The “Trojan Couch”

Page 11

they are supposed to support. Moreover, almost one out of every nine of the references from the Romer table of authorities consist of the same detail -less Gonsiorek review monograph that forms a major foundation of the Lawrence brief. I will focus on two points. The first is the high val ue the authors give to a 1994 landmark study, The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States (hereafter, “Laumann”), but whose results they misrepresent. 17 The second is the value the authors give, somewhat less visibly, to the work of Alfred Kinsey, and to a cluster of less well -known individuals in the field of sex research more or less closely associated with him and/or his ideas: John Money, Wardell Pomeroy, Paul Gebhard, John De Cecco, and Richard Green. These researchers have been engaged in a thirty-year process of using the mental health guilds to subvert fundamental societal standards. In particular, many have a long history of advocating the casting aside on principle—that same principle by which homosexuality was origin ally removed from the DSM— traditional restrictions not only on homosexuality, but on pedophilia, sado-masochism, incest, and bestiality. Study No 1: The Laumann Study The Laumann study, written by Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, and Stuart Michaels and published by the University of Chicago Press, was based on a survey of a statistically representative sample of American adults between the ages of 18 and 60, and conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Ch icago. The Romer brief refers to it two-thirds as many times as it does Gonsiorek, deems it “renowned,” and cites its data—albeit in a most peculiar fashion, carefully avoiding quoting it. Laumann is universally recognized as definitive. Since its publicat ion, numerous large-scale epidemiologic surveys, conducted in all the English-speaking and many other industrialized nations, have repeatedly confirmed and strengthened its findings. One of the major points of the Laumann study, which the authors themselves did not expect, is that “homosexuality” as a fixed trait scarcely even seems to exist.18 “[E]stimating a single number for the prevalence of homosexuality is a futile exercise,” Laumann declares in the first paragraph of an entire chapter devoted to the s ubject. It is futile not because of bias, underreporting, methodological difficulties, or complexities of behavior, but “because it presupposes assumptions that are patently false: that homosexuality is a uniform attribute across individuals, that it is st able over time, and that it can be easily measured.” 19 All the evidence points to the fact that homosexuality is not a “stable trait.” Furthermore, the authors found to their surprise that its instability over the course of life was one -directional: declining, and very significantly so. Homosexuality tended spontaneously to “convert” into heterosexuality as a cohort of individuals aged, and this was true for both men and women —the pull of the normative, as it were. So striking and unexpected was this finding that it led researchers all over the world in subsequent years to see if it was really true. Their research involved hundreds of thousands of people and strongly confirmed Laumann. Most of that work had been completed, published, and discussed extensively in the scientific literature long before the Lawrence brief experts began their writing, yet they fail to mention any of it. In fact, they claim the scientific literature supports the opposite finding. After making a welter of complex statements about “s exual orientation” admixed with a large number of references and footnotes that appear to sustain each of the individual statements, the authors claim that “sexual orientation” or “identity” is well -defined

Footnotes: 17 Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael and Stuart Michaels, The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States Chicago: University of Chicago (1994). 18 Laumann EO, Michael RT, Gagnon JH, A politi cal history of the national sex survey of adults . Fam Plann Perspect. 1994 Jan-Feb;26(1):34-8. 19 Laumann et. al., The Laumann Study, Chapter 8, p. 283