Haven't read every part yet but in skimming under Part 1/Challenging the "Born that Way" Hypothesis, I find a hiccup in the following paragraph:
"The most commonly accepted view in popular discourse we mentioned above — the “born that way” notion that homosexuality and heterosexuality are biologically innate or the product of very early developmental factors — has led many non-specialists to think that homosexuality or heterosexuality is in any given person unchangeable and determined entirely apart from choices, behaviors, life experiences, and social contexts. However, as the following discussion of the relevant scientific literature shows, this is not a view that is well-supported by research."
Notice that they use the word "unchangeable" and then state " this is not a view that is well-supported by research." So in double speak they are saying that research indicates that sexual orientation can be changed/determined, by "choices, behaviors, life experiences, and social contexts."
If they didn't have an agenda why did they need to address changing? Is it their point that if sexual orientation can be influenced/changed once it can be changed again?
I'll continue reading but the skeptic radar will be working overtime.
"The most commonly accepted view in popular discourse we mentioned above — the “born that way” notion that homosexuality and heterosexuality are biologically innate or the product of very early developmental factors — has led many non-specialists to think that homosexuality or heterosexuality is in any given person unchangeable and determined entirely apart from choices, behaviors, life experiences, and social contexts. However, as the following discussion of the relevant scientific literature shows, this is not a view that is well-supported by research."
Notice that they use the word "unchangeable" and then state " this is not a view that is well-supported by research." So in double speak they are saying that research indicates that sexual orientation can be changed/determined, by "choices, behaviors, life experiences, and social contexts."
If they didn't have an agenda why did they need to address changing? Is it their point that if sexual orientation can be influenced/changed once it can be changed again?
I'll continue reading but the skeptic radar will be working overtime.
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem.
