Palenty is right, science of being born gay isn’t absolute.   Think Progress  (That George SorosPlace), who’s about to lose it’s tax exempt status goes after Palenty for having the NERVE tosuggest that the liberal science of “Born Gay, that’s a fact jack!” isn’t conclusive.

“In fact, there is no dispute among health professionals. All major medical professionalorganizations agree that sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be changed, from gay tostraight or otherwise. The American Psychological Association, the world’s largest association ofpsychological professionals, describes sexual orientation as “a complex interaction ofenvironmental, cognitive and biological factors.” There is considerable evidence to suggest thatbiology, “including genetic or inborn hormonal factors,” plays a significant role in a person’ssexuality. Pawlenty’s comments underscore the reality that promoting ex-gay therapy and the ideathat homosexuality can be changed or denied (which it cannot) are at the root of all anti-gayperspectives. “

Which is crap of the first order.  I know for a fact that many, many behavioral scientists who don’tbuy the “born gay” position.

First a little history.  The whole born gay concept was literally hatched from Dr. Simon LeVay in1991 in his Hypothalamus Study.  Ryan Sorba speaks a lot on the subject of “born gay” with moreknowledge of the subject than most.  I’ll quote from his writing.

“First we will examine the “Hypothalamus Study,” conducted in 1991 by Dr. Simon LeVay, who worked atthe Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California. The study analyzed sizedifferences in the anterior hypothalamus of the brains of cadavers. LeVay publicized the study, inan attempt to convince the public that men that develop sexual desires for other men do so becauseof the size of the hypothalamus in the brain. LeVay, it should be noted, had strong personal andpolitical reasons to pursue research in this area. LeVay engaged in same-gender sex himself, andlost his partner to AIDS. Further, according to a Newsweek cover story in 1992, he stated: “. . . ifI didn’t find anything, I would give up a scientific career altogether” (Gelman et al., 1992). LeVayalso seemed to understand the impact that his study would have on society. “It’s important toeducate society. I think this issue does affect religious and legal attitudes.” The Advocate, ahomosexual magazine, asked LeVay if he thought “that grounding homosexuality in biology can help winpolitical equality.” LeVay responded: “All the civil rights legislation passed in the ’60s is basedon the knowledge that there is a genetic and immutable difference between blacks and whites. Ofcourse, blacks are still discriminated against, but the legal advances they’ve made are based onthose genetic differences. And I think that is a major stumbling block for our gaining the sameprotection as other groups. There is a survey in the New York Times that broke down people on thebasis of whether they thought gays and lesbians were born that way or whether it was a lifestylechoice. Across the board, those who thought gays and lesbians were born that way were more liberaland gay friendly.” LeVay’s manufactured hypothalamus study received widespread media attention andas a result catapulted the idea that some men are born “gay” into prominence. Although themisinformed still quote the study today as proof that men who have sex with men are born “gay,” it was actually discredited shortly after its release. The following are some of the study’s problems.First, LeVay compared the brains of 19 men who had sex with men and died of AIDS (which is known to ravage the brain) with the brains of 13 men whose sexual habits he did not know. It is therefore impossible to draw any conclusion from his study. Second, although LeVay argued that a small INAH3(hypothalamus) “caused” men to be “gay,” some of the men that, according to his guess work, had sex with men, had an INAH3 (hypothalamus) that was larger than the average size of the INAH3 of the“supposed” men who had sex with women. Furthermore, some of the men who had sex with women had anINAH3 that was smaller than those of the “supposed” men who had sex with men. So, some of his “gay”subjects should have been straight, and vice-versa. Third, the results of the Hypothalamus study arenot repeatable. Fourth, Simon LeVay himself, admitted that the study was inconclusive in 2001, “It’simportant to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find agenetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistakepeople make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.” (as quoted inByrd, et al., 2001, emp. added). Simon LeVay’s hypothalamus study confused the public. Hopefully the truth will finally set the record straight.”

In other words gay activists ran with the inconclusive findings shrieking “See?  We’re born this way!”.   But that’s not what LeVay found by his own admission.  In other words “junk science”.  But as it is with muchleftwing “junk science” it’s easily debunked by true scientific testing.   More on Sorba’s writing here, where he also goes over the debunked “Gay Gene” study as well.