You are right for being concerned about the policing of free speech by interest groups. What your friend doesn’t understand is that the pendulum is constantly swinging. A few scientific discoveries from now society could completely rethink it’s position and end up going too far the other way.

Whatever the outcome its better that everyone is heard. At least then the only people who are angry and bitter are the crazies, not half of middle America who feel looked down on.

You are right in part of what you say and I do apologize for offending you by my comment about the science. I must also clarify for you that I am not from the US and when I say media hype I look back here in Canada when the culture war over same-sex marriage was at it peak in this country. There was little open or honest discussion on this debate allowed.

Anyone that tried to stand against the power of the governing body of the time was shut down through ridicule and chastizement. How does this allow for all voices to be heard? I did go to many of the original articles on the gay gene and I found that the authors often said something quite different than what the media reported and yet that is the source that so many people seem to rely on for their understanding of science. In this country it was often the public media not the religious right that had the reporting mixed up. That is the part I have trouble with.

In many ways I should be thankful to you for your position because it has clarrified for me my own position and why I had such distain for the approach used up here not that long ago. I do not wish any ill upon anyone so I will leave it at that.

“but what I have seen in much of the science is more media hype than science and as a scientist I have a responsibility to challenge that.”

Now this has me scratching my head…. sure the media has reported on the research and sometimes a story is written concerning the totality of it. Other times there have been some debate about the efficacy and purpose of the research in the media; such as when some gay activists got all hot under the collar against the Oregon sheep study.

I fail to see how this reportage is hype when you can go to the original scientific article (and I have attempted to locate those when available on the Net). But sometimes a newspaper article is all one can access at the time. [In my gay mind] hype was more in keeping with the way Jones & Yarhouse came to present their study in a book form at a recent conference of persons amenable to their viewpoint.

Moreover, to be gay is simply newsworthy these days. I’m not sure who made it so, but I think what most of us lump as the “anti-gay side” is the cause. I remember after the Supreme Court issued its finding in the case of Lawrence v. Texas that the “family” organizations immediately started their rumblings [aka clamoring for contributions] over “gay marriage” and how homosexuals were going to destroy civilization which has continued to this day. So if the media coverage seems like hype, I think you only have the real anti-gay side to blame for for the most recent spate of it this century.

I’m not saying that there aren’t gay people who grew up with distant parents – But in the group of people that I do know (and you’re right Concerned, I should have said it like this :)), the number of straight people with distant parents equals the number of gay people with distant parents. Add to this discussion the fact that we often don’t seem to know when the parents actually distanced themselves or why, and it just becomes a weak case for supporting the distant-parent causal theory for homosexuality. Maybe no one was trying to make this case, but I got the sense that perhaps we were headed in that direction – my apologies if I was wrong!