One of the more incredible beliefs of the Christian right is that homosexuality is “curable” – gays can pray themselves straight. In the nature vs. nurture debate, for them it’s nurture all the way.
Their evidence is only testimonial, of course, just a man’s statement of the saving grace of prayer against the incredulity of the natural world.
On nature’s side is scientific data. These days, there are international peer-reviewed journals that deal with sex differences, including homosexuality, quite openly. They address the nature-nurture question as though it can be tested and resolved, scientifically.
As part of my work as an independent scholar, I have looked at the literature on male-female differences. Some of those studies address the straight- gay issue directly. As a result, there is mounting evidence that, in some revealing ways, gay males are significantly more like straight women than they are like straight men.
During my research, I came across a study that, for me, comes down on nature’s side like feet on grapes. However, to reveal my discovery, I had to answer the question: Is it ethical to “out” a gay man without his permission? What if he’s been dead for 50 years?
These days, outing someone like former Gov. James McGreevey of New Jersey has considerable political ramifications, but so far it has not been life-threatening. Fifty years ago, however, it was different. In 1952, Alan Turing, the brilliant British mathematician, computer innovator and cryptographer, was “found out,” lost his security clearance, and subsequently killed himself.
But surely not today. That’s why I feel comfortable, in the interests of science and nature, in providing a glimpse of scientific evidence supporting the fact that gay men are more like straight women than they are straight men. It comes from an important 1957 article by Leo Hurvich and Dorothea James in the journal Psychological Review. The article is celebrated for confirming the “opponent-color” process in human vision.
Included in the article is a graph comparing sensitivity to various colors (or wavelengths) of light. This is another way of testing differences between males and females.
The graph compares the response patterns of Hurvich (“H”) and his wife, Jameson (“J”), with two others, “W” and “T.” On the blue end of the visible spectrum, the response curves for W and H are quite different from those for J and T.
H and apparently W were straight men. J was a woman, married to H.
Considering the similar, presumably female, shape of the J and T curves, and their difference from the known male H and W curves, was T male or female? The original 1952 research article didn’t say, identifying T only as Dr. L.T. Thomson.
To find out the gender of T, I made a trans-Atlantic call to W – Professor William D. Wright, one of Europe’s leading vision researchers from the first third of the 20th century. He was old, retired and squeaky-voiced. I introduced myself, then mentioned that I was trying to find out the identity of T.
When I said the name Thomson, Wright gasped and said, distraught, “Oh, Tommy! He died a tragic death!” Considering the distress in his voice, I did not pursue it.
Was Thomson’s “tragic death” like Turing’s? T was male, so was he gay? The Hurvich and Jameson graph suggests he was, considering the similar shape of the T and J curves.
But back in 1957, homosexuality was socially taboo. Hurvich and Jameson wrote about the graph only that it represented too limited a sample to extrapolate generally. Therefore they would use the accepted international standard measurements. Unfortunately, measurements for those so-called international standards had included few, if any, female subjects.
Why, if the graph was theoretically meaningless, did Hurvich and Jameson publish it? I think the graph was published precisely so other scientists could infer what I had, some 50 years later, without having to overtly state the obvious: In terms of blue light, homosexual men respond like straight women, not straight men. This meant that T was probably gay, and born to stay that way.
Unless, of course, you believe that prayer can change the natural development of neuro-physiological processes in human vision, starting in the womb. That seems unlikely.
I do believe that prayer can be redemptive, can change some things – but that’s mostly psychological, the “heart.” Let’s not confuse that with the medical, like coronary occlusions. Let’s keep them separate, like church and state.
Like faith and facts.
Nature, not nurture.
Stephen Terence Gould is an independent scholar in Denver.
