I just came across another ex-gay ministry site, and they did a survey of the members of their online support groups to determine what they percieved to have been the most significant causes of their developing homosexual feelings. As I’ve often said, homosexuality probably has many factors, both genetic and environmental. Out of the 200 responses, here’s the results (corrected the link).
- Father-son relationship problems (97%)
- Conflict with male peers (97%)
- Mother-son relationships (and the "smothering mother" syndrome) (90%)
- Other sexual experiences (93%)
- Personality Traits (87%)
- Sexual Abuse (48%)
(Why is your "Here's the results" link an email address?)
Seeker, this is baloney, and you'd recognize that if you looked at it critically. An ex-gay ministry asked it's ex-gay members why they thought they were gay, and those ex-gay members responded with reasons that ex-gay minitries typically cite as causes for homosexuality. Shocking!
And as someone who "suffers" from this dreaded affliction that you're so obsessed with, I will say that — like most queer men and women I know — I don't have any introspective knowledge about the causes of my same-sex attraction. Why is it, then, that these 'ex-gays' do? Did they ask Christ nicely, and he told them?
And what does "Personality Traits" even mean? If they mean that these people had the attracted-to-their-own-sex personality trait, then I'd say that was my cause for homosexuality too. Of course, that's not what they mean. I'm sure they mean something entirely ridiculous, but I can't comment because your link is broken.
If you think this kind of cherry-picked and astoundingly biased survey is even remotely scientific, then it's no wonder you don't believe in evolution. There's no useful information here.
I do wonder sometimes about the connection between young-earth creationism and ex-gay ministries. Both take small minority positions and often rely on religious systems but state that the science backs them up. Then when NASA or the APA disagrees with them, they claim a conspiracy, liberal entrenchment, blinded by the spirit of the age, etc. I wonder if there are other examples of this kind of thinking.
When i see these types of "surveys" from ex-gay sites (or anywhere else for that matter) – I believe it just proves the point that these people have deeper issues than "gay tendancies" that they need to work through. And they are blaming "homosexuality" instead of dealing with their other issues.
On that note – i don't know a single one of my straight male friends who don't have some sort of "father-son relationship problem" or "a conflict with their male peers".
I wonder what the root causes for male heterosexuality are? Son/mother conflicts? Conflicts with female peers? The alignment of Mars and Pluto? Inquiring minds want to know.
Poor seeker, desparately denying his love that dare not speak its name.
Great point regexp (love the name, btw). Any of these "reasons" can be present or absent, in gays and straights, and they aren't correlated to anything at all, and I doubt they ever will be. Childhood abuse, particularly sexual, is the only item on that list that I give any credence to. And not because I believe that it definitely causes homosexuality, but because it does definitely cause changes in a person's sexual behavior, same-sex or otherwise.
These are the homophobic equivalent of old wives tales. It's almost shocking to read that, in contemporary America, so many people still believe that a "smothering" mother can cause a man to be gay. It's utter, unsubstantiated nonsense, and nothing more. The fact that a bunch of indoctrinated, self-loathing people are parroting the crap philosophy of their fundamentalist leaders doesn't surprise me, but it does make me a little sad.
These are the homophobic equivalent of old wives tales.
For those who tend to have social phobias themselves, so the consistent projection onto others of supposed phobias and fears is not surprising.
It's almost shocking to read that, in contemporary America, so many people still believe that a "smothering" mother can cause a man to be gay.
Effeminacy is taking on the mannerisms of the mother, why do so many gays go through a phase of effeminacy to the point that many take on such mannerisms throughout their whole life-span? Or would you deny the empirical facts?
It's utter, unsubstantiated nonsense, and nothing more.
Actually, it's something that anyone with eyes in their head can see and verify empirically for themselves because it is that general and well substantiated empirically. Trying to deny it would be transparently lying about it.
The fact that a bunch of indoctrinated, self-loathing people are parroting the crap philosophy of their fundamentalist leaders doesn't surprise me, but it does make me a little sad.
I'm sure that you're crying a little tear about it. And if I cried a little tear about your little tear would the use of my own feelings against you convince you of anything? Self-loathing? It is homosexuals themselves that find every path they can to deny their own Self and agency, instead defining themselves by their sexual desires that they apparently loath and so on. It seems that once they conflate their Self with their sexual desires, then they truly loath themselves and that is what is probably linked to very high rates of suicide and the like.
Gays will deny the empirical data to the end, even if it turns out that these root causes are true for a sub-population of gays – because they only want to look at it one way – THEIRS.
As to the American Political, er, Psychological Association, it has been made clear in other posts that the gay decision wasn't made based on facts, but on politics.
As mynym says, these root causes are obviously linked in to forming homosexual identity and attractions, and empirical experimentation is busy examining both the correlation and causative nature of these events.
To deny them is to be willfully blind. I reprinted them because they are yet another nice summary of the obvious, even if this wasn't a scientific study. And becuase I will continue to present hope to gays who want to change, rather than deny them hope by lying about these matters.
I do not see how truth for a sub-population would alter things. Many people fall along degrees of bisexual orientation and environmental exposure may well cause them to lean homosexual in orientation, but the many factors are not taken into account in these situations.
Ex-gay groups are marketed to every gay person. What if someone does not fall into any of their categories? I do not fit into those general categories with the possible exception of personality traits, though their site's chain of events do not apply even there.
As noted earlier, reparative therapists have pushed the parental causation view, and people remember the past via the viewpoint that they have in the present. Second, even if homosexuality was biological, then the distant father / close mother situation may just be a natural development, though I have not seen any studies backing this perspective.
On the APA, the evidence presented did not lead to a conclusion that homosexuality was a mental illness. Was there activism? Of course, but if that is true there is good reason for activism. The scientific surveys since prefromed have not found such correlations throughout the homosexual community nor have they found reason to believe that ex-gay groups are effective at altering orientation; behavior is altered. I should also note that the APA is only one group that removed homosexuality from the list of disorders. The APA action was the most controversial one, but several other health groups also did the same.
Finally, many people have attempted such changes for years and in some cases decades without success, and many purported successes, even those like Alan Chambers of Exodus, do not appear so dramatic when observed closely.
Alan Chambers isn't a changed man, he's a repressed man. That's why he'll mention from time to time that he still thinks about men.
Of course, that's the goal. Mynym and Seeker believe that abject repression is as good as anything other than gays simply not existing. Arguing this point is worthless, since obviously neither will change their ways. But I'd like to understand one thing: what's wrong with emulating mothers. I love my mother, and I love the way she lives her life. Is there something wrong with men who feel this way about their mother? Is there something wrong with men who aren't as masculine as you'd desire?
This is just another example of the harm that Religious belief inflicts on mankind. The contemporary evidence available so far points to a genetic/prenatal development origin of sexual orientation (although this is not fully understood yet). It is rather clear why Christian organizations would refuse to accept the findings of research that leads in this direction. If one is born gay ,that places the responsibility squarely in Gods hands ,which of course contradicts the Bible view of Homosexuality as being an abomination punishable by death. This is an example of Christian belief being fundamentally incompatible with the free inquiery of Science.
Other examples of this kind of intellectual dishonesty include the "intelligent design " movement ,that is threatening the integrity of science education in general, without even being science at all! (see Dover Pen. verdict)
Richard, that is not necessarily so. I know some conservative evangelicals who do believe the homosexual orientation is biological and unalterable, but they consider it a side affect of sin's corruption on our physical forms. They recommend life-long celibacy with an emphasis on Paul's arguements against marriage in order to focus on the gospel.
Of course, such arguements are nonsense. I think our evolutionary cousins, the bonobos in particular, offer the best insight into how homosexuality may have developed among humanity. We currently do not have enough information to really know the factors in play, so studying the issue remains quite speculative.
Of course, that's the goal. Mynym and Seeker believe that abject repression is as good as anything other than gays simply not existing.
That is a total misrepresentation of what I believe, but of course, you weren't meaning that to be an accurate statement, but your own value judgement on what I believe, and how you perceive it.
If one is born gay ,that places the responsibility squarely in Gods hands ,which of course contradicts the Bible view of Homosexuality as being an abomination punishable by death.
Many christians do resist the biological explanations for the reason you mention. However, I think the better response was the one I gave in My Genes Made Me Do It.
" But just because something is genetic does not make it normal and healthy, or intended by God. Disease is genetic too."
Homosexuality is probably both genetic and environmental (one researcher somehow estimated 40% genetic. But whatever the outcome of the biological and environmental research around homosexual orientation, these can not alone either condone or condemn homosexualty.
I know some conservative evangelicals who do believe the homosexual orientation is biological and unalterable, but they consider it a side affect of sin's corruption on our physical forms.
Well ,getting Christians to agree on anything is like trying to herd cats! It all comes down to which denomination is adhered to ,be it Calvinist or Arminian, and the thousands of schisms that branch from them. Not to mention of course ,Catholicism.
This is a theological argument that involves the extension of the doctrine of inherited sin, it is the one fundamental doctrine of Christian belief that is absolutely crucial to Christain belief, the fall of man.
This condemnation is based on whatever interpretation you like , be it a result of inherited sin or an issue of freewill denial of God . A moral judgement is placed on homosexuality by God through the Bible.
I think our evolutionary cousins, the bonobos in particular, offer the best insight into how homosexuality may have developed among humanity.
I`m not sure what your hinting at here. Perhaps the relationship between male dominance competetition in establishing breeding rights in a small social group? Or perhaps a sexual behaviour that benefits the survival of a small breeding population by encouraging the open breeding rights of a polygamous group? Not sure what you mean there ,please elaborate a bit more,sounds interesting. I do understand that Evolution by natural selection is also influenced by beneficial behaviours in a group context. Call it "persistence of memory","Culture",or "Memetics". Either the genes survive…or they don`t.
" But just because something is genetic does not make it normal and healthy, or intended by God. Disease is genetic too."
It is fairly self evident that Heterosexuality has a genetic basis of origin. We would not be here otherwise. Males have the XY chromosome,females an XX chromosome. The female is the default human embryo model until effected upon in utero by the genes involved in the Y chromosome.(This is why men have nipples ,bye the way). Infants born with penises do not have to be taught that it is their role in life to feel a desire for a member of the opposite gender in order to make more like themselves, in order for the community to survive. That would not work.
Genes have been molded by the simple prime directive of replication. Only the organism/organisms that have the best fit in the environment toward replication will be the ancestors of the future generations to be. This is the most reductive concept behind Evolution of course ,but the point must be made.
This process is imperfect by its very nature. It is why better replicators survive . This is also why there is genetic disease. This is how bacteria and viruses thrive in battle with every living thing on earth.
You want to make a case that "genes made me do it" in order to extend a moral argument ? If that were valid ,every rapist would get off on "genetic grounds". "I was only trying to propogate my genes!" . The materialist equivalent of "the devil made me do it!"
Fortunately for us , morality is based on the intent to minimize harm. Whether that be on an individual basis or as a group. And no, Jesus didn`t invent that concept .
I don`t think for a moment that the root origin of homosexuality is speculative ,it is under study in the scientific community,and there is progress being made . I don`t place any value judgement on homosexuality whatsoever myself. It simply is. Knowing why and how is only a benefit for genetic research and possibly other branches of science.
If Christians believe homosexuality is a sin, what do they think about hermaphrodites? Do hermaphrodites differ from homosexuals from a moral standpoint; and therefore it's not a sin for them to choose their sexual orientation whereas it's a sin for homosexuals to choose theirs?
Do hermaphrodites differ from homosexuals from a moral standpoint; and therefore it's not a sin for them to choose their sexual orientation whereas it's a sin for homosexuals to choose theirs?
That's a great question, one I have pondered a bit, but don't have a clear answer for. I doubt that their "abnormality" would be considered sinful. But if not, why not gays who are also genetically determined? That's the question, eh? This is probably why xians push for the environmental cause, because that way, they don't have to deal w/ the complication of genetic causes.
But let me ask you a question. Moral values aside, do we think that hermaphrodites have a genetic abrnormality, or are they a "normal variation"? See where I am going?
That's a great question, one I have pondered a bit, but don't have a clear answer for.
Until you do, perhaps it would be ethical to ease up on your rhetoric concerning homosexuals?
But let me ask you a question. Moral values aside, do we think that hermaphrodites have a genetic abrnormality, or are they a "normal variation"? See where I am going?
Truthfully, I don't. Can you please elaborate a bit more?
Why don't you answer the question. Are xxy males considered a normal variant, or an abnormality? Whatever rules you apply to this, perhaps you should apply them to homosexuality – IF you think there is a genetic component. It's probably not that simple, but if you are going to use hermaphrodites as part of your argument, you should be able to cover this.
I would say that herms have an obvious genetic problem, while most gays probably do not. But that's still being researched.
BTW, I am not hard on gays (no pun intended). I think the jury is out medically speaking, so govt should neither condone nor condemn them. I think we should allow room for ex-gay research just like we do genetic research until we know more. And I think we can still assume that it is against nature, and morally condemned by the bible, although even that is, of course, debatable.