When the word “science” is used in reference to validating or invalidating certain facts regarding homosexuality – what exactly does the word mean?

Science means “the study of nature.”

Is it medical, biology, research, psychology, surveys, etc.?

Depends on the context.

and if so, who determines what individual or individuals are selected?

The person in charge of the research. Although, he or she may delegate that task to someone else.

Ann,

I hope that helped clarify

“Science” generally means knowledge based on systematic observation. It must be both observable and empirical (ie testable). All the different branches you listed can fall under this category.

Some sciences are more exact than others. For example, we can accurately measure the temperature at which water boils. Every gallon of water, every time. Other are less exact and can only be discussed in terms of averages.

When “science” is used in terms of homosexuality, what that generally refers to is some sort of study of a sample of homosexual people – generally with a control group of heterosexual people – and an observation of characteristics.

Sometimes these are soft science studies – such as measurement of expressed attractions – and sometimes these are hard science studies – such as a measured response of brain size or activation. Even in the hard science studies, because we are dealing with human responses and issues of identity and self-determination of attractions, such studies have to be weighed carefully.

Ultimately, one cannot say that “science says” anything about homosexuality until studies have been replicated with similar results. But with enough repetition of results, some conclusions can be drawn.

Thus we can say pretty clearly that gay persons are more likely to be lefthanded than are straight persons, on average. Not a very exact statement, but measurable, repeatable, and statistically significant.

On the other hand, some observations are seen that may not be readily repeated. Much of the “gay gene” studies have suffered from inconclusive follow up studies.

Others seem to raise their heads from time to time but are not conclusive one way or another. The fraternal order effect would be one of those.

For inconclusive studies, or those not yet repeated, one might say “science suggests”.

And others are based on methods so shoddy that they are laughable. They are “studies” comparable to determining the country’s favorite ice cream by asking your own kids. Paul Cameron’s “research” all falls into that category.

But nonetheless, the inclusion of “science” is a valuable distinction. It is what takes the opinion out of the real of guessing and holds it up to light.

If you read enough Ex-Gay literature you will find that nearly all of it is trying to support an environmental cause for homosexuality

To be totally honest I’ve never read any ex-gay literatature. As for Narth I know their website and they promote the psychoanalytic model. Socialization falls into the realm of environment so I suppose that does qualify. But that’s not what I’m refering too. I mean biological environment.

I do check the Narth site every few weeks just to see if/when research comes out. Usually they disagree with it but at least I know it’s out there so I can google it.

This might partially explain the reasons why a homosexual person may have had great parents but grandparents and great grandparents who suffered greatly.

Is there any evidence to suggest that most or all gay people had grandparents and great grandparents who “suffered greatly”? I’ve never seen any myself.