1. HETEROSEXISM, DEFINITIONS, AND DISTINCTIONS

Heterosexism: A prejudiced attitude or discriminatory practices against homosexuals by heterosexuals. [Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition].

Prejudice: A preconceived judgment or opinion. [Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition].

A. Contrasting definitions of heterosexism

Professor Gagnon took strong exception to the word, "heterosexism," as we used it in our critique. The concept of heterosexism may be considered more of a scientific than a theological subject because it is derived from the non-biblical (scientific) word heterosexual. Therefore it may be included in the category of scientific subjects that Professor Gagnon addressed. The manner in which he addressed this concept typical of the methodology repeatedly displayed in both his book and in his web-response. Therefore his response about the concept of heterosexism deserves some detailed analysis.

In summary form, Professor Gagnon represented our meaning of heterosexism as a term that parallels the bigotry of a racist such that anyone who disagrees with our position is comparable to a bigoted racist engaging in a pastiche ad homonym attacks (italicized words are direct quotations).

In this composite of Professor Gagnon's definition of what he alleges we mean by heterosexism, he is defining his own meaning of heterosexism. This is done without reference to any outside or independent source, including the one we cited and used as the framework for our critique. [1, 55a] To grasp the full implications of Gagnon's substitute definition of heterosexism it should be compared directly with the definition that we provided in the introduction to our critique:

Heterosexism is a term that is used to characterize the ethics of some of those opposing equal rights for lesbians and gays. According to Patricia Jung and Ralph Smith, "Heterosexism is a reasoned system of bias regarding sexual orientation which denotes prejudice in favor of heterosexual people and connotes prejudice against bisexual and, especially homosexual people." This cognitive constellation of beliefs about homosexuality assumes a moral superiority of heterosexuality that gives heterosexual persons the authority to place all persons of non-heterosexual orientations in a subservient position.

It is not necessarily heterosexist to make negative judgments or criticisms of homosexuals. But it is heterosexist to misrepresent medical literature or a biblical text in a way which comparatively makes homosexuals appear worse and makes heterosexuals appear better than what the texts of documents say. We decided that the misuse of non-biblical sexuality distinctions should be documented in order to give better balance to the discussion before the church.

[The italicized segments are directly from Jung, P.B., and Smith, R.F. in Heterosexism: An Ethical Challenge (Albany: State University of New York Press, (1993).]

The following points about the Jung-Smith definition of heterosexism describe how it contrasts with the definition Gagnon used as a basis for his response to our critique:

1.  Heterosexism is an ethical "challenge" to resist for some persons, and an ethical "system" to use for others.

2.  Heterosexism is a "reasoned system" of a "cognitive constellation of beliefs." Therefore, designating a "system" or "stance" that matches the definition is not constitute an ad homonym attack on anyone who qualifies for this position or whose stance qualifies.

3.  Our definition assumes all persons may have some degree of heterosexism, but not all to the same degree, nor is it a "reasoned system of beliefs" accepted by all.

4.  Our definition is a "reasoned system...of cognitive beliefs," which is distinct from a stance based primarily on irrational and emotional feelings such as homophobia or bigotry. Homophobia and bigotry are primarily reflections of excessive negative feelings directed toward others; heterosexism is more like chauvinism in reflecting excessive infatuation with one's own group.

5.  Our definition was a part of a "system" where both others and we can be included in a "place" of severity. Gagnon's definition applies his definition only to others.

6.  Our definition never incorporated the word "bigot" in any of its forms, nor did we. Gagnon's definition makes heterosexism as synonym for bigotry that we could not find in any dictionary, glossary, or web site definition.

7.  Our definition was from an independent source, not our own creation for one critique. Gagnon's definition was his own creation without an identified source.

8.  Our own particular focus of heterosexism was on the misuse of non-biblical sexuality distinctions (homosexual, heterosexual, sexual orientation, pedophilia, etc). Gagnon equated our judgment of careless use of scientific distinctions by scientific standards as an allegation of bigotry.

We regard Professor Gagnon's response to a well-defined concept linked to his stance as unusual. He did not deny that his stance matched definition we quoted. However, he did not even acknowledge Jung and Smith's book even though it was cited in the introduction, conclusion, and other places in the critique. Their book was the first end note in the critique. Instead, in his response, Gagnon provided his own definition that essentially defined heterosexism as a synonym for bigotry to make a straw man out of our critique in order to make it into an ad homonym attack of bigotry. This was done even though neither our independent source nor we used the word bigot in any form linked to heterosexism. As a method, ignoring a given definition of terms and substituting one's own as a means of trying to defend a position violates minimum standards and does not seem to us to qualify as good scholarship. [1, 6, 8, 53]

On the other hand, Professor Gagnon's response is consistent in that it characterizes his disdain for definitions that help make important distinctions of meaning, especially when dealing with scientific subjects. Gagnon's response confirms our previous judgment about the way non-biblical scientific terms are often misused in church discussions in ways that cause ambiguity rather than clear understanding of the science involved. [27,28] When these methods are examined in the framework of the scientific method, definitions, and distinctions, they expose logical fallacies, false premises and non-sequiturs that would not work or be acceptable in any sound scientific context. Beyond this, however, such methods usually denigrate gays and lesbians more than is justified by the text. Gagnon's response to our critique provides dozens of examples of such unscientific methods that are documented in this review.

It might be argued that the above differences exist only because Professor Gagnon carelessly missed our definition or its source. This seems unlikely for several reasons. First, the concept of heterosexism is indicated in the title of our critique and this should trigger a search for definitions, meanings, or sources. Second, the stature of the Jung-Smith book is reflected by a number of things, including the fact that their definition of heterosexism was recognized in the 2000 edition of The Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry (Kaplan and Sadock, eds.) and the concept is listed on web site search lists. Third, one of us attended an ELCA conference where Professor Gagnon was the speaker and both his book, along with that of Jung and Smith (recommended by another speaker), were among seven books on the handout sheet of recommended reading material. Fourth, Jung and Smith's book was cited in the introduction, the body, and the conclusion of our critique and was the very first endnote in the list of references. Despite all this he never once mentioned Jung and Smith in his response.

Professor Gagnon could have employed several better options to object to the term of heterosexism as we applied it to some of his methods. First, he could have critiqued Jung and Smith's published concept as a way of undermining our use of it. Second, he could have found the concept of heterosexism valid but the term heterosexism unacceptable. Third, if Gagnon found the concept heterosexism as defined by Jung and Smith valid, but considers application of it to his stance inappropriate, he could have made this case. But astonishingly, as a Ph.D. professor of theology, he chose none of these other options.

We have never seen this method of responding to a primary definition by ignoring the provided definition and after the fact providing a different definition of one's own as a means of rebuttal. It begs for a credible explanation. One explanation could be to see Gagnon's response to our definition of heterosexism as good evidence that his "system" in fact matches Jung and Smith's "prophetic" description extremely well.

B. Criteria of heterosexist moralism (ethics)

It is also important to make note of the fact that the Jung-Smith definition of heterosexism also applies to Professor Gagnon's stance by a much broader range of criteria than that which we noted in our introduction to the critique. In view of Professor Gagnon's web response it is important to note some of the expanded meanings of heterosexism that apply well to Professor Gagnon.

Heterosexism is an abstract rational concept of prejudice with heterocentrism forming the "heart" of the system. Heterocentrism views heterosexuality as the normative form of human sexuality by which all other sexual orientations are judged. Jung and Smith relate these concepts to five different moral typologies that reflect common ways in which people think about homosexuality. Four of these five categories are graded in progression of severity of moral culpability designated by using biological analogies that are in moral terms relatively neutral. The first four categories are left-handedness, color-blindness, blindness, and alcoholism. These categories allow a starting point to which heterosexism is a usually added in varying degree from unintentional to intentional by heterosexual persons choosing that particular referent.

The fifth moral category has no morally neutral type referent because it views homosexuality essentially in morally negative terms. "Unlike the other four positions which are characterized by a specific moral analogy, no satisfactory, single analogy has emerged that highlights the significant elements of this position" (p. 22). This fact alone establishes how extreme this position is compared to the spectrum of other options from which homosexual persons may be judged. Therefore, this category is simply referred to as "immorality," and from it the most negative and critical judgments on homosexuality are made. Technically, Jung and Smith describe the immorality category is more heterocentrist than heterosexist is. However, the immorality category is heterosexist in implementation because "Heterosexism is a fully justified system of discrimination from this point of view." [p. 24]

All five of the above moral categories are described as viewed from the perspective of a homosexual person being judged by a heterosexual person. The judgment is that rendered for a homosexual person in a "just, loving, and faithful" homosexual union (not a person exhibiting rampant, reckless promiscuity). We argue that Professor Gagnon's ethical stance matches very well with the most extreme "immoralism" category that is most tightly linked with unabashed "heterocentrist – heterosexist - immoralism" discriminatory consequences.

Irrespective of the appropriateness of the term heterosexism, a very significant part of the formulation of Jung and Smith is how well it fits Gagnon's theological stance even though their book preceded his book by eight years. To establish the basis for our judgment that Professor Gagnon fits the description of one of the Jung-Smith moral categories, we have documented nine different subject categories in which features of the most heterosexist (immoralism) category match closely those of Gagnon's stance.

One example is:

Gender Complementarity

Jung-Smith. "They...conclude that homosexual love always falls short of the 'natural' because it cannot be expressed physically. They derive this conclusion from their view of the physical complementarity of heterosexual anatomy." [40]

Gagnon. "...the obvious complementarity of male and female witnesses to God's intent ...male and female are 'perfect fits' from the standpoint of divine design and blessing.... the complementarity...of the male penis and female vagina receptacle..." [62, 139; also 37, 40, 56, 139, 164, 169, 171, 255, 257, 258, 264, 57, 139, 291, 391, 395.

In the appendix we have cited quotations from Jung and Smith's book that are followed by very similar quotations from Professor Gagnon's book on all nine categories that match his stance. As in the example above, pages from both books where the quotations about the matching features are also indicated, along with additional pages of similar matching descriptions under the designated subject.

The complete list of the nine subjects with characteristic features of Heterosexist / Immorality ethics are:

 1. Gender Complementarity

 2. Procreation

 3. Evil Sexuality

 4. Original Sin

 5. Tough Love

 6. Special Biblical Hermeneutics

 7. Limited Sexuality Options

 8. Reorientation Therapy

 9. Discrimination against Homosexual Persons

The main purpose of listing and describing the nine categories with features of heterosexism that closely match those of Professor Gagnon's stance is to demonstrate that our judgment about the heterosexist characteristics of Gagnon's position was not our device constructed to cleverly label him as a bigot. None of these categories have anything to do with bigotry. We list these features not to make a judgment of better vs. worse categories here but to show that we place ourselves on the same page of Jung and Smith's book, but in a different category that helps portray how our stance differs from Professor Gagnon's. On page 23 of Jung and Smith's book, we judge Gagnon to be in category P-1; we are in category P-5.

It is important to note that according to Jung and Smith, heterosexism as a problem should not be construed as a liberal vs. conservative or traditional vs. reformed issue. "It is precisely seeing them without the lens of heterosexism that can eliminate the 'we'll accept them if they act like us' prejudice that undergirds so much of the liberal, yet still heterosexist, understanding of the issues." [p. 8) It is also important to understand that choosing a moral category with such a negative judgment that it justifies bias and overt discrimination is not in and of itself wrong. For example, this is appropriately done for convicted criminals or the severely mentally ill. What the above comparisons show is that Professor Gagnon fits a moral stance that judges homosexual persons to be in the most severely negative of five categories. This negative judgment in turn is used to justify many types of discrimination against homosexual persons. The important question is whether homosexuals deserve to be treated with similar "fully justified" methods of discrimination. Professor Gagnon's stance is at that end of the Jung-Smith spectrum.

This extreme negative categorization of homosexual persons is essentially what the most heterosexist designation means. It is important to also note again, that Jung and Smith distinguished heterosexism from homophobia and defined heterosexism as "a reasoned system" that all heterosexual persons likely have to some degree. Homophobia and bigotry are less rational and are characterized by excessive intolerance of another person or his or her group. Heterosexism is closer the chauvinism where the excessive focus is "undue partiality to one's own group." It is also our judgment that the "reasoned system of bias" is a "method" that some heterosexual persons regularly use to put the worst construction on homosexuality and to comparatively put the best construction on heterosexuality despite contrary evidence.

C. Distinctions and the scientific method

Professor Gagnon's method in dismissing the definition of heterosexism that we used is an excellent example of the loose manner in which he repeatedly deals with important distinctions of meaning in relating other non-biblical words to both scientific and biblical texts

A helpful way to show the contrast between Professor Gagnon's stance on the scientific dimensions of homosexuality and ours is to compare his "method" to some essentials in the scientific method. One definition of the scientific method is a discipline that deals with the principles and techniques of scientific inquiry. Science may be said to be largely a discipline about making, measuring, and utilizing distinctions in the natural world (biological, chemical, physical, etc.). This involves both realities that are different from what they appear to be and other realities that are more similar than they appear. Principles of method not only help make inquiry efficient and results valid, but they help distinguish good science from bad science and real science from pseudo-science (e.g., astronomy vs. astrology). Discipline in scientific method means consistency and integrity in method, which among other things requires consistent definitions to insure consistent distinctions of meaning and common understanding.

Without such discipline, research studies cannot be understandably reported, reliably replicated to prove their validity, used as a basis for constructing subsequent related studies, or effectively applied. When results are reported, whether for other scientists or for non-scientists and the general public, care is to be taken to "use language that does not invite unjustified extrapolation." Ethics manuals consider breach of these disciplines unjustified carelessness, if not unethical practices. In this broad sense, the scientific method obviously entails more than a series of observations, hypothesis, experiments, and results.

In dealing with science, Professor Gagnon demonstrates in the single subject of dealing with heterosexism that he has little or no appreciation for what methodological disciplines are expected in both discoursing and practicing science with integrity. For whatever reason, he operates almost in a different world. In this world, definitions can be tampered with or ignored, and other descriptions or neologisms substituted with impunity. These practices are part of what we meant in our definition of heterosexism when we referred to the need to document the frequent misuse of non-biblical distinctions in theological discussions of homosexuality. As we will show in the other subjects of this response to Gagnon's critique, a major problem with Professor Gagnon deals with the other scientific dimensions of homosexuality is his near disdain for scientific meanings, distinctions, and methods.

Professor Gagnon's book and his response repeatedly provide examples of overlapping logical fallacies, false premises, and non-sequiturs that are at odds with the scientific method. In what follows we have documented over fifty breaches of scientific discipline fall into three general categories: (1) improper use of definitions and distinctions; (2) misrepresentations involving what other scientists and what we reported; and (3) contradictions, inconsistencies, fallacies, and other flawed methods. His rule of thumb looks as if it is to always put the worst possible construction on any scientific information regarding homosexuality and to always put heterosexuality in the best possible light.

Our conclusion is that Professor Gagnon did not credibly refute our judgment that his stance is "is a reasoned system of bias regarding sexual orientation which denotes prejudice in favor of heterosexual people and connotes prejudice against bisexual and, especially homosexual people." A major weakness of his rebuttal is that he never engaged the concept represented by this description and instead focused on the label of heterosexism out of which he constructed a straw man as an easy means of a distracting rebuttal. As a consequence, however, in substance he provided no rebuttal at all.

Conclusions

Gagnon's theological -scientific stance incorporates many elements described by theologians Patricia Jung and Ralph Smith (Heterosexism: An Ethical Challenge ) that closely match those of the most heterosexist and otherwise most extreme of five moral categories that many heterosexual persons choose from to frame their judgments of homosexual persons. In this "immoralism" category, overt discrimination against homosexual persons is "fully justified" by a "reasoned system of bias." In our view this mix of theology and science carries risks that likely outweigh any alleged benefits to the spiritual, mental and physical health of most lesbian and gay persons. Professor Gagnon did not even attempt to refute our judgment that his stance fit the Jung-Smith definition and description. Instead, he focused on the label of heterosexism, which he re-defined as a synonym for bigotry that he then used as a straw man for an easy means of an ad homonym rebuttal. As a consequence, however, he provided no substantive rebuttal at all.

2. PSYCHOPATHOLOGY AND HOMOSEXUALITY

A. A "conclusion" about homosexual psychopathology

Professor Gagnon is an unabashed traditionalist on the homosexuality issue. In this context it should be easy to understand why certain sentences in his book jump out to most readers familiar with recent medical history regarding homosexuality. One such sentence is: "Two recent studies in the Archives of General Psychiatry 56 [1999] also support the conclusion that there is something pathological about homosexual orientation itself." Unless otherwise clarified, this sentence suggests two things: (a) the studies call into question the validity of the APA decision to declassify homosexuality as a disease; (b) Professor Gagnon believes that homosexuality should be considered inherently ("in itself") psychopathological.

In our critique we noted that Gagnon's own view appeared to be that "there was something pathological about homosexual orientation itself." We then noted that the authors reporting their studies, contrary to Gagnon's statement, did not conclude that that there was an inherent psychopathology in the subjects studied. The studies confirmed other studies that showed a predisposition to suicide is higher in homosexual persons than in heterosexual persons. Neither study concluded that the data supported or excluded any cause for this difference. [13, 50] In his web response Gagnon states: "Contrary to what Peterson and Hedlund charge, I do not claim that the authors . . . concluded that mental health problems were inherent in a homosexual orientation. I do not believe that myself." This rebuttal is in substance not consistent with the above statement from his book, even though the words are not exact. Therefore, Gagnon's statements require a more detailed review.

On pages 475-47 of The Bible and Homosexual Practice Gagnon writes:

Higher rates of substance abuse may be related to the same obsessive, compulsive, or addictive needs for self-soothing that made same-sex intercourse an appealing form of sexual expression in the first place. Higher rates of depression and suicide attempts are probably exacerbated by the inherent deficiencies of same-sex unions, and not societal opposition to such unions. These deficiencies include:...an obsessive centering on self...shame and guilt over one's abnormal and unnatural sexual practice...Two recent studies in the Archives of Psychiatry 56[1999] also support the conclusion that there is something pathological about homosexual orientation itself" (underlining added, "also" in this context meaning "in addition to" that just preceding).

Gagnon goes on to directly quote these sentences from the discussion in one of the journal articles:

"There does not appear to be a reduction in the [suicide rate for homosexuals] that one might expect given social change in recent years."

"In conclusion, reports of lifetime measures of suicidality are strongly associated with a same-gender sexual orientation. These effects cannot be explained by abuse of alcohol or other drugs, non-suicidal depressive symptoms, or the numerous unmeasured genetic and non-genetic familial factors." (Italics added)

The following points are noteworthy in unpacking these quotations from Gagnon's book.

1.  Professor Gagnon's statement about something pathological in homosexual orientation itself means the pathology is inherent in sexual orientation ("itself") and not consequent to something external to discovered and unintended desire. External factors could include something learned from experiences or acting on the desire. In other words Gagnon's primary statement was not that there was something pathological consequent to something learned.

2.  The statement about pathology in homosexual orientation itself was linked to the immediately preceding paragraphs by the word "also" that presented Gagnon's view of factors such as obsessive, compulsive, or addictive needs for self-soothing that were primary factors ("Needs...leading to... in the first place"). These primary factors in Gagnon's preceding description are thus logically linked with the articles, identifying them as supporting the "something" inherently pathological implicit in Gagnon's thesis.

3.  Gagnon asserts that the two studies in the Archives of General Psychiatry "also support" his implicit "conclusion" by their similar conclusion on suicidality in homosexual persons. Conclusion in this context means that which followed defining the question, describing methods, showing results, and discussing some implications.

4.  Contradicting himself, Gagnon then quotes the conclusion from one of the articles that states nothing about something inherently pathological in homosexual orientation. The conclusion of the other article was similar to the one quoted and also said nothing about inherent pathology. Gagnon also left out sentences just preceding and in the conclusion he quoted. These omitted sentences qualified the quote he used from the discussion and indicated that the study could not support or exclude any cause for the suicidal differences. [47]

5.  We could have, with equal justification to what Gagnon did, stated that the journal articles supported the conclusion that societal hostility was the cause of increased suicidality in homosexual persons. But the articles did not support this conclusion any more than they supported a conclusion of inherent pathology. Our criticism was not that the studies supported some other conclusion regarding the cause of suicidality differences. As stated in our introduction, we were primarily noting examples that supported evidence of "a reasoned system of bias..." that unjustly showed prejudice against homosexual persons.

The key words in Professor Gagnon's analysis of the Archives of General Psychiatry articles are conclusion, pathological, and sexual orientation itself. A conclusion in a scientific research study (as distinct from an editorial or review such as this) is not a suggestion, a possibility, a probability, a theory, a guess, a conjecture or a hypothesis. A conclusion is a definitive term that either changes a hypothesis into fact or leaves the hypothesis unconfirmed. The studies cited confirmed differences in suicidality (fact) but the data did not support any hypothesis about the cause of the difference in suicidality. All three of the above key words were in the first (topical) sentence in the first paragraph of a section in which Gagnon was interpreting two reports on suicidality studies and not just reporting them. In fact, in the preceding paragraph, Gagnon put his interpretation forward before reporting the substance of the articles that "also supported" his description. This also placed his interpretation and slant ahead of that of the researchers. Gagnon essentially stated his conclusion and selectively quoted from the articles in a manner that best supported his conclusion. [15]

The conclusion about pathological sexual orientation in Professor Gagnon's book could have two meanings: (a) Gagnon's judgment or (b) the end to which all scientific study reports point - in this case the two studies cited. However, both studies had conclusions which did not conclude, "there is something pathological about homosexual orientation itself" or anything close. In fact, as we pointed out in our critique, the editorial strongly admonished against anyone suggesting that the study supported any conclusion about the cause of homosexual suicidality. But Gagnon disregarded this admonition to interpret the data and discussions himself. Since the articles did not report such a conclusion, it is reasonable to conclude Gagnon was referring to his own conclusion, which he now says in his response he does not believe. [38]

B. Psychopathology and societal hostility

In formulating a rebuttal on his web site Professor Gagnon also twice shifts relationships of factors involved in the issue in an attempt to refute our criticism. In one case the relevant factors are suicidality, external societal hostility, and inherent pathology of sexual orientation. He writes: "Contrary to what Peterson and Hedlund claim, nowhere do I state that the authors of each of these studies concluded that there was an inherent psychopathology that had nothing to do with societal resistance to homosexual practice." But nowhere did we write that Gagnon stated the authors of these studies on suicidality concluded, "there was an inherent psychopathology that had nothing to do with societal resistance to homosexual practice." Therefore Gagnon's charge is false.

Contrary to what Gagnon asserts, the discussion was not about what was or was not the cause of "something pathological in sexual orientation itself" but the discussion is about what factors may or may not have been the cause of increased suicidality. Such causative factors could be external (e.g., societal hostility) or inherent factors (e.g. genetic inherent pathology) but we wrote nothing about anybody stating anything about societal hostility as a cause of the "something pathological in sexual orientation itself." Gagnon argues by shifting obfuscation: claiming we wrote something that we didn't and then claiming what we did not write (but he stated we did) is false. This is double misrepresentation. [20, 22, 55b]

In his web response Professor Gagnon accurately quotes the following sentence from our critique: Gagnon formulated his conclusion quoting only one of the multiple theories of possible cause discussed in the editorial. He then remarkably goes on to immediately but inaccurately quote the same sentence in a way that changes the meaning enabling him to charge us with false representation. He charges us with falsely stating that he quoted only one of the multiple theories of possible causes of suicidality. But in doing so he significantly left out the words Gagnon formulated his conclusion by quoting. We did not state that Gagnon omitted mention of other theories as he charges. Instead, we indicated that he selected one of the multiple theories of cause and elevated it above the others to the level of supporting a conclusion about inherent psychopathology. [19, 32]

Most casual readers, especially those who sympathize with his views, would not notice these rhetorical shifts. He sounds authoritative and he is clever, but some unpacking of his style discloses disingenuous rhetoric. Gagnon changes the meaning of the sentences to something that fits something he can rebut rather than sticking to accurate representation of what he said compared to accurately and consistently repeating what we wrote.

C. Inherent psychopathology vs. acquired pathology

Does Professor Gagnon think there is something pathological about homosexual orientation itself (not just practice) or doesn't he? Nowhere in the text of his book did Gagnon write, "I do not believe that myself" in reference to "something pathological about sexual orientation itself." Now that he states he does not believe this, does it mean he agrees that the 1973 decision to depathologize homosexuality was the right decision and homosexuality is not a pathological disorder? The rest of his book and his web response do not suggest this. If Gagnon's working biological premise about homosexuality is not a normal variant or a psychopathology, what is it? He wants to leave his biological premise vague. [38]

Consistent with preferring ambiguity between distinctions of inherent vs. acquired, and variant vs. pathological, Professor Gagnon tries to back away from the above statements in his book by linking the "something pathological" to such things as "inherent deficiencies in same-sex unions." This, of course, begs the question of distress that comes from self-realization of homosexual orientation itself before (a) any related intimate actions; (b) differences in distress related to promiscuity compared to committed relationships; and (c) comparisons of these stresses in homosexuals compared to heterosexuals related to society. Ambiguity about scientific distinctions serves a theological view better than consistency in search for truth and the best outcomes for homosexuals that science strives to achieve.

More to the point than much of the foregoing analysis, we would argue that most persons, after reading the section in Professor Gagnon's book about these journal articles, could reasonably come to or report the following summary. Professor Gagnon's review concluded that the higher rates of depression and suicide in homosexual persons are most likely due to something inherently pathological about homosexual orientation itself rather than due to societal hostility. This finding undermines the validity of APA's decision to remove homosexuality from the diagnostic list of psychopathologies.

We think that the above-italicized sentences would be a reasonable "passing on" of Gagnon's work even though it is a false rendering of the conclusions. As it is passed on, this interpretation may be used in more and different ways to harm homosexuals, including exaggeration. Thus Professor Gagnon actually demonstrates how his stance and writing may contribute to the problem of increased suicidality in homosexual persons. An editor of a science journal would likely judge Gagnon's work as "unjustified extrapolation" from another person's work" that is misleading. If so, this chain of denigration is begun by a significant misrepresentation of purported conclusions of scientific studies by a theologian. If the above italicized representation of what Gagnon wrote is unjustified extrapolation, it is because Gagnon allowed it rather than took care to prevent it. Professor Gagnon may insist this is not unethical if he wishes. We suggest others might disagree.

Conclusions

In his book, Professor Gagnon's stance seemed to assume something inherently pathological in homosexuality as judged by his misrepresentations of two studies published in the Archives of General Psychiatry studies, his own psychological descriptions of homosexuals that he linked to these articles, his endorsement of reparation therapy, and his linking of pathological pedophilia to homosexuality. These factors are consistent with an assumption on Gagnon's part that inherent pathology is a significant part of his biological hypothesis about homosexuality. However, when confronted with our interpretation of this premise, he seems to want to back away, leaving his biological peremise i the shifting sands of vagueness, uncertainty, and contradiction, denying that this is what he meant and misrepresenting what we wrote. Professor Gagnon's response in no way refuted our judgment that his failure to make an important distinction between speculative discussion and conclusions in the studies he cited made homosexuals appear more defective than the studies reported. We think all this evidences bias.

3. THE PROBLEM OF PEDOPHILIA

A. The APAs and pedophilia

There are few issues that stir the emotions of fear and moral indignation more than adult sexual molestation of children. It must be said that in addition to fixated (pathological) pedophiles both sexes and all sexual orientations have been documented to molest children. However, no single group has been singled out for blame on the basis of suspicion more than male homosexual persons. There is little question that tradition-oriented church theologians and leaders have had a part this stigmatization. A major question is whether this stance is valid as judged by the evidence or whether it is a stereotyping motivated by other factors.

Homosexual persons have not been the only ones fingered for blame. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has been implicated because of its declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder with insinuations that if the APA went this far, removing pathological pedophilia from the list of mental pathologies may also may be removed in the future. This even got so far as to have the suggestion inserted into the Congressional Record in 1999. As a result the APA issued the following position statements.

An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a criminal and immoral act which can never be considered normal or socially accepted behavior. Child psychiatrists and other child development experts maintain that children are incapable of offering informed consent to sex with an adult. Furthermore, since pedophilic acts harm the child, psychiatrists condemn publications or organizations which seek to promote or normalize sex between adults and children. When evaluating persons who may have pedophilia, psychiatrists apply three criteria spelled out in the DSM-IV. Whether or not all three are present, an individual who has a sexual encounter with a child has committed a crime. Psychiatrists nationwide support the federal and state statutes that define the criminality of any sexual act or molestation involving a child. The APA views children as a gift and responsibility to be protected from those who would harm them. Any views that would indicate that the APA has changed or "normalized" pedophilia are wholly inaccurate and are ignorant of the tireless efforts of our membership to protect victims of sexual predators.

This statement was reaffirmed in 2003 (see www.psych.org). A similar allegation was made in early 2006 by a Minnesota State legislator in the Minneapolis Tribune regarding the American Psychological Association. This prompted the following published response a couple days later from the national office of the American Psychological Association:

State [name, office] said in a Sunday Q and A that movements within the APA are attempting to decriminalize pedophilia. This statement is totally without merit. There are no movements within the APA to decriminalize pedophilia; in fact, our position is polar opposite to any such attempt. The APA strongly endorses the position that the sexual abuse of children is a criminal act that is reprehensible in any context. The association, through its national programs and the work of its members, devotes considerable time and resources to protecting children from being victimized by such abuse... We do not support the "normalization" or decriminalization of any form of sexual relations between adults and children. Such behavior must remain criminal and punishable to the fullest extent of the law.

B. Recruiting homosexuals into the fold

The above APA positions reflect their view that child molestation is a serious public health problem in which it is conservatively estimated that 7% of all boys and 15% of all girls are sexually molested - 95% of them by non-homosexuals. We reviewed the section on pedophilia in Professor Gagnon's book with this context in mind. Our criticism was directed primarily at the first (and "topical") sentence of his main section on pedophilia: A second negative effect of societal endorsement of homosexuality has to do with the problem of pedophilia and its role in 'recruiting' homosexuals into the fold. The context of this statement was set in the next paragraph with: Although the majority of homosexuals are not pedophiles and do not publicly promote pedophilia, the incidence of same-sex pedophilic activity is disproportionately high.

"Recruit" is to "seek to enroll." This means an active, intentional effort by individuals or a group, to increase the number of homosexuals persons by a means that is destructive, immoral and presumptively criminal. These serious allegations against adult-oriented homosexual persons was repeated by others in ELCA conferences and discussions that we attended. These charges against non-pedophilic homosexuals demand solid supporting evidence if they are not to be dismissed as unsubstantiated fear mongering.

In our critique we defined pedophilia and expanded the definitions in the section on pedophile. These definitions may be summarized as follows: (a) A very small percentage of all males have a pathological disorder of abnormal intention who, whenever possible, molest multiple children over an extended period of time with little or no concern for the well-being of their victims (pedophiles); (b) A small percentage of both adult-preferring heterosexuals and homosexual males rarely and usually regretfully molest children and if exposed have a good prognosis for never molesting again; (c) most male homosexuals and homosexuals do not molest children. Those in category (a) are grouped with other paraphilic conditions that are abnormalities of intention, including sexual sadism and incest, and are disorders which have increased rates of mental retardation, epilepsy and other abnormalities. These associated conditions are evidence that pedophilia is distinct from "ordinary" heterosexuals and homosexuals who only occasionally molest children. Professor Gagnon, on the other hand, provided no definitions of critical terms. [3]

Our major criticism of Professor Gagnon was that he supported his claims of "recruitment" and disproportionality by inappropriately conflating the above distinctions in a manner that unjustly denigrates homosexuals. [7b, 9] In his book he did this by citing studies on pedophiles as if they were referring to teleiophilic homosexuals and in the same or sequential sentences he transitioned from pedophilia to pedophilic activity of homosexuals almost as if they were one and the same. Gagnon referred to incidence reports of "same-sex touching" as if most or all were done by homosexual males, when most could have been perpetrated by heterosexual males. [33] Gagnon made no clear distinctions between diagnostic categories, including whether the subjects in the articles he cited were homosexuals or pedophiles. In his web response Gagnon defends this practice by asserting that our distinctions are too "mutually exclusive." [8]

But Gagnon is not consistent in how exclusive or non-exclusive his separation of pedophiles from non-pathological molesters is. In the section in his book on "The Problem of Pedophilia," Professor Gagnon conflates homosexuals with pedophiles. At another place he writes, "Pedophiles who are only stimulated by sexual encounters with children are required by the church (not to mention civil law) from carrying out their urges." The "only" in this sentence defines an exclusive distinction. In his web response he also refers to the "connecting links between homosexual pedophiles and homosexual teleiophiles" (two distinct groups) and states, "Nevertheless... significant and distinct types of homosexual and heterosexual pedophiles remain." These are statements that make sharp distinctions of the type he accuses us of improperly making. This inconsistency confirms our judgment about his anti-science (or pseudo-science) stance. [10, 32, 29. 45]

Our critique provoked a definition of sorts from Professor Gagnon: "A person attracted only or primarily to children of the same sex is by definition homosexual." He cited no sources for this statement, let alone a medical one. But by using the word "only," his statement establishes that the person he describes is, first and foremost, a homosexual pedophile and not a homosexual teleiophile. [5, 11, 36] Here again he validates our judgment rather than refutes it.

The way Professor Gagnon deals with the subject of pedophilia suggests that he just doesn't "get it" when it comes to understanding the clinical and legal importance of diagnostic distinctions, especially in distinguishing persons with a good prognosis from those with a bad. Or he has a double standard for homosexual vs. heterosexual offenders. Diagnostic criteria for pedophilia are not only to help restrict and confine the most pathological offenders but to protect the rare molester with a good prognosis from excessive and disabling punishment. Some heterosexuals and homosexuals are simply "wired' such that "other things being equal" they would never sexually molest a child. But if the right combination of rare opportunity and personal circumstances comes along they may have one minor "slip" that if exposed would never happen again. Gagnon may want to paint all homosexuals with the same brush.

Professor Gagnon draws the APAs into the argument against definitions and distinctions by attempting to make them appear more political than scientific:

That the two APAs (Psychiatric and Psychological) no longer classify homosexuality as such in their official literature is not surprising in view of the grip homosexual advocacy groups have on each organization.

The idea that "homosexuals" and "pedophiles" are mutually exclusive groups is just "smoke and mirrors" by psychiatric and psychological associations concerned to protect the image of homosexual persons. [52]

These two statements clearly place Professor Gagnon outside of and against consensus science as it applies to homosexuality. They likewise makes his stance clearly identified and aligned with the organized minority dissident science of homosexuality as described in our critique.

C. Proportionality half-truths

Professor Gagnon's statement that although the majority of homosexuals are not pedophiles and do not publicly promote pedophilia, the incidence of same-sex pedophilic activity is disproportionately high is intended to be a negative reflection on homosexual men. However, it is remarkable for only stating something that "goes without saying" while also being very telling without Gagnon stating it.

1.   First, in this sentence Professor Gagnon is referring to adult-preferring homosexuals that are scientifically distinguished from pedophiles. This requires criteria to make the distinction but Gagnon provides no criteria while otherwise disparaging medical criteria we cited. This is inconsistent. [48] Furthermore, the disproportionality data are from studies on pedophiles extrapolated to adult preferring (teleiophilic) homosexual men (see below in section E). [14]

2.  Second, in the above sentence from his book Gagnon specifies not just pedophilic activity but "same-sex" pedophilic activity that is disproportionate to some other group. Although not specified in his book, by implication the undesignated comparative group is adult preferring heterosexuals. The provocation of our critique clarified this to be the case in his web response. This is implicit acknowledgement that adult-preferring male heterosexuals engage in same-sex child molestation. However, Gagnon never substantively addresses this dimension of child molestation. [9, 51] 

3.  Third, the foregoing points establish that Gagnon is here stating what any informed person would know to be patently obvious: homosexual men proportionately molest more boys than the proportion of heterosexual men who molest boys. Would anyone expect heterosexual men to engage in "same-sex" pedophilic activity in the same or greater proportions than homosexual men? This is like stating that the incidence of committed adult same-sex relationships is proportionately higher in homosexuals thann in heterosexuals. By not referring explicitly to specific numbers or proportions of child sexual molestation Gagnon creates a perception that all child molestation by homosexual men is significantly worse than that by heterosexual men. This is guilt by suggestive innuendo, not by proof or even proportionate logical reasoning considering all the facts. [31]

4.  Fourth, making the above statement complete with the proportionality reference to heterosexual men exposes the obvious heterosexual parallel: Although most heterosexual men are not pedophiles, the incidence of opposite-sex pedophilic activity by heterosexuals is disproportionately high to that of homosexuals (99+: 1). Opening the door to this subject would put what Gagnon wants to say about child molestation in the "total numbers" perspective that he seems to want to avoid and make it clear that homosexual molestation is essentially all same-sex while heterosexual men molest both sexes.

Stated otherwise, heterosexual men proportionately engage in same-sex child molestation more than homosexual men engage in opposite-sex child molestation. This means that when both sexes of molested children and both sexual orientations of male teleiophilic molesters are considered, heterosexual non-pedophiles may proportionately molest as many or more children than homosexuals and the total numbers of children molested by heterosexuals would exceed that of homosexuals by at least 10:1 These proportions help explain why the proportion of children molested that are girls is not over 95% (most estimates and reports are that 70-80% of children molested are girls). Gagnon shows selective bias in focusing on one type of proportion outside the context of the whole. Discussing the whole problem of child molestation would expose the dominant heterosexual role. [9, 31]

5.  Fifth, Gagnon supported these allegations with reference to a study on pedophiles (Freund and Watson) without making the distinction between pedophiles and homosexuals clear. [7b, 14, 15, 35]

6.  Sixth, Gagnon supported the above statements by citing reports of adult-child "touching" that were 22% same-sex. He did this without indicating that reasonable approximations using the above proportions would divide the 22% same-sex such that at least 80% of the same-sex sex molesters (17% of the 22%) would be heterosexual males (given their 97:3 population edge). The rest of the molesters would be divided between homosexuals and boy-preferring pedophiles. And this still leaves the remaining 78% opposite sex episodes of "touching" also done by heterosexuals. Adding all these numbers up would result in 95% of all child molesters being heterosexual (78% + 17%). These are the "total numbers Gagnon wants to avoid by discussing only "proportions." This exposes his "reasoned system of bias." [30, 60]

All six of these above points are evidence of significant anti-gay bias in the manner that Gagnon selectively deals with the subject of pedophilia and non-pedophile child molestation. It takes the above six points to adequately disclose how deceptive and persuasive half-truths can be if not examined critically. It seems fair to suppose that almost all those readers sympathetic with Professor Gagnon's stance on homosexuality read this one sentence in its context and carried it away as representing the "gospel truth" about homosexuals constituting the major part of the problem. It could leave some readers with the impression that homosexuals represent 90% of the child molestation problem. Indeed, we have heard and seen similar versions of this sentence in ELCA conferences and publications. As such, whether intended or not, we view such allegations as represent egregious smears of all homosexual persons.

The fact that Professor Gagnon avoids relevant definitions also confirms our judgment that he prefers vagueness and over clarity in discussing the science related to homosexuality. Not providing up front important relevant definitions makes inconsistencies and half-truths less obvious. It is also more difficult to persuade by innuendo if one must consistently follow the meanings of declared definitions. [3, 27, 36] Professor Gagnon's unsound argumentation is also demonstrated by his sarcastic and inaccurate paraphrase of our definitions:

A person attracted only or primarily to children of the same sex is by definition homosexual...It is a semantic slight of hand and pure sophistry to define a homosexual person [male?] as one who has a primary attraction to adult males, as Peterson and Hedlund do, and then to proclaim proudly that we have discovered that homosexual persons, so defined, do not do much molesting of children. If, with Peterson and Hedlund, a pedophile is defined as a person who shows 'little, if any, erotic interest in adults' and a 'homosexual' as a person who shows little, if any, erotic interest in children, then by definition, no homosexual can be a pedophile and few homosexuals will ever engage in a pedophilic act. Voila!" [23, 55c]

Since Professor Gagnon wants to construct this egregious "straw man" as an example of our sophistry, it is appropriate to examine several of his paragraphs in which he attempts to explain his rationale for the claim that homosexuals disproportionately engage in pedophilic activity.

D. False paraphrase sophistry

In a paragraph immediately following the foregoing block quotation, Professor Gagnon writes:

This sophistry [of Peterson and Hedlund] is, in fact, a fatal flaw of a study that claimed to show that homosexual persons have as little sexual interest in children as heterosexuals: ... Using a phallometric test...Freund et al. found that "homosexual males who preferred physically mature partners responded no more to male children than heterosexual males who preferred physically mature partners responded to female children." However, the study did not evaluate whether homosexual persons of all types had a higher incidence of attraction to prepubescent children than heterosexual persons do. In other words, it screened out homosexual and heterosexual persons who did not experience primary attraction to children before testing for attraction to children (that is testing men who "preferred physically mature partners - italics added). Note that "In other words" introduces a paraphrase. [18, 29, 48]

The methods section of the Freund report includes the following:

Two groups of [male] paid volunteers, one gynephilic [heterosexual], the other androphilic [homosexual], and a group of (gynephilic) sex offenders against physically mature females (without any offenses against minors) were selected by computer program from the data bank of phallometric test results of the sexology department of a psychiatric teaching hospital. . . Those among the gynephilic volunteers and the sex offenders against women whose test outcome was interpreted (by computer program) as indicating androphilia were excluded from the study, as were androphilic volunteers who were erroneously diagnosed as gynephiles. (Summarized, the only exclusions in addition to pedophiles were persons whose self-professed sexual orientations were not confirmed by subsequent testing).

Before commenting on Professor Gagnon's description of the Freund, et. al., study, it is important to briefly describe the Freund study. The study was designed to comparatively test male adult-preferring heterosexuals (gynephilic) and homosexuals (androphilic) for erotic responses to children using phallometry (penile response to and auditory and nude visual stimuli). The stimuli were of three types: adults of both sexes, children of both sexes, and neutral (such as landscapes). Thus the subjects were not only tested for erotic response to children but also for whether or not they were in fact heterosexual or homosexual. Not all volunteers matched their self-description and those that were discordant were therefore excluded.

Similar studies to the one cited above have been done on clinically diagnosed pedophiles in which, by definition, adult –preferring persons who did not meet the diagnostic criteria of pedophilia were excluded. The opposite was the case in the above study: pedophiles, by definition were excluded. Such exclusions are necessary for validity. If this were not done, the results could be criticized as possibly "contaminated" with subjects not in the group the studies were designed to test. Professor Gagnon accepts the studies on pedophiles by the same research group (Freund, Watson, Blanchard, et. al.), but rejects this study on non-pedophiles. We did not specifically cite these studies in our critique but noted that Gagnon had "made pedophilia appear to be a substratum of an inherent pathology of homosexuality by inappropriately conflating diagnostic distinctions and citing medical sources on pedophilia" (note 227, p. 480). [28]

The above study is relevant to Gagnon's statement already cited: Although the majority of homosexuals are not pedophiles and do not publicly promote pedophilia, the incidence of same-sex pedophilic activity is disproportionately high. (p. 479). Note that in this statement Gagnon distinguishes pedophiles from homosexuals and then implicates homosexuals (non-pedophiles) in "same-sex pedophilic activity" that is disproportionately high compared to heterosexual men.

Against this background, the following important points should be noted:

1.  Professor Gagnon's web response to our allegation was to cite the above Freund study as having the same "fatal flaw" that was evident in our thinking. Gagnon's description of the flaw in the Freund study was paraphrased as, "In other words, it screened out homosexual and heterosexual persons who did not experience primary attraction to children before testing for attraction to children." The italicized words are the equivalent of screening out persons whose primary attraction was to adults. This would mean that all those in the category intended for study (adult preferring heterosexual and homosexual men) would have been screened out. This makes no logical sense because all those designated as subjects for the study would have been screened out – the ultimate "fatal flaw." [46] Anyone reading this with any knowledge of clinical studies would immediately recognize that something is wrong. Indeed, we checked the article and Gagnon's representation is false. [13]

2.  One could suspect a typological mistake such that the word "not' should not have been in the above sentence. But this also makes no scientific sense. By definition, the study on adult-preferring persons had to screen out pedophiles because a randomly distributed number of pedophiles mixed in with a study of teleiophiles would invalidate (by "contamination") the study. Gagnon simply does not seem to understand the basic science of clinical research.

3.  The following are reasonable observations about Gagnon's representation of the Freund study:

a.  Gagnon misrepresented the Freund study with a false paraphrase. His "in other words," was in no way an accurate restatement of the text with different phrasing. It was a different statement. [29]

b.  What Gagnon cited as an example of a "fatal flaw" and "sophistry" was in fact essential to the construct validity of the study. Thus Gagnon implicated his own logical analysis as demonstrating sophistry with the "flaw" in his reasoning. What is a "flaw' depends on the point of perspective and Gagnon's is derived from experience with dissident scientists and reading from minority dissident science. [18, 2, 49]

c.  Gagnon is inconsistent. Without showing valid reasons, he accepts a research group's findings on pedophiles and makes them a central point in his pedophilia stance but rejects another study by false representation of its methods. This was a study in which the conclusions do not support his construct. [60]

The following comments are in response to Gagnon's sarcastic "straw man" representation of our fatal flaw" distinctions in the first of the above block paragraph quotations, which begins, "A person attracted only or ..." .

1.  In the first sentence Gagnon describes a pedophile and then claims the person is homosexual (which by our definition means an adult-preferring preferring person) simply because of the "same-sex" attraction. In this he again proves our point of how he prefers to conflate the distinctions when he wants to denigrate homosexuals but accepts the distinctions when he thinks he can fit a study into his scheme. [11]

2.  We never stated that homosexual persons "do not do much molesting of children" as Gagnon alleges. [23] We wrote that a small and similar proportion of both non-pedophile heterosexuals and heterosexuals molest children but because heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by over 25:1 (Gagnon says 33:1) in this category there are many more heterosexual molesters and many more children molested by heterosexuals than by homosexuals. Gagnon's use of the term "much molesting" without specifying what "much" is again proves our point about Gagnon's preference for ambiguity rather than specificity. Ambiguity facilitates comparative denigration of homosexuals more than specificity would allow. [31]

E. Logical fallacies of disproportionality

What is patently obvious from even a cursory examination of Professor Gagnon's response to our criticism of only two or three sentences about pedophilic activity of male homosexual is that we struck a raw nerve. His response on male same-sex pedophilic activity totals about ninety paragraphs, which is testimony to the important part child molestation occupies in his view of homosexuality. It is also obvious that in Gagnon's formulation, pathological pedophilia has an important relationship to same-sex child molestation by non-pathological (teleiophilic) homosexual males. This entire construct is rife with specious faults that are difficult to simply explain. However, Gagnon provides a helpful summary paragraph of six sentences that can serve as an outline for our analysis. First, however, some background information is important to understanding the faults in Gagnon's formulation.

A cornerstone for Professor Gagnon's "disproportionality" argument about homosexual teleiophiles is taken from research on sex preference of pedophiles by Freund, Watson, Blanchard, et. al. (see bibliography). The results of these studies included the finding that 25-30% of "pure pedophiles" prefer boys and 70-75% prefer girls. These articles generated some scientific discussion about the fact that the percentage of same-sex preference in male pedophiles (25-30%) is about eight times the percentage of same-sex preference for males whose erotic preference is for adults (3-4%). These discussions are speculations without any consensus conclusions. It should be noted that we heard Gagnon's construct before we wrote our critique from an admirer of his who even gave us copies of one of the relevant studies.

In his web response, Professor Gagnon starts his lengthy defense of his pedophile proportionality argument with (a) "the ratio of true heterosexual pedophiles to true homosexual pedophiles," referring to the above studies by Freund et. al. This is followed by over twenty paragraphs on related speculations such as: (b) "the extent to which homosexual development results in pedophilia" ; (c) "the question of etiology" (cause of pedophilia); (d) "connecting links between pedophilia and teleiophilia" (implications of birth order); (e) a "continuity" (spectrum) between teleiophiles and pedophiles; and (f) the "real issue" as disproportionately high rates of homosexual pedophilia rather than "total numbers." He does not indicate whether by "homosexual pedophilia" he is referring to boy preferring pedophiles, boy molestation by adult-preferring homosexuals, or both. [3]

Professor Gagnon then explains how all this fits together in with the following paragraph (the numbering is added to facilitate discussion and analysis).

(1) The real issue has to do with rates/percentages and proportionality within the groups "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals." (2) I refer in my book to disproportionately high rates of homosexual pedophilia, not to "total numbers." (3) As we have argued above, the proportion of persons with a homosexual erotic development who become pedophiles or who engage in pedophilic activity is far higher than the proportion of persons with a heterosexual development. (4) Otherwise stated: Homosexual development results in homosexual pedophilia substantially more often as a percentage of the total number than heterosexual development results in heterosexual pedophilia. (5) Otherwise stated: The rate of homosexual attraction among pedophiles is significantly higher than the rate of heterosexual attraction. (6) Still otherwise stated: The percentage of homosexual men who are ""teleiophilic" (oriented exclusively or primarily to adults), while significantly greater than the percentage of homosexual men who are pedophilic, is nonetheless substantially less than the percentage of heterosexual men who are teleiophilic and not pedophilic.

The first two sentences of this paragraph are an introduction to what follows. The first sentence is true in defining the "real issue" of his "proportionality" assertion about "pedophilic activity" in homosexuals if it is assumed that "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals" in this sentence refer only to adult-preferring (teleiophilic) men. But it cannot be assumed that this is what Gagnon means and the rest of the paragraph indicates that this is in fact not what he means. We have divided the faulty elements in the above paragraph into the following topics:

1.   First: Conflation of categories of pedophiles and teleiophiles. In one paragraph about the "real issue" of child molestation by adult-preferring homosexuals, Gagnon employs the these different forms of the word "pedophile": "pedophiles," "pedophilic [activity], and "pedophilia." Without specifying any distinctions and by changing terminology Gagnon is here conflating boy-preferring pedophiles with adult preferring homosexual males whose rare child molestation would qualify them as engaging in "pedophilic activity," but not as pedophiles. There is already a shift in terminology in the second sentence in that Gagnon now refers to "homosexual pedophilia" where homosexual is the adjective and pedophilia is the noun. The conflation of pedophilia and teleiophilia is explicit in the transition from sentences 4 and 5 five (pedophilia) to sentence 6 (teleiophilia). [7a, 9, 28, 32, 34]

2.   Second: Extrapolation of data from studies on male pedophile molestation of children of both sexes to hypothetical conclusions of male teleiophile molestation of only boys. Since the important study on pedophiles speaks to molestation of both boys and girls, to be objective (and fair), any implications for teleiophiles should include both same-sex and opposite-sex child-molestation. But Gagnon did not do this, which again stigmatizes homosexuals at the expense of exonerating heterosexuals. Gagnon ignored the facts that heterosexuals molest both boys and girls, and homosexual teleiophiles essentially molest only boys (the latter fact partially accounts for the fact that the proportion of children molested that are girls is only about 75% rather than 95% of all children molested). [14, 32, 34]

3.   Third. Conflation of developmental theory with fact. Sentences three and four refer to "persons with a homosexual (vs. heterosexual) development who become pedophiles" as if it is proven that child preference did not develop before sex preference or there was concomitant development of both. Gagnon does not quote any source for proof of his statements on development of homosexual persons and pedophiles. In fact, in another paragraph he quotes an article titled "in search of a developmental model for pedophilia," indicating a "search" in which the proof has not been found. One theory is selected which allows conflating it with studies on pedophiles and from them making some logical and mathematical deductions. [54]

4.   Fourth. Misrepresentation. Sentences three, four and five are all about sex preference in pedophiles derived from the Freund, et. al., studies, but by sentence five Gagnon has changed the findings from (a) male same-sex preference in pedophiles as proportionately higher than same-sex preference in homosexual teleiophiles to (b) male same-sex preference in pedophiles as higher than opposite-sex ("heterosexual") attraction. 25-30% same-sex ("homosexual") is not "significantly higher" than 70-75% opposite-sex ("heterosexual"). As it stands, sentence five is literally false in the way it misrepresented the Freund et. al. research data. [13] Nevertheless, for the rest of our analysis the 25-30% same-sex pedophile numbers will be used to demonstrate how these percentages are used to falsely support assertions about disproportionately high pedophilic activity by adult-preferring male homosexuals. [13]

5.   Fifth. Selective inconsistency. As noted previously (3-D), Gagnon rejected studies by Freund, et. al. comparing child molestation incidence by heterosexuals vs. homosexuals because of a "fatal flaw" in exclusion criteria (excluding pedophiles) but he did not reject the same group's studies on pedophiles because they excluded teleiophiles. [40, 42] The obvious difference is that he thought the one study could be useful and the other contradicted his stance. Beyond this, Gagnon's basic stance is that biology (genetics) has a small role in the cause of homosexuality compared to after-birth factors and choice. However, where the Freund group's studies found some birth order similarities between homosexuality and pedophilia, Gagnon was quick to cite this as a possible "connecting link." But one's birth order relative to siblings is something no one has control of and the most credible theory of a possible mechanism is an immune sensitization of the Y (male) chromosome. This would be, of course, a genetic mechanism so it is not surprising that Gagnon does not mention the Y chromosome theory among all his others. [46b]

6.   Sixth. Sophist or specious reasoning (having a false look of truth or authenticity). As outlined in Professor Gagnon's above paragraph, his method starts by taking all men, both teleiophiles and pedophiles, and dividing them between those with predominant opposite-sex (heterosexual) and same-sex (homosexual) preference. This is a mixing (conflation) of two groups (teleiophiles and pedophiles), which he then labels "groups of heterosexuals and homosexuals" (sentence 1) without identifying the mix of adult and child –preference groups in each major "group" [28] He then reasons that because pedophiles have a higher proportion of men who prefer same-sex children (boys) than the proportion of adult-preferring homosexual males who prefer adult men, it follows that in the total (conflated) same-sex preferring group the proportion preferring boys is "significantly," "substantially," or "far" "higher" than the proportion of heterosexuals who prefer boys (no mention of girls). It inversely follows in Gagnon's construct that the proportion of adult-preferring homosexuals who do not molest children is less than the proportion of adult-preferring heterosexuals who do not molest children (sentence 6). There are three major fallacies in this construct.

a)    The first flaw is that the "truth" from Gagnon's use of pedophile proportions to make homosexual teleiophiles appear proportionately worse than heterosexuals is in a comparison of conflated groups that does not, however, change the "real issue" sub-groups. The mathematical difference in proportions of the conflated groups proves nothing about comparing the two sub-groups of teleiophiles (the "real issue"). The "real issue" (teleiophile) numbers are those arbitrarily entered (which may be different) but these are unaffected by the "disproportionate" pedophile numbers entered. This makes Gagnon's last sentence (6) in his summary paragraph a false conclusion.

The simplest way to describe Gagnon's logic is as follows: If A+B=C (persons with opposite-sex preference) and D+E=F (persons with same-sex preference), with A and D representing teleiophiles and B and E representing pedophiles (whose numbers are different as in sentence 5 properly understood), this will make C and F different. This classification of adult males is shown in Table 1. It is important to note that when Gagnon uses the word homosexual in comparing proportions involving these groups, he sometimes designates only category D (in his book and rebuttal), sometimes category E and sometimes category F (in his rebuttal explanation). This method of using a mix of ambiguous designations and mathematical proportions is typical of substandard dissident "science." [57]

Table 2 uses the classification in Table 1 with approximate numbers added to each category in a population of 100,000 adult males. The numbers are hypothetical only to demonstrate the mathematics of conflation and are not assumed to be a precise representation of proportions. Note that in Table 2 the teleiophilic proportions entered for boy molestation by homosexuals are the same as for heterosexuals to make it simpler to see the effect of adding pedophile number proportions. This does not imply that the proportions are in reality equal.

* The "opposite-sex" or heterosexual total, which is the "real issue" of Professor Gagnon's assertion assertion in his book, The Bible and Homosexual practice, page 479.
** 25% of pedophiles estimated to prefer boys
*** Demonstrates how Gagnon's assertion that the percentage of "homosexual" men who are teleiophilic can by conflation be given an appearance of being "substantially" less than "heterosexual" men whereas for the "real issue" (*) there may be little difference, even when considering only boys. Moreover, since heterosexual men molest many more girls than boys, if girl molesters are added to the numbers the "real issue" proportions for all molesters may be tipped in the opposite direction even if the teleiophile proportions for boy molesters (*) are different.

The "bottom line" conflated proportions of non-molesters (C=99.5% and F=97.8%) make Gagnon's proposition look superficially true. However, his "conclusion" regarding the "real issue" is about categories A-3 and D-3. No logical or mathematical link between pedophile proportions and teleiophile proportions of molestation is established. The "whole" (total) is affected by its parts but a "part" (D) is not consequent to the "whole" [57]. If the teleiophile homosexual percentage entered were arbitrarily made twice the proportion of heterosexuals (D), the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual molesters would be 16:1 or 94% instead of 32:1. However, if an additional 0.5% or 1.0% of heterosexual girl molesters were added, the percentage difference between teleiophile homosexual and heterosexual molesters would be equal or greater for heterosexuals. Furthermore, even if pedophiles were then added to these numbers, the totals would still indicate that about 19 of 20 molesters would still not be homosexual. In summary, even if "development" of pedophiles were from "former" adult-preferring men, it does not follow that a difference in proportions of resulting pedophiles who prefer boys vs. girls indicates anything about the proportions of "remaining" adult-preferring men who may molest children.

b)    The second sophist flaw in the above six-sentence paragraph is Gagnon's inconsistency. The centerpiece of Gagnon's proposition is a study on pedophiles (Freund, et. al.) in which pedophiles were included and non-pedophiles excluded on the basis of specific definitions and criteria. Gagnon otherwise denigrates these criteria essential to the validity of the study, including calling the criteria "smoke and mirrors" devised by the APAs (see foregoing section 3.B). If the criteria for the study are invalid, then the study is invalid and Gagnon's whole proposition is invalid. Gagnon cannot logically have it both ways. We accept the Freund study as valid but not the validity of how Gagnon used the study in his proposition. [37]

c)    False paraphrasing is the third specious method of the above Gagnon paragraph. Gagnon has a series of four sequential sentences in which the subject of the first three (3, 4, and 5) are about a group category of pedophiles characterized by child erotic preference. With only an "otherwise stated" logical connection he then moves to a subject group category whose primary preference is adults This is not an "otherwise stated" about the same subject (pedophiles) using different words but a false and misleading change of subject with similar words that disguise the subject change. The most similar thing in sentences 5 and 6 is the "proportions" ("rate," or "percentage") which is akin to the "undisturbed middle" form of a logical fallacy. "Proportion" in this sequence is like "mammals" in "All dogs are mammals; all collies are mammals; therefore ("otherwise stated"), all dogs are collies." The entire logical or validity construct of the paragraph is patently false. [29, 32, 48, 52, 58, 59]

7.  Seventh. Adjacent contradiction. There is an obvious contradiction in referring to "disproportionality...not total numbers," and then two sentences later referring to "a percentage [proportion] of the total number." [43]

8.  Eighth. Abstract proportions. The proportions are described only in the abstract rather than with specific number estimates that would clarify significance. For example, differences such as 0.1% vs. 0.3% and 1% vs. 20%, are examples where both pairs of numbers are "disproportionate," but the difference between the pairs are of much different significance. Gagnon wants to leave the degree of disproportionality vague, most likely because the ambiguity allows the worst case scenario for homosexual persons as an open possibility – that perhaps as many as 20% of homosexuals molest boys. This is a camouflaged smear of homosexuals. [27, 31]

9.  Ninth. Negative repetition. The paragraph has five consecutive statements directly or indirectly stating something negative about homosexual persons as a group. This is a "repetitive theme" method (logic?) of propaganda persuasion. The bottom line subliminal message is that homosexual = "homosexual proportions are bad and heterosexual proportions are good." [62]

In summary, to justify his claim that Although the majority of homosexuals are not pedophiles and do not publicly promote pedophilia, the incidence of same-sex pedophilic activity is disproportionately high, Professor Gagnon's summary paragraph includes the following unacceptable techniques as would be judged by scientific (if not most other) criteria:

1. Conflation of different scientific distinctions.
2. Inappropriate extrapolation of data from studies on pedophile molestation of both sexes.
3. Extrapolations of theory into assertions as if theory were established fact.
4. False representation of studies.
5. Sophist reasoning with misleading calculations.
6. False paraphrasing.
7. Inconsistent and contradictory argumentation.
8. Ambiguity that allows worst-case insinuations rather than numbers that show likely of reality.

As a result of these and other formulations devised with such methods, many other professional theologians and lay persons are convinced that homosexuality has a unique biological link to same-sex male pedophilia that does not similarly exist in boy and girl child molestation by teleiophilic heterosexuals. We know of no credible evidence that support this "bottom line" Gagnon-promoted and dissident pseudo-science formulated assertion. Such attempts to persuade others that homosexual persons are biologically highly defective persons is an effective enterprise. To the average such reader of Gagnon's book, even the theologically trained, such arguments that fit with a preconceived bias are easy to accept and promote.

A parallel example to Professor Gagnon's efforts is the attempt by a university professor to discredit NASA scientist James Hansen's 1988 predictions on global warming. This has been dubbed by some as the "Swift Boating" of Dr. Hansen. This professor presented a chart over a decade after Hansen's first predictions that purported show that the subsequent data were far below Hansen's predictions. In fact, Hansen's chart showed upper and lower ranges, the change was exactly on target in the middle of the ranges, but the professor's representation showed only the upper curve (worst case) without the lower. Many believed him (and many still do). Such representations by half-truth ambiguity would be considered outright fraud in the scientific world but such is the state of many intellectual enterprises inside and outside the church. Gagnon's selective and distorted use of data on pedophilia may be viewed as a similar effort to discredit both homosexuals and the consensus scientific understanding of homosexuality.

4. HOMOSEXUAL PROMISCUITY AND RELATED HEALTH PROLEMS

A. Coherent vs. incoherent approaches to homosexual health

Because we are physicians we might be expected to have some position on not only the emotional and psychological problems unique to lesbians and gays but also about their non-psychological medical problems. This issue can be framed with two related questions: 1. Is there a better way to reduce the sexual promiscuity that causes the bulk of health problems unique to gays than promoting only the two options of required (coerced) celibacy or opposite-sex marriage with or without reparation therapy as Professor Gagnon does? 2. Are celibacy or opposite-sex marriage comparatively realistic options ion terms of success in reducing promiscuity compared to affirming same-sex unions?

In the section of our critique on promiscuity and the related health issues we addressed the fact that: (a) there are significant health problems for male homosexual persons generally; (b) these are primarily infectious problems related to sexual promiscuity; (c) sexual promiscuity is enhanced by societal hostility; and (d) a non-promiscuous (committed) relationship is a good prescription for significant reduction in homosexual health problems.

Our major criticism of the theologians we reviewed was that none of them coherently discussed health issues in relationship to (1) the major problem (effect) of infectious disease due to (2) promiscuity (proximate cause); (3) promiscuity enhanced by societal and church hostility pushing gays out of home and churches often before they "come out" (one primary cause); and (4) effective ways to reduce promiscuity (solution). Some of these factors were addressed individually or by relating only two at a time in disparate sections. As a result, societal hostility as a cause of disease and committed relationships as a deterrent to promiscuity and related diseases were never linked with the others such that reasons pro and con about how to best prevent disease were not engaged in a cohesive context. We made this point in the section on promiscuity and expanded it in the discussion section titled, "The health fault line in a divided church." We also noted that instead of a positive and logical coherent approach the predominant emphasis of those critiqued was on the "dark side of homosexuality" as if promiscuity were intrinsic or the fault of those affirming homosexual fidelity without any negative effect of traditional denunciation of homosexuality.

Part of Professor Gagnon's response is to point out that he discussed a connection between two factors and then accuse us of claiming he did not make this connection. This is wrong. [24] We noted how he connected two factors at a time but he did not "connect the dots" among all four factors in a unified manner. Gagnon also states that we "make an extraordinary unsuccessful attempt" to dismiss the studies on promiscuity he cites. This is also false. [24] We did not dismiss the accuracy of the studies that Professor Gagnon cited. We discounted the relevance of most statistics to the issue in the church. [21] To use an extreme example to make the point, Gagnon would never take statistics from a town full of prostitute brothels as being relevant to marital discord among heterosexuals in committed relationships in our churches. But to Gagnon this type of association is fair game for homosexuals. [63]

B. Societal hostility and homosexual health

Our critique included this quotation from Jung and Smith's book:

"In a heterosexist world homosexual people must live with nearly constant disparagement of who they are . . .For these reasons it appears quite reasonable to suggest that the level of promiscuity within the gay community is primarily a product of heterosexism."

Gagnon did not acknowledge this quotation and therefore did not refute "constant disparagement" such as Gagnon gives as one of the four important elements listed above. Professor Gagnon had written that "one could argue" about the role of societal hostility as a cause of promiscuity but he immediately discounted it again with his gender discomplementarity theory (p. 459). He refuses to recognize the reality, or even the sources that we cited of how church teaching makes some young homosexuals very distressed, leading to depression and even suicide before they ever have had an intimate sexual experience. Self-recognition of homosexual orientation alone is enough to make young homosexuals markedly distressed.

Another quotation we could have provided is from the TV documentary series 20/20 on suicide in young homosexual persons. The title was "The Only Way Out" and it reflected the reality that many health professionals see. One of the young men was deeply religious but had not yet experienced any known same-sex intimacy. After committing suicide his mother found his diary. Some time before his death he had written:

There's probably some kind of pill somewhere that would heal my brain or some kind of vitamin I'm not getting enough of. Dear Lord, I feel sorry for being so inadequate. I wonder if you'll send me to hell for this.

This is an example of what a traditional church stance can do to the psychological health of young homosexuals because of their orientation before they even get involved in intimate behaviors. The frequency of such events is hard to document but there is no question about the reality and Professor seems to want to live in total denial of a problem he may be contributing to. One of us attended a conference and heard what he said in answer to a young gay man's question after attempted reparation therapy had failed. It was not uplifting.

 In his book Professor Gagnon takes the opposite stance by asserting that "Societal Endorsement of Homosexuality" is the major cause of homosexual health problems, citing of course only anti-APA dissident sources. Here again Gagnon nuances his claims by suggesting that endorsement of homosexuality is equivalent to endorsement of any and all homosexual behavior as the problem. However, hardly anyone does this and certainly we did not. He even refers to homosexuality as "a state of being," which correctly identifies the word "homosexuality" more with orientation than with practice. This, as we shall show in a later section is inconsistent with his title thesis of" "homosexual practice" and other contextual use of the word. [28]

But in the context of this section he cannot affirm homosexuality in persons who live by the same standards of fidelity as heterosexuals ought (largely because they are anatomically not complementary). Rather, he wants to theologically coerce all homosexual persons into a heterosexual pattern even though most homosexual persons are neuro-physiologically not erotically attracted to the opposite sex (similar to the way most heterosexual are not attracted to the same-sex). And he thinks any homosexuals who hear Gagnon or any who parrot his ideas should not find such a stance "hostile" enough to cause some to leave home and church looking for places that show more understanding. In short, he regards his stance as "no fault." He can do no harm. The risk is entirely with others; especially in this it is with science. [58]

Rather than directly confronting this dimension of his stance, Professor Gagnon defends himself by an exaggerated misrepresentation of our stance: "Peterson and Hedlund claim...that promotion of homosexual unions will essentially do away with the comparatively high incidences of depression, anxiety disorders, and substance abuse is an instance of wishful thinking." This is false. [24] We did not suggest that promotion of homosexual unions will "essentially do away with" health problems of homosexuals. In fact, what we said in our critique was:

These observations are not to suggest that all of the psychological distress and the negative behavior of gays and lesbians can be attributed the opprobrium of the traditional restrictive teaching of the church. But in our judgment these negative effects are real for many gays and lesbians and those promoting a restrictive theology seem

to be in a state of denial by not directly addressing this negative aspect of their stance. This denial substitutes psychological hypotheses and attempts to undermine science as a way of explaining the psychological and health problems of gays and lesbians (Italics added).

This quotation makes it evident that contrary to Gagnon's claim, we never claimed our stance would "essentially do away with" gay health problems. Nor did we claim any stance, including our own, to be without some risk: "Scientists recognize that every new scientific advance comes with some negatives, every treatment involves some risk, and any advice may be "misunderstood." But despite our critique, Gagnon still holds to a no risk or "no fault" self assessment of his stance that among other things separates him from consensus science and meaningful dialogue with knowledgeable practicing scientists. [58]

In terms of homosexual health issues, we see the risk/benefit ratios of Gagnon's stance as worse than that of consensus science. If Gagnon's primary conviction were that gays and lesbians who do not accept his judgments will end up in hell and he wants to be able to at least say that he warned them irrespective of the risk he introduces into many of their lives, science must simply deal with the casualties. However, he does want to be thought of as being concerned about gay health and strains to formulate a credible approach. It is true that for a very small percentage of gays who can remain celibate or the fraction of a percent who may have sufficient change to manage to end up in an opposite sex marriage, non-promiscuous sexuality is likely. We defined a position in which, after proper discussion, such possibilities should be considered.

But Gagnon cannot see himself as one of those who ironically in the process promotes policies that push many gays into promiscuity and then figuratively points to them as justification for his stance. If a treatment for cancer or a heart condition had some "better" outcomes at the risk of the same number of "worse" outcomes, at the least the patient ethically needs to be informed of this. Public health type statistics that might help determine what factors influence promiscuity are more difficult to define, but a similar risk reality exists. To deny this reality of risk entirely is evidence of a serious weakness in a stance. Evidence of this weakness is enhanced by the necessity of repeatedly misrepresenting our stance as a means of defense and attempted rebuttal.

C. Anti-monogamous gays and straights

Professor Gagnon makes much of the fact that many "homosexual activists have long been making the point that the heterosexual principle of monogamy is too stifling." He asserts that our "inclusivity" stance is an unwitting prescription for "permitting all sorts of sexual behaviors." This assertion is unsubstantiated and is false. [24, 53] We are well aware of homosexuals who advocate promiscuity as a right unique to their sexual orientation. Some years back a letter to the editor in he Minneapolis Tribune by a gay man made the very point Gagnon notes about monogamy being too stifling. One of us responded with the following letter:

The writer of a March 5 letter ("Why Ape Marriage?") rejects an earlier writers request for more support from heterosexuals on behalf of homosexual monogamous committed relationships by belittling imperfections in the institution of heterosexual marriage. This is not the way to help the cause of gay rights.

Some of us have discarded former heterosexist prejudices and argued in our churches and other institutions for the benefits of recognizing homosexual monogamy, not the least of which is a means of reducing] the spread of AIDS. However, we have not abandoned the ethical principle that sexual promiscuity is bad for the physical, emotional, and spiritual health no matter what the sexual orientation or gender mix.

If the many ethically responsible gays and lesbians want increasing support from the heterosexual majority for equal rights (not exceptional license for promiscuity), they should speak out clearly against such "in your face" comments as those of the letter writer, just as many of us speak out against heterosexual promiscuity. His comments only support the unfortunate stereotype that gays are pathologically and compulsively sexually promiscuous.

No doubt gay activists of the above type do not regard us as their friends or persons helpful to their cause. This letter certainly was not an endorsement for "anything goes." But such gay promoters of gay promiscuity probably see us differently from how they view many "antigay activists" in that we see all homosexual persons as fundamentally equal to ourselves in God's eyes with equal potential for morally comparable or even better lives than the average American -heterosexual record. It is difficult to find one good thing that Gagnon says about any gay person anyplace that would encourage them to read his works seriously. In total context his gestures of concern come off patronizing and condescending.

The point seemingly lost to Professor Gagnon, as the above letters exchange demonstrated, is that the rationalization for much promiscuous sexual behavior of both gays and straights is based on the rampant sexual promiscuity and adultery in the heterosexual world and the failure of so many heterosexual marriages despite their anatomical complementarity. No traditionalist clergy contributed to the above letter exchange about gay promiscuity. This suggests that many of them were delighted by the "Why Ape Marriage?" letter because it supported their stereotype of all gays, just as it supports Gagnon's stereotype. In any case, we think that condescending preaching from a heterosexual stage to lesbians and gays is not an effective way to inspire them to live their lives on a high moral plain.

The societal and church divide on homosexual health is very clear. Traditionalists insist that pushing an agenda of limiting gays and lesbians to life-long celibacy and opposite sex marriage after reparation therapy is the best solution. The medical- reformed view is that this is very unrealistic for most persons, both heterosexual and homosexual. Therefore compliance can be expected to be poor, and experience and evidence supports the view that supporting committed relationships is the best option for significantly reducing the promiscuity-related emotional and infectious health problems of gays and lesbians. Evidence for this should be looked for among responsible gays and lesbians, including those who are active in churches rather than in general population statistics or those from some of the most promiscuous population centers of the world.

Conclusions

The societal and church divide on homosexual health is very clear. Both sides agree that sexual promiscuity is bad for health. Traditionalists insist that pushing an agenda of limiting gays and lesbians to life-long celibacy and opposite sex marriage after reparation therapy is the best solution. The medical- reformed view is that this is very unrealistic for most gays. Therefore compliance with traditional standards can be expected to be poor, and experience and evidence supports the view that supporting committed relationships is the best option for significantly reducing the promiscuity-related emotional and infectious health problems of gays and lesbians. Clinical experience with responsible gays and lesbians supports this view. In contrast, Professor Gagnon depicts gays as being inherently at higher risk than heterosexuals for serious health problems, citing both general population statistics and statistics from some of the most sexually promiscuous population centers of the world to support this stance. He makes no coherent logical comparison of the factors that would be effective for most homosexuals and acknowledges no aggravating promiscuity risk from traditional doctrines such as his own. His response to our critique was mostly a reiteration of his inherent (non-complementarity) theory coupled with misrepresentations of our critique. The absence of any coherent risk / benefit assessment of major health-related factors makes Gagnon's attempted rebuttal lack scientific credibility.