you will understand that stating a definite cause, regardless of which side you're on, can be dangerous if you don't have the evidence to back it up. As I didn't see any studies cited in your own articles that conclusively prove your view, I must assume that you are simply trying to distract people from your lack of evidence by pointing out the faulty evidence of your opponents. And while others may find this a fine strategy for debate, I would hope that you would be above that.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this issue. If you have trouble finding the article, or if the link provided does not work, I am willing to send a PDF copy of the article to an email address provided.

God Bless,
[name removed for privacy]

Also, if any of you would like a PDF copy of the article, just let me know.

[EDIT: You can view the article here as well.]