 He also accused Murphy of being naive in his discussion of how institutions such as the Catholic Church and the American military might respond to the development of scientific methods of preventing or detecting homosexuality, and argued that he was overly critical of sociobiological explanations of homosexuality, and sometimes showed a "less than perfect" understanding of biology.McCaughey credited Murphy with providing interesting discussions of the therapeutic treatment of homosexuality, parental control of sexual orientation in children, testing for sexual orientation, and the limits of the use of the concept of nature in moral and legal arguments.However, she criticized him for ignoring "the arguments and research suggesting that the divide between homo and hetero and its presumed natural origin accounts for much bigotry, discrimination, and violence against gay people."