Your Gene Pool Doesn’t Have to Define and Dictate Your Life
When I speak around the country about homosexuality and the reality of change, I am often asked, “What if a gay gene were to be discovered? What if homosexuals are just born that way?” My answer is simple and to the point — even if homosexuality were determined to be genetic, this doesn’t force me to accept myself as gay nor would it stop me from pursuing the life I want.
In the midst of the “gay gene” debate of the early 1990's, I decided that I had, had enough of gay life. I found it fun for a season, lonely for a lifetime and in conflict with my faith-based beliefs. I chose, based upon all the information available at the time, to pursue a life based upon biblical truth rather than sexual urges and emotion. After nearly 18 years, I am living proof that life beyond homosexuality is a viable option.
Now don’t get me wrong, our genes and biology can have a powerful influence on us. The way we look, talk and even our basic personalities are on some fundamental level rooted in innate traits. It’s all part of the way we were created and it’s a beautiful thing to behold. But the fact remains that even if something is “genetic” or even biological that doesn’t mean that pursuing it is beneficial or even healthy.
A classic example of this is the much-publicized obesity epidemic. In recent years, researchers have attempted to explain the rise in obesity by looking for a genetic link. In 2007, researchers at Tulane University concluded that obesity may indeed stem from a biological and/or genetic cause. Likewise, studies arise every year suggesting that there are genetic causes for drug and alcohol abuse. Although the struggles and battles these individuals face are difficult and often heartbreaking, we see many overcoming their addictions every day with the help of professional counseling, loving friends and supportive religious commitment. To suggest they should embrace substance abuse because it’s genetic would be looked upon as not only unethical, but immoral.
While I’m not suggesting that dealing with same-sex attraction is directly analogous to dealing with obesity and substance abuse, I am simply saying that our genes are not the end-all, be-all of our existence. Rather, like others who overcome these situations, there are thousands of men and women who are making life choices to live the life they want for themselves, whether or not the causes are genetic. Biology is not destiny.
One popular criticism of the work of Exodus claims that attempting to change one’s sexuality is impossible and even dangerous. However, new research helps to dispel this myth. In a 2007 study, researchers Stanton Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse found that sexual orientation change is possible and that have many have experienced it with the help of religiously mediated support groups and counseling. The researchers also concluded that most of the people in these programs do not experience negative psychological effects.
So while I can understand the skepticism and even hostility of the critics, I know that thousands of men and women defy – and continue to defy – any possible genetic or biological links to homosexuality and changed their sexual orientation through the help of caring individuals, counseling and faith-based support groups. From my own personal experience and the experiences of many people that I know well — genes simply don’t dictate who we are.
Alan Chambers is the President of Exodus International—the largest worldwide Christian outreach to those dealing with unwanted same-sex attraction.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
I am not gay, so there are some things that I do not know about the whole situation. But I have some observations:
I was never attracted to either sex until I was in my teens . A 'gay gene,' should one exist, would then not express itself until that time?
However, I do have some genetic predispositions; namely, cancer and epilepsy. These have been tested in both me and my family. But both cancer and epilepsy are diseases. Also, none of them has anything to do solely with lifestyle selection. If any thing, I would want to choose a life style that would lead away from cancer and epilepsy (I do not smoke and I wear a bicycle helmet when riding a bicycle).
Where has it been shown that genes have any role in shaping personality traits? Is there a 'Genius' gene? Or a 'plain dumb worker' gene?
If indeed there is free will then one can decide to live as one wishes. 'Natural emotions and inclinations' are not necessarily good...after all, young kids still need to be told not to cross the street.
Then again, morality isnt genetically programmed either, nor is faith, but we know that both exist. Many people disagree about them but they do not doubt their existence.
If you are gay and you try to be straight, you can become more neurotic simply because an immutable trait is being supressed and you are not allowing yourself to express real love. And to please an imaginary sky fairy...It is all nonsensical...
Are people born gay?
Why would anyone in their right mind get in a detailed argument over intricacies of genetic science with a group of people who are still ideologically conflicted about the basic facts of evolution ? The essential question here is whether or not human beings have the right to define themselves, according to their own perceptions of themselves. I assert that we each have that right.
Does anyone really think that someone would just wake-up one fine morning and decide to change their sexual orientation to be someone who attracts bigotry almost anywhere in the world. Being gay or lesbian attracts anger of the morally rigid and the sexually-uncertain everywhere. Sure there are few people are wired that way, who would choose to side with the under-dog and to be with the outcast. There were a few brave souls who so identified with the plight of Jews. that they wore the yellow star even though they themselves were not genetically Jewish. One of those brave souls was the King of Denmark. A few white people in apartheid infected South Africa made that choice, but not many.
I'd say the odds are way high against gayness being a decision and much higher for it being a genetic predetermination. But, in the larger picture, why does is matter? If a person is gay or chooses to be gay what business is it of anyones? Why do you care if I am gay or straight or bi or if I had some surgery to look like what you think I'm supposed to be?
Everyone agrees that love is blind. What if it's just a matter of who you fall in love with?
I am almost 65 I I still don't understand why people choose to be in one religion or another then assume that they have the right to force-fit everyone into their religious template. A person's religion is definitely not genetically determined. It is easily, or at least readily, changed. People change their minds about religion all the time. Why should society 's rules be made to comport with anything as fungible as religion?
There are myriad arguments against the fundamental human right to be human. There is only one argument for it. That it is right.
I tend towards the no side, but that's just because I've never seen any evidence of gay babies.
A conflict between being you and supporting the regulations of the Bible? I'm deeply sorry to hear that You lost...
How can you say that genetics doesn't dictate a persons entire life. If some is born with a genetic disorder like perhaps cerebral palsy. There whole life is going to be dictated by that disease there going to have limitations on what it's possible for them to do and ,its sad but, they are also going to be looked at as "lesser" by other people. Just like certain people Look down others because there gay, people look down on others because the have genetic disorders that can't be helped. So to say that genetics doesn't dictate your life is completely wrong. Even If you were right about being able to control what your sexual orientation is, A strait man will never be happy if he's in a relationship with a gay man, and a gay man will never be happy in a relationship with a women. You make it sound like being gay is a disease that can be cured when that's not the case at all.
"even if homosexuality were determined to be genetic, this doesn’t force me to accept myself as gay"
It doesn't force you to deny your personal reality, either. THAT is a choice you make.
I'm a HUGE believer in the understanding of epi-geneticism and how your completely aren't bound into your genes. But even if you WERE bound into your genes? WHERE is this "homosexual chromosome"? The entire idea of a "Gay Gene" is the most wretchedly absurd thing I've ever encountered or even heard of in my entire life. You genes only understand replication -- pure, straight-forward reproductive replication. That's the purpose of our genes. Our genes, our most rudimentary architect are designed to keep us alive and replicate themselves. From an evolutionary point of view (which is the ONLY POV that your genes "know" homo-sexuality. There's no possible way anyone's genes could EVER know homosexuality simply because that defies their very intention and nature (that of surviving and replicating).
So what does cause the sensation of homosexuality or the illusion of homosexuality in people? Lower female sexual arousal. Socetial, familial, social, historical incidents that caused a person to associate arousal and sex and attraction on a superficial level to the same sex. But all of those are just superficial mental confusions or temporary experimentations. Deep down (to our genes) we're all heterosexual. Saying that people are gay genetically is like saying "Well, some cars are meant to just jiggle in place and not move." The purpose of a car is to provide transportation, just like the purpose of genes is to provide life and replicate. If a certain contraption doesn't move forward or a bit of cellular technology doesn't create survival and replicate, you can't call those respectively, a car or genetic material.
Now the arguments of the church are ABSURD. IF (and this is a strong IF because we know from above genetic evidence that this is not true) there was some way that someone could be genetically born to be gay, and this is purely hypothetical because we know what not to be true, but hypothetically if someone were genetically gay then outlawing a genetically-defined state would be absolutely absurd and akin to saying to people that they had to collect their sweat and consume it after perspiring.
You seem to be a bit low on knowledge on this subject.
Something does not need to be wholly genetic to be a trait you are born with. There are many influences during pregnancy that affect you later in life.
Many behavioural traits are determined by genes, by the way, so your "analysis" fails there too.
My argument is clear. You're arguing the messenger. My point has been made. On the contrary, my knowledge suffices.
Yeah "influences in pregnancy " include birth defects and deformities". Mutating your biologically intrinsic drive to reproduce your own genes is NOT a "pregnancy influence"!!!!!!!!!
That's like saying "when a care is made in a factory, occasionally when it comes out on the conveyor belt, sometimes some "influence" happens that causes it to only go in reverse".
As homo sapiens, we're designed to reproduce. Tendencies to not do that ( homosexuality ) are not just counter-productive, but they're anatomically-biologically-productive (i.e. nonexistent) .
Behavior traits are NOT so much determined by genes. It's anatomical traits such as pigment that are gene-based.
Your "comeback" if you can even call your pathetic whimper a "rebuttal" (which for the sake of wanting to do the world "rebuttal" justice, let's not say your comments were even an attempt at that) merely says that I lack knowledge and that my analysis fails.
Whoopteedoo!!! Aren't you good at finger-pointing and saying your wrong.
I think you're first sentence would be most useful to you, now meekly squandering in your sense of loss.
For the sake of edifying your naivety: "You analysis fails" (why? how? counter-evidence?) and "You're low on knowledge" (where? elaborate? educate with more knowlegde?) is a peurile "rebuttal".
I don't even know why I took the time to this pathetic response!! If you're going to be active about an issue, might as well have a well-structured set of arguments and facts laid out as I took the liberty to do, instead of cowering in the corner with your trivial 4 sentence "response".
Cheerio then.
No, influences during pregnancy include the environment in the womb, which is changed when a woman carries a male fetus, for example. The more male fetuses the woman has carried previously, the greater the chance of the child becoming a homosexual.
You are clearly extremely ignorant, seeing as you don't even know that homosexuality is common in the animal kingdom, and even has several beneficial effects. I'll leave it as an exercise to you to figure out what they are, since I doubt that you will even bother to read what I have to say about it. You will just reject it out of hand.
Behavior can indeed be determined by genes. Once again, you need to educate yourself.
Just parsary look at the answers on the opposition and they make they fabulous and dishonest incorrect responses. Bottom line is, it doesn't matter how untrue what it is they're saying, they will say it anyway and believe nothing else. that's the issue that needs to be addressed. The issues spawns from the socialist elite's Anti- christian crusade. scientists are paid to by lobbyists for the liberate the gays crusade. If you read these reports, one after the other is aimed at confusing and convinceing lay people that there is evidence when there is not. That's the issue that needs addressing, because we have a force looking to deceive people. None of those people have a possitive value in the world. They are the drones of the nazi party. They are brain dead socialist anti-christian army. Truth and logic is not a object to them, only their voracious ego is of substance and their ego supports the Godless elite. gay people will regularly talk about thier sexual fasinations.. there's never a time for them not to.they are a lavishish sexually decadent people. if a pedophile were to be the same way, people might say, hey, this is an immoral person. but the liberal has a false formula in their head. it says 'gay people can never be immoral'. that's not true at all. These liberals are such shit. you can have gay person at a childs birthday party discussing how but sexs is fantabulous, and suddenly that's the new moral standard.
The sceince has always understood the sexual mind to be based on experience. let's say, nurture and nature. Gay do not fight for equal rights, they fight for especial rights. they're allowed to marry, but they want to redefine marriage . Imagine 2 brothers, how want to get 'married', not to have sex or raise a child, but to save money . that's not complicated and so much effort has been put forth, but they can't even understand the basic tenets of their argument. thos two brother have the right to get married. but they don't have a right to redefine marriage. that's just a hall mark on the irrational nature of these people. and the fact that they're still here with this faulted contest just shows we have no system of sanity or truth. IT's the elite promoting this idea. sense can't even topple it. It's a faulted idea supported by a mindless near majority. (these controlers are getting old, they want to to get their twists in while they can.' IT is an anti=religious crusade and it's a sexual liberating crusade. They want child sex slaves.. one step at a time. They have and use them already.. they just want society to accept the fact. That's what the obscenely wealthy godless people do. fuck you gays, you';re a bunch of freaks. i do have the right to say that, as much as the powerful elite wish to squash it.
Question. Do you have any evidence of this -at all- or are you just saying what comes to your mind first and throwing it on the page?
I choose not to be attracted to married people, to my friends girl friends, ect and so on. THIS WHOLE CONCEPT IS FOREIGN to the irresponsible. The idea is foreign to liberals.
perhaps some are born with gay tendencies or dispositions, it makes no difference. It's not really an issue. They're allowed to have sex, and live in soceity. They don't want that. They want the right not to be looked at as different than straight people. That's irrational. All who wish that should be shot.
we do know that people are raised to be gay. That's a fact. We can raise children to be gay. Society can do it, we can do it ina lab. We know this, yet we want to redefine the moral trends of society . THE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO DO IT.
an people who appreciate freedom should view the above as a crime of the very highest degree. Is math, algebra going to be illegal next? we must all be brain dead liberals or be put in prison or taken to the slaughter house. unable to find work, ect. That's exactly what they're doin. They should be killed.
Look, parallelism only works when there's a proper parallel. What parallel are you trying to draw besides gross ad hominem attacks?
In his argument, Mr. Chambers compares homosexuality to drug abuse and obesity, and claims that like these, homosexuality can and should be overcome. I disagree. Even if it is possible to convert a homosexual to a heterosexual, why would you want to? Obesity and drug abuse both have obviously negative effects on your health. There is a reason to overcome them. Homosexuality has no such effects. At best, the conversion has a neutral effect on their health. At worst, it can cause severe depression and other side effects. Even if Mr. Chambers' claims are true, and the chances of adverse mental effects are small, is it really worth the risk? As a heterosexual male, if some program offered to make me "gay," I wouldn't give them the time of day. Society would be better served by more tolerance on the part of Exodus International, among others, than by the successful conversion of homosexuals to heterosexuals.
Quote - "Obesity and drug abuse both have obviously negative effects on your health. There is a reason to overcome them. Homosexuality has no such effects."
In his book 'Straight & Narrow?', (1995) Thomas E. Schmidt concludes a chapter on 'The Price of Love' with this illustraion:
"Suppose you were to move into a large house in San Francisco with a group of ten randomly selected homosexual men in their mid-thirties. According to the most recent research from scientific sources, whose authors are without exception either neutral or positive in their assessment of homosexual behaviour, & with the use of lower numbers where statistics differ, the relational & physical health of the group would look like this.
4 of the 10 men are currently in relationships, but only 1 of those is faithful to his partner & he will not be within a year. 4 have never had a relationship that lasted more than a year & only 1 has had a relationship that lasted more than three years. 6 are having sex regularly with strangers & the group averages almost two partners per person per month. 3 of them occassionally take part in orgies. 1 is a sadomasochist. 1 prefers boys to men.
3 of the men are currently alcoholics, 5 have a history of alcohol abuse & 4 have a history of drug abuse. 3 currently smoke cigarettes, 5 regularly use at least one illegal drug & 3 are multiple drug users. 4 have a histroy of accute depression, 3 have seriously contemplated suicide & 2 have attempted suicide. 8 have a history of sexually transmitted diseases, 8 currently carry infectious pathogens & 3 currently suffer from digestive or uninary ailments caused by these pathogens. At least 3 are HIV-infected & 1 has AIDS".
I get no 'joy' from sharing such information. It concerns me that in the noise of the 'moral & civil rights battle', the truth of the public health issues of this debate are drowned out & young people are been given the message that the homosexual lifestyle is a healthy alternative choice. These figures bear testament to the fact that nothing could be further from the truth.
This is a condemnation of promiscuity and the "San Fransisco" life style. Being homosexual has nothing to do with it. If you were to gather 10 heterosexual men who have sexual relations with women similar to the relationship the men in your example have with men, namely, engaging in orgies, regular sex with strangers, short, sexual relationships, and multiple partners, they're probably going to have the same problems with STDs. If you combine the drug use so common to the San Fransisco area, you are going to have some real serious problems. Unless you can demonstrate that homosexuality causes promiscuity and drug use, your example is an indictment of the flamboyant, San-Fransisco style gay lifestyle, not of homosexuality in and of itself. A homosexual couple in a committed, long-term relationship will probably not suffer from STDs or depression, and will probably not engage in drug abuse, alcoholism, or suicidal behaviors.
Drugs & alcohol with sex: “Whenever these studies consider connections, they show a direct correlation between the number of partners, drug use & the likelihood of unsafe sex. Specifically, a Boston study found that of 262 (homosexual) male subjects, 49% used drugs with sex, 9% weekly; 57% used alcohol with sex, 9% weekly. By comparison, in the general population 8.6% of men regularly used alcohol & 1.1% any drug before or during sex.”
Alcohol: “The current consensus of researchers is that about 30% of homosexuals (both male & female) are problem drinkers, as compared to 10% of the general population.”
Depression: “Depression is another serious mental disorder faced by a disproportionate number of male homosexuals. Two studies (previously cited in book) combine to show that 40% of male homosexual subjects had a history of major depressive disorders (compared to 3% of males generally).”
Suicide: “Jay & Young (The gay report - 1979) found 18% of male homosexuals & 23% of female homosexuals had attempted suicide (compared to 3 % of male heterosexuals & 11% of female heterosexuals).”
Paedophilia: “Several studies reveal that while no more than 2% of male adults are homosexual, approximately 35% of paedophiles are homosexual. Further, since homosexual paedophiles victimize far more children (average 150 each) than do heterosexual paedophiles (average 20 each), approximately 80% of paedophilic victims are boys who are molested by adult males.”
STD’s: “By comparison to even the most promiscuous segment of the general population, the male homosexual 75% lifetime STD incident rate & 40% annual STD incident rate are remarkable. Among those in the general population who had more than twenty-one lifetime partners, 40% report any infection in their lifetime. 6% of those who had more than five partners report an infection in the previous year. Overall, the general population has a 16.9% lifetime STD incident rate & 1.6% for previous twelve months.”
The book points out that these STD rates should not come as a surprise because from a anatomical point of view, the cellular makeup & other characteristics of the vagina are designed to take the penis & this is not the case for the anus. (Obviously anal intercourse is not confined to the homosexual population.)
Quote: Unless you can demonstrate that homosexuality causes promiscuity and drug use, your example is an indictment of the flamboyant, San-Francisco style gay lifestyle, not of homosexuality in and of itself.
While all these facts & figures don’t provide the direct correlative causal link/s you are looking for (given so many variables, I am not sure such 'proven' links will be made), whichever way you cut it, the sexually active homosexual lifestyle is a major health risk & most certainly not the healthy alternative that many are trying to present it as.
I find it even more concerning that 'political correctness’ means those who research such facts can find it hard to get the backing to do so & others who try to present such facts as those outlined above, are labelled 'homophobic' for doing so.
Isn't this an argument against promiscuity, drugs, alcohol, depression, suicide, pedophilia and STDs? It's as you said, there's no causal link between the above and homosexuality, and if there's no causality between homosexual lifestyles and the above, the claim "whichever way you cut it, the sexually active homosexual lifestyle is a major health risk & most certainly not the healthy alternative that many are trying to present it as" cannot yet be made. Note that I'm not saying that such an argument would be impossible to make in the future with more extensive studies...
Such a claim -could- be tantamount to saying that the number of pirates decreasing and the number of people who die by cancer increasing implies that pirates are healthy for the community.
Quote: "Isn't this an argument against promiscuity, drugs, alcohol, depression, suicide, paedophilia and STDs?"
Yes it is that, but given that the homosexuals only make up somewhere between 2 & 4% of the population (certainly not the 10% often commonly quoted in the media - but that is another story)& proportionally they are significantly over represented in all these health statistics, it is more than that.
Quote: "whichever way you cut it, the sexually active homosexual lifestyle is a major health risk & most certainly not the healthy alternative that many are trying to present it as" cannot yet be made.
I'm sorry, but if you can't make such a recommendation with the data I have presented (& there is more sure data) than I get the impression you will never be satisfied to make such a recommendation.
Quote: "Note that I'm not saying that such an argument would be impossible to make in the future with more extensive studies..."
Provided powerful homosexual lobby groups will actually allow such extensive studies to be conducted, presented & reported ...
Quote: "Such a claim -could- be tantamount to saying that the number of pirates decreasing and the number of people who die by cancer increasing implies that pirates are healthy for the community". ????
I’m sure it is clear for you, but ...
To Setfree,
The only issue I would have with your well reasoned arguments is that all of the evidence listed comes from the same book, a book which has a definate bias from the outset. Fair enough, if the stats prove correct it doesn't matter what the authors bias is, the quoted statistics are somewhat unambiguous. I would be very surprised if they held up to the scrutiny of a statician.
I have looked around the internet briefly for the studies he quotes in his bibliography and found that one survey (Linn et al 1989) was entitled "Recent sexual behaviors among homosexual men seeking primary medical care" and was a study of knowledge of AIDS, HIV and safe sex practises in people who are suspected of infection. (ie why they were vulnerable to it).
Another; (seage et al 1992) was a study of patients at AIDS-related clinics and their sexual partners. If the entire sample field is questioned in an STD clinic or doctors surgery, is it maybe conceivable that a large proportion would have STD's? Why else would they be there in the first place? Does he compare this sample to heterosexuals at STD clinics? I imagine he would find promiscuity artificially high, STD rate equally high and probably recreational drug and alcohol use also high.
You did however say that there is more sure data so if you'd let us know what it is I'd love to have a look.
Quote: “I would be very surprised if they held up to the scrutiny of a statician.”
At the end of the chapter of the same book, the author addresses your concern – “Some may respond that the studies cited are not representative of homosexuality as they observe it or experience it, to which I can only appeal to the evidence: nearly 200 sources, multiple sources at key points covering different geographical areas, different times, & samples both clinical & non clinical, random & recruited. Others may suspect that I have padded the numbers or suppressed more positive evidence, hoping that no one will take time to check up on so many technical sources. Even if I were devious enough to falsify data, it would be a poor strategy, because I assume that skeptics in particular will check up on my sources – & pounce on any specific example of bias in order to cast suspicion over the whole book. But even so, I invite the skeptic to assume that all the studies are biased or that I have consistently exaggerated data & to cut all the disease rates in half. Even then, what is left of the evidence indicates a health crisis of multiple facets & epidemic proportions.”
Your concerns about the 2 specific studies – the central issue is that the homosexual population is greatly dispropotionally over represented in these stats.
Quote: The only issue I would have with your well reasoned arguments is that all of the evidence listed comes from the same book, a book which has a definate bias from the outset. Fair enough, if the stats prove correct it doesn't matter what the authors bias is, the quoted statistics are somewhat unambiguous.
You are of course correct about this information being from the one source & with good reason (quote from book):
“Much of the description of homosexual practise that follows paints a very negative picture, & I am concerned that someone might make destructive use of this information, which to my knowledge is here collected & thoroughly documented for the first time.” (p.101)
This is one of the most comprehensive books I have found on the issue, because as the author states, it was the first time a vast body of research (over 50 different peer reviewed studies cited in this chapter of the book alone – you refer to 2 of them) had been drawn together. Now maybe other such books have been written since – if anyone knows of any – I’m interested.
The author goes on to say – “The point in bringing it out (stats on health risks of homosexuality) in this chapter is only to explore the implications of suffering for personal morality. Or, to put it in the form of a question: Does homosexual behaviour incur a sufficient risk of harm to self or others to call it wrong on health grounds alone?”
That is my motive for raising these stats on this forum – because in the back & forth of this debate, the basic public health issues of homosexuality have been discounted, ignored or overlooked.
Perhaps the people polled were -not- chosen at random. Perhaps the people polled were pulled from parts of the country where promiscuity, drug use, alcohol, etc. were already rampant. Did the study report their findings on opposite-sex couples within their sample?
Furthermore, promiscuity, drug use, alcohol, etc. could very well have been the result of homosexuality being perceived as a social stigma, in which case -homosexuality- is not causing the promiscuity, etc. but -social stigmas-.
Or perhaps those are linked to lacking marriage. Are there studies that report these same variables with married and unmarried opposite-sex couples? I don't find this one to be a far cry from the truth either, because homosexuals would be promiscuous as a result of not needing to stay in a marriage.
I -will- be satisfied with data once the data is sufficient and can counterbalance some of the data I've found. Until then, I don't think you can draw your conclusions without sticking the word "premature" in front of them.
Here is another radical possibility - IT IS THE TRUTH!
From earlier in the chapter of the same book, the author writes:
"Because my research for this chapter lies outside my field of professional expertise, I have taken special precautions regarding accuracy of information. Four physicians with relevant specialities reviewed the first draft of this chapter in order to correct any factual errors. I avoided all secondary sources of information such as newspapers & popular magazines or books & I cite no Christian writers. Instead I document every point of fact in this chapter only from scholarly, secular medical & social scientific publications & from the most recent research available at the time of writing (1995) virtually all of which is either neutral or affirming toward homosexuality."
Quote: "Furthermore, promiscuity, drug use, alcohol, etc. could very well have been the result of homosexuality being perceived as a social stigma, in which case -homosexuality- is not causing the promiscuity, etc. but -social stigmas-."
That being the, case as society becomes more accepting/tolerant of homosexuality (which data strongly suggests is the case) we should see a corresponding reduction in the devastating disproportionate health statistics in the homosexual population (which data suggests is not the case).
The author of the same book puts it better than I can again: "Until the unlikely goal of societal acceptance of homosexual behaviour produces the unlikely result of elimination of homosexual psychopathology, the most sensible course of action is not to engage in behaviour that carries with it (or causes) such high risk psychological harm."
Quote: "Or perhaps those are linked to lacking marriage. Are there studies that report these same variables with married and unmarried opposite-sex couples? (YES - I have no doubt there are) I don't find this one to be a far cry from the truth either, because homosexuals would be promiscuous as a result of not needing to stay in a marriage." (Absolutely)
Quote: "I -will- be satisfied with data once the data is sufficient and can counterbalance some of the data I've found."
Sufficient ...? I am happy to keep supplying data, when I know what I'm counter balancing.
... data I've found - please do share.
Quote: ..."premature" in front of them.
Meanwhile the destruction goes on - this is literally peoples lives we are talking about - young people (particularly) need the truth to make an informed decision, not politically correct 1/2 truths or sanitised lies.
http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm
Violent crimes have decreased, meaning that the trend towards the slight decrease in sexually oriented hate crimes might be a result of crimes decreasing across the board as opposed to more sexual-oriented-based tolerance.
“Across a diverse array of assessments, we found that the personal, family, and school adjustment of adolescents living with same-sex parents did not differ from that of adolescents living with opposite-sex parents. Consistent with the findings of earlier research (e.g., Huggins, 1989), we found that adolescent self-esteem did not vary as a function of family type. In addition, we found no differences as a function of family type in measures of personal adjustment, such as depressive symptoms and anxiety; in measures of school adjustment, such as academic achievement, trouble in school, or feelings of school connectedness; or in measures of the qualities of family relationships, such as autonomy, care from adults and peers, neighborhood integration, or parental warmth. The clarity of results from this broad array of assessments strengthens our confidence that adolescents living with same-sex parents were functioning well in many domains, both at home and at school.” p. 1895
“Most adolescents in our sample reported having had a romantic relationship in recent months, but only a minority reported having had sexual intercourse; there were no significant differences in this regard as a function of family type.” p. 1895
“An unexpected aspect of our results was the finding that adolescents' feelings of connectedness at school varied as a function of family type. Adolescents living with same-sex parents reported feeling more connected to school than did those living with opposite-sex parents. Inasmuch as school connectedness among adolescents has been associated with fewer problem behaviors and greater emotional well-being (Resnick et al., 1997), this finding suggests that adolescents with same-sex parents might be expected to show more favorable adjustment. For measures of adjustment such as self-esteem and depressive symptoms, however, we found no effects of family type. Consequently, the best interpretation of this intriguing finding remains unclear.” p. 1896
However, we cannot conclusively say here that (1) same-sex parents are just as good for their children (due to small population size and the fact that "good parents" might be a result of other things like community, etc.) or (2) same-sex parents are just as mentally stable as opposite-sex parents.
But I'm running off to the library to do the psychological research today, if you care.
Once again, you fail to see that you -can't- tout those statistics as the truth simply because four physician say you can. Furthermore, you haven't looked into the limitations I enumerated before, including location bias, total sample size, comparison to heterosexual couples, etc.
"That being the, case as society becomes more accepting/tolerant of homosexuality (which data strongly suggests is the case) we should see a corresponding reduction in the devastating disproportionate health statistics in the homosexual population (which data suggests is not the case)."
What data are -you- looking at? Personally, I think hate crimes are a decent measure of how society responds to homosexuality: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm (Table 1 for each year under Hate Crimes section) As you'll notice, hate crimes have neither had a dramatic increase or drop since 1995, suggesting that tolerance may only be getting -slightly- better (if we account for the population increase, though we have to counterbalance for cities lost within the samples). Furthermore, you and I both know that there's going to be a time-lag in the feedback system here. Information isn't spread instantaneously; people don't change their perception of themselves overnight.
As for the data I've collected, it revolves around -parenting-, and to infer that -parenting- is closely enough related to -mental stability-... I don't think there's a close enough connection. In any case, I pulled the information from here: Psychosocial Adjustment, School Outcomes, and Romantic Relationships of Adolescents With Same-Sex Parents. Jennifer L. Wainright, Stephen T. Russell, and Charlotte J. Patterson. Child Development, 2004, Volume 75, Number 6, Pages 1886-1898.
In the introduction, the author cites various other studies which I'm not particularly interested in, though the studies contend that same-sex parents have no effect on children's self esteem.
I believe that the study only used forty-four families, though, so you'll have to realize that the sample might be too small and not representative of the community.
“The results of the present study, which is the first based on a large national sample of adolescents living with same-sex couples, revealed that on nearly all of a large array of variables related to school and personal adjustment, adolescents with same-sex parents did not differ significantly from a matched group of adolescents living with opposite-sex parents. Regardless of family type, adolescents were more likely to show favorable adjustment when they perceived more caring from adults and when parents described close relationships with them. Thus, as has been reported in studies of children with lesbian mothers (e.g., Chan et al., 1998), it was the qualities of adolescent-parent relationships rather than the structural features of families (e.g., same vs. opposite-sex parents) that were significantly associated with adolescent adjustment (Golombok, 1999; Patterson, 2000).” p. 1895
Quote: "Once again, you fail to see that you -can't- tout those statistics as the truth simply because four physician say you can. Furthermore, you haven't looked into the limitations I enumerated before, including location bias, total sample size, comparison to heterosexual couples, etc."
It is not 4 physicians saying so - they reviewed they way in which the author of the book had drawn together dozens of peer reviewed studies. All the other concerns you speak of would never have got past the point of being published as peer reviewed studies if there were issues concerning the way in which the data was gathered.
At the end of the chapter of the same book, the author further addresses your concern – “Some may respond that the studies cited are not representative of homosexuality as they observe it or experience it, to which I can only appeal to the evidence: nearly 200 sources, multiple sources at key points covering different geographical areas, different times, & samples both clinical & non clinical, random & recruited. Others may suspect that I have padded the numbers or suppressed more positive evidence, hoping that no one will take time to check up on so many technical sources. Even if I were devious enough to falsify data, it would be a poor strategy, because I assume that skeptics in particular will check up on my sources – & pounce on any specific example of bias in order to cast suspicion over the whole book. But even so, I invite the skeptic to assume that all the studies are biased or that I have consistently exaggerated data & to cut all the disease rates in half. Even then, what is left of the evidence indicates a health crisis of multiple facets & epidemic proportions.”
You cannot attribute all of those to homosexuality alone, just as you cannot attribute Africans to sickle cell anemia or Mormons to bigotry.
Being African doesn't automatically give you sickle cell anemia, yet Africans have a higher proportion of sickle cell anemia than other races around the world. Furthermore, at least in the US, Africans (or African Americans) commit a disproportionately higher amount of crime than any other race. Would you then infer that being African automatically makes you sickly and violent and therefore is not a suitable lifestyle?
Similarly, some LDS churches were found to spend millions of dollars to support California's Prop 8. Can I then infer that all LDS churches are simply against LGBT persons? Can I extend that further to say that, since LDS churches tend to support this kind of intolerance, they're angry? And can I then say that Mormon lifestyles are unsuitable because they make you angry?
This brings us back to the central question of this debate. I would argue that unlike sexual orientation, a person’s race is genetically fixed, resulting in a predisposition making them more susceptible to this particular disease. On the violence issue - there are a host of other variables involved & personal choice (as difficult as it can be in harsh environments etc.) is central to the issue.
As previously stated, one of my central concerns regarding this issue is the presenting/promoting of homosexuality to young people (in particular) as a healthy alternative choice at a time when they are struggling with their sexual identity.
"On the violence issue - there are a host of other variables involved & personal choice (as difficult as it can be in harsh environments etc.) is central to the issue."
Right there. This is the point I've been trying to relay to you the entire time. Homosexuality is not intrinsically unhealthy, just as being African isn't intrinsically unhealthy, just as being Mormon isn't intrinsically unhealthy, just as surfing isn't intrinsically unhealthy, just as sitting in a McDonald's restaurant isn't intrinsically unhealthy, just as driving in cars isn't intrinsically unhealthy.
It's not Africanness that makes people unhealthy, it's that recessive traits that lead to sickle-cell anemia more effectively combat malaria. It's not that Mormonism makes people unhealthy, it's that some people unbendingly follow scriptures. It's not that surfing is unhealthy, it's that some people choose not to follow warnings. It's not that sitting in a McDonald's is unhealthy, it's that the people there eat the unhealthy food. It's not that driving cars is unhealthy, it's that inattentiveness leads to a higher likelihood of accidents.
It's not that homosexuality is unhealthy, it's that large pockets of people (who happen to be homosexuals) are promiscuous.
Quote: "It's not that homosexuality is unhealthy, it's that large pockets of people (who happen to be homosexuals) are promiscuous."
By large pockets, we are talking about 90%+, as previously outlined ...
"Promiscuity among homosexual men is not a mere stereotype & it is not merely the majority experience – it is virtually the only experience. Even if we set aside infidelity & allow a generous definition of ‘long-term relationships’ as those that last at least 4 years, under 8% of either male or female homosexual relationships fit that definition. In short, there is practically no comparison possible to heterosexual marriage in terms of either fidelity or longevity. Tragically, lifelong faithfulness is almost nonexistent in the homosexual experience.”
Homosexuality is not intrinsically unhealthy ... / It's not that homosexuality is unhealthy ...
As previously outlined, key behaviours of a monogamous male homosexual relationship, by there very nature, carry greatly increased risks.
The book points out that these STD rates should not come as a surprise because from an anatomical point of view, the cellular makeup & other characteristics of the vagina are designed to take the penis & this is not the case for the anus. (Obviously anal intercourse is not confined solely to the homosexual population.)
should indeed by questioned by any objective observers.
From IVP's own "About Us" page ( http://www.ivpress.com/about /)
Located in Westmont, Illinois, InterVarsity Press has been publishing excellent Christian books for more than 50 years. Our current publishing program is focused on three imprints:
IVP Books offers general-interest books in categories like Christian living, discipleship, evangelism, missions, apologetics and cultural critique.
IVP Academic offers books designed for research and classroom use in areas such as biblical studies, theology, philosophy, science and psychology.
IVP Connect offers study guides, multimedia curriculum and foundational resources for churches and small groups.
I did a little searching for the actual bibliography referenced by the christian apologists who reviewed Schmidt's book, but unfortunately IVP seems to be keeping a pretty tight lid on content and I really have no desire to give them $13 just to disprove an admitted evangelical apologist.
Katchadourian, Herant. Fundamentals of Human Sexuality. Holt, Rinehart and Winston: Orlando, 1989.
"The most common sexual form of transmission of AIDS in the United States has so far been anal intercourse. Especially at risk is the person who receives infected semen in the rectum ("receptive" anal intercourse). In a study of over 2000 gay men who tested negative for the HIV, 11 percent of those who engaged in receptive anal intercourse had acquired the virus a year later; as against 0.5 percent who only engaged in the insertive role in anal intercourse. All of those who avoided anal intercourse altogether still tested negative at the end of the year (Kingsley et al., 1987).
"Because anal intercourse is most common among gay men, they have been the most at risk. The spread of AIDS among gay men has also been facilitated by the tendency of some of them to have numerous sexual partners. In the early days of the AIDS epidemic, gay bathhouses (most of which have now closed down) served as an "amplification system." A concentrated group of infected people quickly infected many others, who in turn passed the infection to an ever-expanding group (Shilts, 1987)."
So, it -isn't- homosexuality itself, but rather -unsafe- anal sex and the amplification caused by gay bathhouses that spread STDs. Also, note the following:
"There is no single 'homosexual lifestyle' or a standard way in which homosexuals interact with one another. Like heterosexuals, homosexuals' lives are shaped by a host of economic and social factors as well as their sexual orientation. Some homosexual styles are highly visible, but what is most flamboyand must not be equated with what is typical."
Therefore, it is clear that homosexuality itself is not the sine qua non of unhealthiness, rather, it is participating in unsafe anal sex and especially in environments (as bathhouses) where one will have multiple encounters.
That should read: homosexual males.
Yeah? Well, what about homosexuals who -don't have sex- yet are committed to their partner? Are they unhealthy as well?
Or how about homosexuals who always get tested for STDs? Are they unhealthy?
There is no "key difference" between this example and the examples I stated. Key behavior of sitting in McDonald's, by their very nature, carry greatly increased risks (in comparison to sitting at a salad bar).
"Promiscuity among homosexual men is not a mere stereotype & it is not merely the majority experience – it is virtually the only experience."
-I- am not promiscuous. I have never had sex. My boyfriend has never had sex. Obviously, you can't trust this author if he makes sweeping judgments like this, not only because it doesn't make logical sense, but also because it doesn't make empirical sense.
"Even if we set aside infidelity & allow a generous definition of ‘long-term relationships’ as those that last at least 4 years, under 8% of either male or female homosexual relationships fit that definition."
Has the author considered that extramarital relationships might be more difficult to maintain and easier to dissolve? Has the author charted the number of heterosexual extramarital relationships and found higher numbers there?
Furthermore, you haven't explained anything about STD rates in homosexual -female- relationships at all, which leads me to believe that your author is simply cherry-picking his facts as he pleases.
And think about it logically. Why would homosexuality lead to promiscuity? Are you going to tell me that it's because "women domesticate men"? Because if you are, you're going to admit that men can only be dedicated and committed to women, and you'll have to explain why that is.
I pray you have a better reason than poorly interpreted statistics.
You are correct – promiscuity among people of any sexual orientation is a health issue. However, the prevalence of these issues is far greater in the homosexual population than in the heterosexual population, as outlined in the same book:
Promiscuity: “It is useful to compare the figures on homosexual promiscuity to those of the general population, since one common response (eg. your response) is that heterosexuals are no less promiscuous. A major study of American adult sexual behaviour published in 1993 found that 17% of men & 10% of women had more than one partner in the previous year. Another study compared instances of non-monogamy in the previous year among different groups & found that among ‘close-coupled’ homosexual males, 79% reported at least one instance of non-monogamy in the previous year, as compared to 19% among lesbians, 10 % among married heterosexuals & 23% among cohabiting heterosexuals. If we project these numbers out over several years, the number of homosexual men who experience anything like a lifelong fidelity becomes, statistically speaking, almost meaningless.
Promiscuity among homosexual men is not a mere stereotype & it is not merely the majority experience – it is virtually the only experience. Even if we set aside infidelity & allow a generous definition of ‘long-term relationships’ as those that last at least 4 years, under 8% of either male or female homosexual relationships fit that definition. In short, there is practically no comparison possible to heterosexual marriage in terms of either fidelity or longevity. Tragically, lifelong faithfulness is almost nonexistent in the homosexual experience.”
Quote: A homosexual couple in a committed, long-term relationship will probably not suffer from STDs or depression, and will probably not engage in drug abuse, alcoholism, or suicidal behaviors.
Given the above data, the challenge is finding such a relationship you have alluded to.
People need to stop harping on Mr. Chambers. His words were well thought out and he didn't compare homosexuality to drug abuse and obesity, he merely used those as other examples of what scientists think may be genetically triggered. He never said that homosexuality SHOULD be overcome, in fact he said the opposite - that it should only be overcome if it does not coincide with what you want. And I know plenty of christian gays who struggle every single day with their conflicting feelings - and frankly, theirs is a difficult choice that most of us will never understand. As intelligent life forms, we should all know by now that a person's religious beliefs can be just as big a part of who they are as their sexual orientation, so as politically incorrect as it may be, Exodus International is one of the few organizations that tries to diffuse the conflict.
I personally don't believe being gay is a sin. Apparently you don't either. But for us to tell someone who truly believes that their soul is on the line for feeling passionately about a member of the same sex that "being gay isn't a sin" is about as useful as a cat flap in an elephant tent.
You make some very good points. Unfortunately, there are people out there who do feel that their eternal souls are at risk because of the feelings that they have for another person. Generally they feel this way because they have been taught to by an unfortunate encounter with an intolerant religious figure. They are often told that homosexuals will go to hell. Sometimes, in extreme cases, they are even told that they have a disease, and need to be cured. I think they would be more helped by someone who could help them come to terms with themselves than with someone who can teach them to bury themselves under a facade.
Your argument is still predicated on the belief that someone's sexual orientation is more important than their religious beliefs. I know that many religious institutions are intolerant of people acting on their feelings of homosexuality. But many societies until recently have been pretty intolerant of it as well, and I'm sick of people bashing on religious conservatives (as if they're completely responsible for all the intolerance we've seen over the last couple of centuries.) And while I've seen some pretty blatant hatred coming from religious individuals before, the gay community (and pro gay community) is dangerously close to becoming just as intolerant of religious conservatism as many religions have been of them. What's the difference between a religious zealot who hates all homosexuals and a homosexual who hates all religious people? Not a whole lot.
I don't see any logical errors in my argument. I would thank you to point any out for me, but please refrain from saying that they exist and failing to address them. My argument is not and never was predicated on the belief that someone's sexual orientation is more important than their religious beliefs. My intent was to point out that while we don't know if sexuality is imborn or learned, we do know that religion is learned, and is certainly easier and safer to change than orientation. (And before you say that I think religion is easy to change, I never said that, nor would I. I said easier, not easy)
As far as your point that secularists can be just as hostile and fanatical as the religious, if you take a look at some of my other posts, you will quickly see that I agree with you 100%, and often call out hatemongering from both sides of the aisle. That being said, I don't see what that point has to do with the debate.
Not logical errors on your part, logical errors on the part of people who hate unconditionally. Sorry, I have a habit of entitling my posts after I've written them so sometimes I forget what I got on about in the first place. When you said:
"I think [homosexuals] would be more helped by someone who could help them come to terms with themselves than with someone who can teach them to bury themselves under a facade" I just as soon assumed you meant that coming "to terms with themselves" meant "with their sexuality." My bad.
As far as hatemongering goes...I think it has everything to do with this debate. Many of the comments on this particular question (in response to Mr Chamber's article) are politically correct, incredibly biased, and/or just downright hateful. I think all of those things cloud judgment (and they make for a less than scintillating read.) I'm not accusing yours of being one of those posts, btw :)
I find very interesting the concept that a person is defined by how they "feel." There exists an entire field in psychology, known as cognitive therapy or cognitive behavorial therapy, started by Aaron Beck, which works on the presumption that how you "feel" is not immutable. Once upon a time, one of the marks of a "civilized" person that distinquished us from animals was our ability to control our emotions, and not simply act on instinct. Now we are reduced to "if it feels good, do it." As a society, how do we draw a line between not requiring a man who feels gay from going against his natural emotions and inclinations, and not requiring a man who feels very angry going against his natural emotions and inclinations?
"Gay" is something you are, not something you do. As someone commented above:
"Substance abuse requires you to take some of the substance before you become addicted. If homosexuality were the equivalent, there would be only a few gay people, because nobody would be gay until they'd had sex with someone of the same gender."
Other than that, your comment contains the expected straw men and red herrings.
I don't feel like wasting my time with such nonsense, but I'll finish off with this: A gay man living his life like he feels does not harm anyone An angry man acting out can potentially be dangerous.
I found your comparisons to a predisposition to being overweight or to addiction the be very interesting. In both of those cases, the individual affected is no longer considered to be "at fault" for their conditions. There are many treatments available to help an obese person to diet, or to help an addict overcome his addiction - and even the best of those are limited in their effectiveness.
From what I've seen in studies, though, BOTH of those conditions are easier to overcome than the predisposition to homosexuality - the long-term success rate for former gays is amazingly low, and the definition of "success" normally includes a conversion to celibacy - certainly a less appealing prospect that a full conversion to a happy, sexually-active heterosexual.
This entire section of your argument does nothing to answer the question - "Is it genetic?" Instead, you seem to be claiming that even if it IS inborn, the victims should be held to blame for their inability to overcome it. Considering that there is no as-yet successful method to do so, that seems overly harsh.
Substance abuse requires you to take some of the substance before you become addicted. If homosexuality were the equivalent, there would be only a few gay people, because nobody would be gay until they'd had sex with someone of the same gender.
I like your handwaved claim that "most of the people do not experience psychological effects." Not only is that entirely different from the findings of groups who aren't funded by EI, but you also duck how severe they are. Are the people who were negatively psychologically affected dead?
I also noticed that since the last time I visited your website, when you listed your "recovery" rate as 33% with no long-term follow-ups, you've stopped listing a rate at all; you merely claim it works with no information.
Please cite your data and name your statistics.
He has just as much right to do and believe what he feels is right as you do. Maybe some people are better off leading a spiritual celibate life style even if the number is small. I wish there was more civility in these discussions.