Posted on 01/29/2003 11:29:48 AM PST by Notwithstanding
Summary: You be the judge. A letter form the editor in chief.
... I bring these matters to your attention because of a threatening phone call I received a few weeks ago from a fellow psychologist. On page 78 of our last issue, PT ran a small ad for a book called A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality by Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D., and his wife Linda. Nicolosi is a psychologist who specializes in trying to help unhappy gays become straight. Apparently feeling that this rather modest contribution to the literature on homosexuality wasn't getting enough attention, the psychologist, who identified herself as a lesbian activist, called me at home on a Saturday to tell me that PT should not have run such a heinous ad, that she was speaking for "thousands" of gays who were going to boycott PT, "and worse," that Dr. Nicolosi was a "bigot," that no gay person had ever successfully become straight, that homosexuality was entirely determined by genes, and that sexual conversion therapy had been condemned by the American Psychological Association. I told her that the editorial department at PT has no connection whatsoever with the advertising department, but she was unimpressed. She subsequently posted messages on the Internet urging people to harrass me at home (no one else ever did) and to send me complaint letters.
In all, I received about 120 letters, many of which exemplified a bad game of Telephone: Some people complained about an anti-gay "article" PT had published; others referred to an anti-gay book I had published and people who weren't subscribers said they were dropping their subscriptions. Several writers suggested I was a "Nazi" and a "bigot," and one compared me with the Taliban. A surprising number of letters asserted that gays have a right to be rude or abusive because they themselves have been abused. Most echoed the same points that my caller had made....
(Excerpt) Read more at psychologytoday.com ...
Let's assume that the Gay Activists are correct, that homosexuality is caused by a "gay gene." Also, suppose that genetic technology advances to the point whereby a physician is able - like they are today with certain prenatal abnormalities - to tell prospective parents that their unborn child is destined to be: homosexual.
What would the pro-choice crowd do with this? Hmmmm?
Type 0 blood is recessive. You must have two 0 genes to have 0 blood. Your parents can have A type blood -- dominate -- and you can have 0 only if they have an A/0 gene combination.
Now if everyone with type 0 blood could not reproduce then the percentage of people with type 0 blood would be drastically reduced until it was pretty much eliminated because the only reproducers in society could -- at best -- provide a 25 percent chance of having a baby with type 0 blood.
My point is...even with your theory gayness would eventually be non-existent if it were strictly genetic. Perhaps another analogy would have been hair color with a light and dark potential -- but I doubt sexuality is a hetero/homo potential type case. Still, without being able to reproduce, time would not be their friend.
Now if you argue that it is a genetic abnormality or anomaly your theory might work. Rare diseases and disorders fit into that category. But we do not call them normal and desirable. I doubt anyone would be comfortable putting gayness in that category.
It has been awhile since I have studied genetics but that's the way I remember it.
Besides, then what about rape or other undesirable sexual behaviors. Are they genetic? At what point is a person just responsible for making their own behavioral choices?
It is clear that much human behavoir is genetically driven. However, it is clear from these studies that deviant sexual behavior is, by-and-large, learned.
Actually recent studies show that most people who are misnamed homophobic are not afraid of homosexual and do not hate homosexuals but are disgusted by homosexuals.
Many consider homosexuality to be immoral because of strong language in the Bible prohibiting males from "lying with" males (especially Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 and Romans 1:26-27). But many Biblical prohibitions (e.g., against intercourse during menstruation or against masturbation) are ignored by modern culture,
There is a large portion of the religious culture that still follows Leviticus and Romans so setting it aside is not as clear as you would like it to be. If you do not spend a great deal of time in the religious subculture you would not know these things.
so it's clear that we can set aside the moral objections against homosexuality when we choose to do so. In the Netherlands, a Christian country,
The Netherlands is not more a Christian country than Egypt is a Jewish country. Practicing Jews may have lived there once but no more...
less than 20 percent of the public is anti-gay. Religious objections to homosexuality can, it seems, be overcome. Others consider homosexuality to be unnatural, and they're simply wrong. Homosexual behavior has existed throughout human history; it exists throughout the animal kingdom; and it exists in every culture on earth-even in those that punish such behavior by death.
So has murder, lying and stealing.
The evidence is overwhelming that homosexual behavior is at least partially genetic in origin. More than 6 percent of male sheep, for example, are exclusively homosexual
Sheep in herds? Or wild and normal sheep on mountains. Sheep have been genetically modified throughout the years to make them docile and unable to care for themselves so they are not management problems. Not an example of a natural occurring homosexuality.
and a 1996 study showed that homosexual behavior in fruit flies can be deliberately engineered by genetic manipulation.
Deliberately engineered homosexuality is not exactly proof that it is a natural and normally occurring event. If you are saying that the preference itself is in the genes, one must evaluate whether it is an aberration on the level with dogs who dig and bite at themselves...
More to the point, concordance studies with humans suggest that male homosexuality is roughly 50 percent genetic in origin (compared with 5 percent for weight and 84 percent for height).
No actually there was no corrolation in studies by non-homosexuals.
I bring these matters to your attention because of a threatening phone call I received a few weeks ago from a fellow psychologist. On page 78 of our last issue, PT ran a small ad for a book called A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality by Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D., and his wife Linda. Nicolosi is a psychologist who specializes in trying to help unhappy gays become straight. Apparently feeling that this rather modest contribution to the literature on homosexuality wasn't getting enough attention, the psychologist, who identified herself as a lesbian activist, called me at home on a Saturday to tell me that PT should not have run such a heinous ad, that she was speaking for "thousands" of gays who were going to boycott PT, "and worse," that Dr. Nicolosi was a "bigot," that no gay person had ever successfully become straight, that homosexuality was entirely determined by genes, and that sexual conversion therapy had been condemned by the American Psychological Association. I told her that the editorial department at PT has no connection whatsoever with the advertising department, but she was unimpressed. She subsequently posted messages on the Internet urging people to harrass me at home (no one else ever did) and to send me complaint letters.
This has been the experience of many conservatives who want to have a dialog with the homosexual community.
In all, I received about 120 letters, many of which exemplified a bad game of Telephone: Some people complained about an anti-gay "article" PT had published; others referred to an anti-gay book I had published and people who weren't subscribers said they were dropping their subscriptions. Several writers suggested I was a "Nazi" and a "bigot," and one compared me with the Taliban. A surprising number of letters asserted that gays have a right to be rude or abusive because they themselves have been abused. Most echoed the same points that my caller had made.
But my caller was way off base on key points. The APA has never condemned sexual conversion therapy but has merely issued cautionary statements, one of which reminds psychologists of their obligation to "respect the rights of others to hold values, attitudes and opinions that differ from [their] own"-an obligation from which my caller clearly feels exempt. Although homosexuality was removed from the DSM-the diagnostic manual used by therapists-as a mental disorder in 1973, all editions of the DSM have always listed a disorder characterized by "distress" over one's sexual orientation (DSM section 302.9). Both gays and straights have a right to seek treatment when they're unhappy with their sexual orientation, and some choose to try to change that orientation. It would be absurd to assert that only heterosexuals should have that right.
Can gays change? Some people who wrote to me insisted that "orientation" is immutable, but behavior is certainly not, and it's common for people to ask therapists to help them suppress a wide variety of tendencies with possible genetic bases: compulsive shopping and gambling, drinking, drug use, aggressiveness, urges to have too much sex or sex with children and so on. A 2002 research review by Warren Throckmorton, Ph.D., published in an APA journal, suggests that sexual conversion therapy is at least sometimes successful. From this and other sources I've checked, I'd guess that such therapy is probably successful about a third of the time and that in perhaps another third of the cases, clients are unhappy or even angry about their failure to change. These figures might sound discouraging, but there are certainly many examples of clinical problems that resist change (e.g., agoraphobia and autism) or that produce angry outcomes after therapy (e.g., couples counseling or treatment for sexual abuse). Of greater importance is a new study by Robert Spitzer, M.D., of Columbia University, the man who headed the committee responsible for removing "homosexuality" from the DSM in 1973. After surveying 200 people who had remained "ex-gay" for at least five years-and even though he has been under tremendous pressure by gay activists to repudiate his findings-Spitzer has concluded that sexual conversion therapy can produce significant, positive and lasting changes.
Have you ever phoned Dr. Spitzer and asked him about his experience with the homosexual community after he published his last findings?
Regarding Dr. Nicolosi and A Parent's Guide... : The book itself is surprisingly tame. It notes, for example, that children who might be headed toward homosexuality "should not be forced into a predetermined mold," that sexual orientation can only be modified "to some extent," that there is no "guarantee" that a child will grow up to be heterosexual and that homosexuality has "biological influences." On the down side, the authors attribute virtually all male homosexuality to poor father-son relationships, failing to present any hard data to support their assertion and ignoring the possibility that fathers avoid effeminate sons-in other words, that homosexual tendencies cause bad father-son relations and not vice versa. The authors also make the naive assertion that because we all come equipped with sex organs, we were "designed" for heterosexuality. Tell that to the male sheep. Dr. Nicolosi has also made, in my view, intemperate and irresponsible public comments about homosexuality, and he does not deny having made them. Ironically, in addition to receiving threats and insults from gay activists, I have also received brutal letters from readers who objected to my sympathetic answer to a question about homosexuality in my column, "Ask Dr. E," on page 86 of the same issue that carried the ad for the Nicolosi book. A lot of people, it seems, hate me no matter what I say, or don't say, on this issue. (To be fair and factual, I also received a few crossover letters: Some gays expressed strong support for PT's right to carry the ad, condemning censorship in any form.)
Psychology Today reviewed the sexual conversion issue in 1999, but it's clearly time to do so again. Two new books are out on the subject, two others will be out any day now, and the Spitzer data will soon be in print. So stay tuned; we'll soon offer an objective, comprehensive look at the ex-gay issue and will also give the factions space to vent.
By the way, in spite of the fact that I've now been introduced to a dark, intolerant, abusive side of the gay community, I will continue to be a strong advocate for gay and lesbian causes, to champion the individual's right to self-determination, and to condemn any attempts by anyone to suppress the truth. So, am I anti-gay?
No, and just like a true liberal you don't learn from experience but continue to spout the same Political Correctness.
Best,
We can rise above animal impulses. Certainly some of us can. Age of consent varies by state and nation. Would the author also hold up studies that show that adults and minors should engage in sex (or that such activity should at least have a universally agreed age)?
The eternal socialist-adolescents of the Baby Boom generation don't ever want to be held personally responsible for their actions. Got to be "someone else's" fault or something they can't control.
;-)
Why, if I didn't know better, I might think it was INTOLERANCE on their part!
A redundancy.
become straight. Apparently feeling that this rather modest contribution to the literature on homosexuality wasn't getting enough attention, the psychologist, who identified herself as a lesbian activist, called me at home on a Saturday to tell me that PT should not have run such a heinous ad, that she was speaking for "thousands" of gays who were going to boycott PT, "and worse," that Dr. Nicolosi was a "bigot,"
a lie
that no gay person had ever successfully become straight,
Another lie
that homosexuality was entirely determined by genes,
a baldfaced lie
and that sexual conversion therapy had been condemned by the American Psychological Association.
A political organization that sang the praises of pedophilia a couple years back.
If I were this "lesbian activist," I would not speak so loudly about tolerance.
The human condition for most of human existance has been tribal. Wolves have packs, sheep have flocks, cattle herd, and people lived in tribes.
Now visualize an advantage to family groups where, say, a couple of guys never "mate" (with women.) They are going to be somebodies brothers and uncles. They bring in game from hunting, or make arrowheads, whatever. The thing is, their "income" is given to the family units of their brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces. Not their own.
They don't have to reproduce themselves. For recessive genes, the genes will be passed on by their brothers and sisters. So - there is a selective advantage to having a small (say 2% or 3%) of the males to be oriented to not mate with females. The advantage goes directly to their immediate extended family and then to the tribe.
They produce more resources than they consume! This can be significant when you consider how close to the edge of survival exist most tribes. A tough winter, a mammoth stepping on a couple hunters, etc. Having a couple contributors who don't have continuously pregnant "wives" and a pack of kids who would otherwise get first dibs on their provinder...that can make the difference on a tribe surviving or not.
This hypothesis explains why there may be a genetic advantage to having a small percentage of males oriented towards homosexuality. (There may be an equal number of females so oriented, but in a tribal society, unless they become shaman/witches/herb girls and so have enough value to be left alone, they get "mated" whether they will or not.) Note this works only for tribes or packs, but not herds (where a dominant male will mate with most females.)
Got it? So there is a hypothesis that explains why there could be a genetic predisposition for a small amount of homosexuality among humans. (Doesn't prove it one way or another, of course.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.