nancyh:

The loose use of the term "junk science" is a pet peeve of mine. It is frequently used to describe science "that does not conform to my ideology," or science with political/ethical implications. Here are some of the hallmarks of junk science. Some of the objective signs of junk science are as follows:

1) Lack of a control group or comparison condition

2) The methods of investigation are not clearly described or reproducable

3) Claims are not falsifiable (why even though I believe in God, it is clearly impossible to incorporate His influence in to my science).

4) Processes sound scientific (e.g., homeopathy), but do not correspond to known biological/natural processes.

This is a short list of what are considered the "warning signs" of junk science. Exactly which of these criteria do you think the study in question violates?

Furthermore, the stated purpose of Saleton's forum is not to merely report science, but to explore the moral and ethical implications of research.

As others have noted, I don't think Saleton's arguments in any way reflect his views of homosexuality so much as he is attempting to refute the non-scientific beliefs of a VERY vocal minority.

Your point about bisexuality is to a point valid. This study does not acknowledge the complexity of sexuality. But, a single study can NEVER explore all levels of complexity of any phenomenon. That is why science is a PROCESS-we work toward the truth. We never claim to have achieved it.

well, some branches of science are questionable no matter how carefully scientific the research being done is. for instance: "is the shroud of turin authentic?" "finding noah's ark", "is intelligence related to race?" etc. the bias comes in the formulation of the question to be answered in the first place; if you didn't already have at least a half-belief in the shroud in the first place, you wouldn't target it as something to be investigated.

whereas, focusing more on genetics, if you just want to be on the cutting edge of real science, you aren't going to focus on things like intelligence or homosexuality, we're nowhere near any kind of understanding the complex chain that leads from an alteration in DNA sequence to what kind of person you're attracted to. you'd focus on something where what you're measuring is more reliable related to what you're trying to characterize; something like what genes affect number of nose hairs or some such.

as is obvious, the environment is hugely important in influencing sexuality; the behavior you're studying isn't really a simple yes/no variable (how do you class men who are attracted to "mannish" women vs those attracted to "womenly" women, men who are attracted to manly men vs womenly men, men who adopt female characteristics vs those who maintain manly characteristics but are attracted to those who have female characteristics, men who have sexual relationships exclusively with women but their relationships are never satisfactory and shrinks say it's because they're repressed homosexuals, [gentle souls may avert their eyes here] men who like women but prefer women to anally penetrate them with a strap on, etc.?)

sure, there's probably several genetic components which can be correlated with homosexuality. for instance, those which have been identified as leading to antisocial behavior and resulting in a higher frequency of incarceration, will therefore be found to be associated with a higher frequency of homosexuality. but nobody sane is going to call that a gene for homosexuality. to get to the kind of tightly linked chain of cause/effect that most folks expect for this kind of claim will require much more understanding of the chain of cause/effect between DNA sequence and behavior than we now possess.