Series posted by Michael Kline (MKLINE@VDH), early 1993.

Understanding Homosexuality and Experiencing Genuine Change. John Ankerberg / Barry Pintar Show 4, Part 1

Maks Dr. Ankerberg interviews Dr. LeVay who did the study of homo- sexual brains. He admits that there is no proof that homosexuals are born that way.

John: Welcome. In the past weeks we've listened to men and women who all of their lives were homosexually oriented. Yet one day, they came to understand what homosexuality is, turned away from it and experienced real change. But in spite of the fact that these and many other people have changed, one myth about homosexuality continues to circulate in our country.

This myth is "People are born gay, therefore it's impossible for any- one to change." Now this myth is supposedly based on two scientific studies. The first being the study on the differences in the hypo- thalamus region of the brain of homosexuals. And the second, the study on identical twins.

The cover of Newsweek magazine asks: "Is this Child Gay? Born or Bred: The Origins of Homosexuality."(Feb 24, 1992) Time magazine entitled their article: "Are Gay Men Born That Way?" Now almost 100% of the news- paper and magazine articles that were written suggested that the brain research done by Dr. Simon LeVay at the Salk Institute was scientific evidence that homosexuality had been found both biological and genetic in nature.

But this just wasn't true. As you'll hear in my interview with Dr. LeVay, he admits that neither he nor any other scientist has found scientific evidence proving that homosexuality is genetically caused.

Now what was his study all about? Well Dr. LeVay studied a certain group of neurons in the hypo-thalamus structure of the brain, called INAH 3 or Intersticial Nuclei of the Anterior Hypothalamus(sp). Now he studied 41 people who had died, 19 of whom were homosexual men, 16 of whom where assumed to be heterosexual men, and 6 of whom were assumed to be heterosexual women. Here's what he found:

He found that some of the neurons in the Hypothalamus region of the brain, of the heterosexual men, were twice as large as those he found in the homosexual men. He therefore theorized that if homosexual men had smaller neurons, then possibly these smaller neurons were responsible for causing these men to be homosexual. Likewise, if heterosexual men had larger neurons then possibly these larger neurons made them heterosexual. And he thought if this could be shown to be true, 100% of the time, then this would be pretty good evidence that homosexuality was biologically based.

But this was not the case. There are at least 10 scientific reasons that discredit his theory, and PROVE it's not true. We only have time to examine 3 of those reasons, but I believe they'll be enough to persuade you why this area of science has not proven homosexuality is biologically based.

Now first, according to Dr. LeVay's own chart in his own study, the size of the neurons that he found in the hypothalamus region of the brain of different men, did NOT match the sexual orientation of each of the men that he classified. For example, if you examined Dr. LeVay's chart which was reproduced in Science Magazine, you will realize that he found that 3 of the 19 homosexual men actually had larger neurons than did the heterosexual men. This shouldn't have been if his theory was true. And what's worse, he found that 3 of the heterosexual had smaller neurons then did the homosexual men. But why is this important?

Because it's evidence that 6 out of the 35 male subjects he investi- gated, contradicted his theory. And then, despite of the fact that he found neurons that were large when they should have been small, and small when they should have been large...

Here's what the Associated Press reported: They said that Dr. LeVay had ALWAYS FOUND that the neurons were larger in heterosexual men and smaller in homosexual men. That SIMPLY WASN'T TRUE! When I asked Dr. LeVay about the Associated Press' report, he said their report was wrong.

Why was it wrong? Because instead of finding a consistent pattern in the size of the neurons, correlating this homosexual and heterosexual orientation, he had actually discovered that the size of the neurons had overlapped between heterosexual and homosexual men. I want you to lis- ten:

John: In your recently published study of the brains of 41 cadavers, you stated 19 were from homosexual males, 16 were from presumedly heter- osexual males, and 6 were from heterosexual females. First question, was the Associated Press correct in stating that your conclusion drawn from the evidence of these brains was that the cluster of neurons known as INAH 3 was ALWAYS larger for heterosexual males than the other specimens?

Dr. Simon LeVay, Salk Institute, CA - No, there was some overlap between the various groups. On average it was smaller in the gay men and in women than in the heterosexual men, but there was overlap.

John: Now, on the basis of what you just heard, I asked Dr. LeVay if his own research destroyed the validity of his theory that homosexuality is genetically determined. In this next clip, you'll hear him admit that he did NOT find a perfect relationship of the type that he had hypothes- ized, that is some of the evidence he found, contradicted his theory. Listen:

Now in the chart that was reproduced in Science, okay? Isn't it true that in your chart, that 3 out of the 19 homosexuals had a larger INAH 3 than the mean size for heterosexuals?

Dr. LeVay - One of those 3 in fact was bi-sexual, but the other two, yes, that's correct.

John: And isn't it true that the third smallest INAH example belonged to a heterosexual?

Dr. LeVay - That could be, I don't remember.

John: Now in terms of the scientific validity of the theory, is what people are asking, if INAH3 is always supposed to be smaller than the INAH3 of heterosexuals, then according to the theory, 3 of the hetero- sexuals should have been homosexuals, and 3 of the homosexuals should have been heterosexuals?

Dr. LeVay - Right. So if there was a perfect relationship of the type I had hypothicized, that would be correct, yes.

John: Now listen, if Dr. LeVay himself admits that he did not find a perfect relationship that he had hypothesized, then how can those of the secular press continue to say that science has PROVEN that homosexuality is biologically or genetically based?

The second scientific reason why Dr. LeVay's theory is wrong, is that nobody has proven that the Hypothalamus region of the brain actually has anything to do with sexual orientation in the first place. In general, scientists believe that this area of the brain has SOMETHING to do with our emotions. But the majority of scientists do not believe that it has to do with CAUSING a person to be a homosexual or a heterosexual. Dr. LeVay himself admits this.

Dr. Levay: Now whether it's involved specifically in this issue of sexual orientation, that's a much more if-ie question we don't know the answer to that. In someway it's connected with sex, I think that's pretty sure.

John: Now if scientists admit that they do not know what the hypoth- alamus does, then assigning a meaning is to the size of the neurons that reside there is just idle speculation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------- Understanding Homosexuality and Experiencing Genuine Change. John Ankerberg / Barry Pintar Show 4, Part 2

John: Now if scientists admit that they do not know what the hypoth- alamus does, then assigning a meaning is to the size of the neurons that reside there is just idle speculation.

Dr. Joe Nicolosi specializes in working with male homosexuals. He's appeared on several network news magazine television programs, including 20/20, and his book, "Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality" has gained him world wide respect as an authority in same sex attractions. Here's what he said when I asked if Dr. LeVay's study was scientific proof that homosexuality was genetically determined.

Dr. Joe Nicolosi: When the LeVay study first came out, the press presented it as if it was an absolute study, an absolute findings, that would distinguish biologically homosexual verses heterosexual and that certainly is not the case.

There are many variables that were NOT presented by the press. LeVay is putting a lot of emphasis on the fact that this nucleus is directly related to sexual behavior, when in fact, we are FAR FROM knowing that for certain.

We're talking about a general area of the brain, that has to do with emotions, including sexuality, but this particular nucleus we have no clear understanding of what function it serves, at this point.

John: Next, Dr. Charles Socarides, is clinical Professor of Psy- chiatry at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City. I also asked him if he thought that the neurons in the Hypothalamus region of the brain dictated whether a person would turn out to be homosexual or heterosexual? This is what he said.

Dr. Charles Socretes: This theory, I believe, is completely erro- neous. There is no possibility of somebody developed homosexuality from hereditary or organic causes. I believe that Dr. LeVay's findings have to be repeated. I mean the question of minute section of the brain, sub microscopic almost, as being deciding sexual object choice is really pre- posterous. But as far as we know, although the homosexual may have endocrine or hormonal difficulties, just like any heterosexual, these are not the cause of the disorder. We now believe we have found the cause of the disorder, and it's strictly developmental.

John: Dr. Ben Kaufman is a psychiatrist and a psychoanalyst as well as a Professor of psychiatry at the University of California. He believes that the hypothalamus region of the brain plays a PART in our emotions, but categorically states it has NOTHING to do with a persons sexual orientation. Listen.

Dr. Ben Kaufman: We're talking about the paleo-cortex. We're talking about parts of the brain that have to do with the most fundamental func- tions, having to do with aggression. You can say just as much about aggression that perhaps some of these people who he calls one thing, homosexual for example, are known for their aggressive behavior. He has no data what so ever behaviorally, to support the conclusions that he's trying to throw. In other words, he's trying for more conclusions that will be a salve, to support the idea of victim, of victimization of people who chose to be homosexual, or choose a homosexual lifestyle. It is a matter of choice and it's not a matter of genetics.

John: Finally, there's a third scientific reason why Dr. Levay's theory is wrong. Now Dr. Joseph Nicolosi has written articles about how behavior affects the brain.

Dr. Nicolosi: I think the most serious criticism and the deepest flaw of LeVay's study is that he fails to address a cause/effect rela- tionship. Okay? And everyone's assuming that the nuclei difference deter- mines sexual behavior, but in fact these men lived the gay lifestyle for about 20 years. Okay, these were adults. Okay? And there's the very strong possibility that homosexual behavior causes a neurological change. Okay?

In fact, LeVay became interested in this area of research because he was originally concerned how visual perception alters neurological struc- ture, how by looking at something and by doing something, you actually create a biological change, a neurological change. Okay?

So even if his studies is 100%, in terms of 100% correlation, it still does not address the cause/effect relationship.

John: Joe Dallas has been our guest in the studio in these past weeks. He's a (... qualifications deleted ...). I asked Joe to summarize the evidence concerning whether or not people are born gay and whether or Dr. LeVay's study proves that homosexuality is genetically determined.

Joe: When discussing the studies that came out of the Salk Institute back in 1991, let's keep in mind that Dr. Simon LeVay, who did the research, has said himself that his studies do NOT conclusively prove that homosexuality is genetically determined.

In fact he is on record saying his studies do *NOT* establish cause and effect. So in spite of the fact that the media has taken the studies and promoted them to us as "Proof Positive" that people are born gay, the reality is that even according to the researchers themselves, these studies have NOT proven that homosexuality is genetically or biologically determined. Now, let's look at the studies themselves.

First of all there is the question of research bias. Now I know it is very difficult to find anybody completely biased, one way or the other, or completely unbiased on the subject of homosexuality. But the fact remains that Dr. LeVay is on record as saying that he set out to prove a genetic cause for homosexuality after his lover's death. Dr. LeVay is openly gay, and said IF HE DID NOT FIND SUCH A CAUSE, HE MIGHT ABANDON SCIENCE ALL TOGETHER. He studied the cadavers of men and women who he assumes to be either homosexual or heterosexual, and found that a certain cluster of brain cells in the hypothalamus were larger in the allegedly heterosexual men than they were in the allegedly homosexual men and the allegedly heterosexual women.

First of all it's not known how effectively you can measure that por- tion of the hypothalamus. It is not know whether or not the yardstick LeVay used is the correct one, or whether it should be measured by den- sity. It is not known exactly what impact that portion of the hypothalu- mus, the INAH has on the direction of sexual attractions.

It is not known, conclusively what the sexual orientation of his studies were. Some were alleged to have been homosexual, others may have been bisexual, others may have been homosexual, yet passed themselves off as heterosexual, we simply don't know.

We also don't know what other factors may have lead to the differ- ences in the sizes of the INAH. For example you could postulate accor- ding to Dr. Kenneth Clivington who works with Dr. LeVay at the Salk Institute that homosexual behavior itself actually affects the size of the INAH, not visa versa. We know that certain activities such as reading braille, or working on problems through a maze, will actually affect in some way, brain size. Could homosexual behavior somehow impact a part of the brain? That's entirely possible. There's no way to prove cause and effect which came first, the chicken or the egg.

There might be at least a little more weight to these studies if the scientific community was universally in agreement with their supposi- tions. The fact is the scientific community is not in agreement with them. Dr. Anfasto Sterling, a professor of Brown University, upon hearing about these studies said, right off the bat, and I quote, "My freshman biology students know enough to sink this studies." She went on to berate the studies as being politically motivated, and very badly interpreted genetics.

Dr. Richard McNamara, of the National Institute of Mental Health said, "Well these studies are very interesting, but it's going to take a lot more to convince us that they establish cause and effect.

And, Dr. TeCheco, who is openly gay, and is a Professor at San Fran- cisco State University and is the editor of the Journal of Homosexuality, still contends that homosexuality is NOT an inborn condition and that indeed is more environmentally induced that genetically or biologically induced. So the scientific community, both pro-gay and conservative is not in uniform agreement with the conclusion that Simon LeVay's research has proved that homosexuality is genetically induced.

I believe we have the media to thank for the assumption in so many people's minds that some study has come out proving that people are born gay. In fact, no such study has ever come out.

------------------------------------------------------------------------- Understanding Homosexuality and Experiencing Genuine Change. John Ankerberg / Barry Pintar Show 4, Part 3

John: Now we're going to examine the second scientific study that the media uses to propagate the myth that homosexuality is genetically deter- mined. In 1991, Dr. J. Michael Bailey, and Dr. Richard C. Polard, studied the prevalence of homosexuality among twins and adopted brothers. Here's what they found.

They found that 52% of Identical Twins, 22% of Fraternal Twins, 11% of Adopted Brothers, and 9% of Non-Twin Brothers were homosexual. Now Bailey and Polard theorized that the reason that there was such a high percentage of homosexuality among identical twins, as compared to the rest of the brothers was because of their special genetic make up. But, their own statistics showed their theory couldn't be true. Why?

Half of the identical twin brothers were not homosexual. That is, one brother was homosexual, and the other brother wasn't. And what they found was, this other brother was EXTREMELY heterosexual. Well how could this be if both brothers shared the same genes?

Then keep in mind that the subjects for this study were ALL GATHERED THROUGH HOMOSEXUAL PUBLICATIONS which cater exclusively to the homosexual population. Just on that basis, do you think the study represented a randomized non-biased selection? Well there are other scientific reasons why this theory isn't true, and I'd like you to hear the experts tell some of those reasons.

Joe Dallas: Now we've been told for months now, the printed word, the media, that studies have shown conclusively that homosexuality is genetic in origin. That people are born gay. That it's an unchangeable condition, and it should be accepted, and there fore just as skin color, or left- handedness are accepted as different, but entirely normal. Now we know by the admission of some of the people who've conducted these studies, such as Dr. Simon LeVay, Pillard, Bailey who did studies on twins, that these studies are not conclusive.

You know the scientists themselves have admitted that. They've admitted on record that their studies do not determine cause and effect.

Joe Nicolosi: I myself have reviewed all the literature, including LeVay's study, and I certainly don't believe and I don't think any scien- tists really believe that there is a biological predetermination for sex- ual orientation. There's much more evidence, for early environmental fac- tors that would set the stage for a person's sexual orientation.

Dr. Charles: This theory, I believe, is completely erroneous. There's no possibility of somebody developing homosexuality from hereditary or organic causes. It's just impossible.

John: All right, Joe, I'm going to give you the last word on this. I'd like you to respond why you've concluded that the study on identical twins does NOT demonstrate that homosexuality is genetically determined.

Joe: Simply because if homosexuality is genetically determined, iden- tical twins should always share the same sexual orientation. The verdict is in on this evidence, John. Even pro-gay researchers are admitting that there has never been conclusive proof showing homosexuality is in born, there is overwhelming evidence that there are environmental factors that play into it.

John: After hearing all of this, what can we conclude? First of all, we can conclude that there is NO scientific evidence that supports the popular myth that homosexuality is genetically determined. People are not born gay. And second we can conclude that for those struggling with homosexual feelings, it is possible to change.

In fact the goal of this series of programs has been to help you understand what homosexuality is, and show you how to change. As we close our program today, I'd like to thank emmey award winner, Barry Pintar, for giving us permission to use excerpts from his new documentary, "Understanding Homosexuality and the Reality of Change." (800-333-6475, Impact Resources Corp.; PO Box 1169; Murrieta, CA 92564)

Now next week's we shall examine the arguments that the homosexual lobby has made against the Biblical passages which condemn homosexuality. Some homosexual writers say that the Bible does not condemn loving homo- sexual relationships. I hope that you'll join us for this very interest- ing program.