Reviewers credited Murphy with providing a useful discussion of the ethical implications of sexual orientation research, including the work of scientists such as the neuroscientist Simon LeVay and the geneticist Dean Hamer, and with convincingly criticizing the philosopher John Finnis.

Hall, as well as the work of the psychoanalysts Irving Bieber and Charles Socarides, the psychologists Alan P. Bell, J. Michael Bailey, Doreen Kimura, and Joseph Nicolosi, and the sociologist Martin S. Weinberg.

[3] Smith credited Murphy with providing a "carefully detailed" and "meticulously logical" analysis of the moral implications of research into the causes of homosexuality.

[4] Hubbard credited Murphy with addressing "a range of interesting questions about the purpose and uses of scientific research" into homosexuality, but criticized his writing, calling it "convoluted and ponderous".

He agreed with him that it is reasonable to hypothesize that homosexuality might have a biological basis, but considered him overly optimistic in believing that research into that possibility would benefit gay people.

He described Murphy's view that adults should be free to have their sexual orientation changed through biological manipulation and that "mothers would have the right to abort fetuses that tested positive for homosexuality", if either of these things ever became possible, as "disturbing", but also difficult to argue against.

[8] Hull praised Murphy's discussion of the moral and social issues raised by scientific research on human sexuality.

He agreed with Murphy that if a method to select a child's future sexual orientation were developed it would result in a reduction of the number of gay people.

[9] Harding described the book as, "a careful, illuminating, balanced, and thought-provoking analysis not only of the ethics of sexual orientation research, but also of its science and politics."

She credited Murphy with providing a, "complex, empirically sound, and carefully modest constructionist account of sexual orientation".

"[11] Ruse credited Murphy with having "a deep and sensitive knowledge of the appropriate areas of science", being "able to write clearly and distinctly about difficult issues, so that one can follow without any trouble the sorts of points that he wants to make", and providing good discussions of the work of researchers such as LeVay.

However, she criticized his discussion of the use of methods that might potentially predict a child's future sexual orientation, arguing that he did not take cultural differences between countries into account.

He also praised Murphy for helpfully addressing "questions about the supposed naturalness or unnaturalness of homosexual desire and behavior" and for his discussion of "the consequences for society of his lines of thought."

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."