Posted on 05/29/2009 11:19:46 AM PDT by Maelstorm
By Trayce Hansen, Ph.D.
An accumulation of research from around the world finds that societies which endorse homosexual behavior increase the prevalence of homosexuality in those societies. The legalization of same-sex marriage--which is being considered by voters in several U.S. states--is the ultimate in societal endorsement and will result in more individuals living a homosexual lifestyle.
Extensive research from Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the United States reveals that homosexuality is primarily environmentally induced. Specifically, social and/or family factors, as well as permissive environments which affirm homosexuality, play major environmental roles in the development of homosexual behavior.
A closer look at the research: Twin study investigations of homosexuality were recently conducted in both Sweden and Finland. Such twin studies compare rates of homosexual behavior between different sibling groups who share varying degrees of genetic similarity (i.e., identical twins versus non-identical twins). By comparing such rates, twin studies help sort out the extent to which homosexual behavior is genetic and/or environmental. For instance, if homosexuality is genetic, then in cases where one identical twin is homosexual the co-twin should be homosexual nearly 100% of the time because identical twins share 100% of their genes.
But that is not what these two large-scale Scandinavian studies found. Both studies revealed that when one identical twin was homosexual the other twin was homosexual only 10% or 11% of the time. Such findings indicate that homosexuality is not genetically determined.
Instead of genetic factors, these Scandinavian studies concluded that unique environmental factors play the largest role in the development of homosexual behavior. The question as to which specific environmental factors contribute to homosexuality was not answered by these studies although some conclusions are offered by Danish and American research data to be discussed later in this article.
But first, it should be noted that although the Swedish and Finnish twin studies are among the best to date, they still have wide margins of error. In fact, the margins of error are so wide it remains entirely possible that genetic factors play no role in the development of homosexuality. That remains to be determined, but what has been resolved is that the primary factor in the development of homosexuality is environmental.
A Danish research investigation studied two million adults living in Denmark, a country where same-sex marriage has been legal since 1989. This study uncovered a number of specific environmental factors that increase the probability an individual will seek a same-sex rather than an opposite-sex partner for marriage.
For Danish men, the environmental factors associated with higher rates of homosexual marriage include an urban birthplace and an absent or unknown father. Significantly, there was a linear relationship between degree of urbanization of birthplace and whether a man chose homosexual or heterosexual marriage as an adult. In other words, the more urban a man's birthplace, the more likely he was to marry a man, while the more rural a man's birthplace, the more likely he was to marry a woman.
For Danish women, the environmental factors related to increased likelihood of homosexual marriage include an urban birthplace, maternal death during adolescence, and mother-absence.
Interestingly, this Danish research finds that urban birthplace and separation from the same-sex parent both were associated with same-sex marriage for men as well as women. (The latter finding supports psychological theories that have long asserted homosexuality is related to childhood problems--real or perceived--with the same-sex parent). In summary, this study finds that environmental factors that contribute to the development of homosexuality can be social and/or familial.
Finally, an American research study--the most comprehensive and representative survey of sexual behavior in America--reported its findings concerning homosexuality. The results of this study also support an environmental theory of homosexuality, not a genetic one. In particular, this survey identified specific types of environments that increase the likelihood of homosexual behavior. The authors describe these environments as "congenial" to the development of homosexuality.
For American men, the environmental factor most related to homosexual behavior was the degree of urbanization during the teenage years. Specifically, boys who lived in large urban centers between the ages of 14 and 16 were three to six times more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than were boys who lived in rural communities during those same ages. The authors offer the following possibility: "an environment that provides increased opportunities for and fewer negative sanctions against same-gender sexuality may both allow and even elicit expression of same-gender interest and sexual behavior (p.308)." Note the word "elicit." These researchers believe that growing up in a more pro-homosexual region may evoke or draw out homosexual behavior in young men. The implication is that some homosexual men who were reared in urban centers would not have become homosexual if reared in non-urban centers. The authors explain, "the environment in which people grow up affects their sexuality in very basic ways (p.309)."
For American women, the environmental factor most associated with a homosexual or bisexual identity was a higher level of education. And though that was also true for men, the pattern for women was more dramatic. For instance, a woman with a college degree was nine times more likely to identify herself as non-heterosexual than a woman with only a high school diploma. The specific elements that create this marked difference are unclear, but the researchers don't believe it's simply due to higher reporting of non-heterosexuality by more educated individuals. They believe one explanation is the fact that with more acceptance, even encouragement, of homosexuality at universities, more university women embrace a non-heterosexual lifestyle. For an example of how that might develop, see Dennis Prager's article entitled, "College Taught Her Not To Be a Heterosexual."
Based on the findings of this American research study, environments that sanction and/or promote homosexuality induce more individuals to engage in homosexual behavior.
Conclusion: All of the aforementioned research studies from four different countries, each utilizing large, countrywide samples, reveal that homosexual behavior is not genetically determined. Rather, the data find that human sexuality is malleable, and environmental experiences and influences can and do shape its expression. Moreover, these findings are supported by decades of anthropological and sociological evidence that reveal that rates of homosexual behavior fluctuate--sometimes greatly--with changes in the social, cultural, and legal climate. The more an environment affirms or encourages same-sex sexuality--whether an urban center or a university campus--the more homosexuality there will be in that setting.
Social and cultural norms, as well as legal regulations, influence human behavior including sexual behavior. So not surprisingly, as the United States and other Western Countries have become increasingly pro-homosexual--socially, politically, and legally--they have experienced an upward trend in the number of individuals engaging in homosexual behavior. That trend will continue if we move beyond mere tolerance of homosexual behavior (which is appropriate) to formally honoring it by legalizing same-sex marriage.
###
References: Butler, A.C. (2005). Gender differences in same-sex sexual partnering, 1988-2002. Social Forces, 84, 421-449.
Frisch, M. & Hviid, A. (2006). Childhood family correlates of heterosexual and homosexual marriages: A national cohort study of two million Danes. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 533-547.
Langstrom, N., Rahman, Q., Carlstrom, E., & Lichtenstein, P. (2008). Genetic and environmental effects on same-sex sexual behavior: A population study of twins in Sweden. Archives of Sexual Behavior, DOI 10.1007/s10508-008-9386-1.
Lauman, E.O., Gagnon, J.H., Michael, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Prager, D. (2005). "College Taught Her Not To Be a Heterosexual." Available on the web at: http://dennisprager.townhall.com.
Santtila, P., Sandnabba, N.K., Harlaar, N., Varjonen, M., Alanko, K., von der Pahlen, B. (2008). Potential for homosexual response is prevalent and genetic. Biological Psychology, 77, 102-105.
Look, the point of this article is that environment is a factor. I am providing supporting evidence that this is true. I am not talking about the guys who are raped or do it to avoid having their butts kicked. There are many who simply just resort to it. Have you even studied this at all? It appears not. Sexuality is not as hard-wired as some would believe.
Prison may not be a good relationship.
In one you have a choice between gay sex or Celibacy/possible death/injury
In the other it’s a question of are you turned on by Men or Women?
I think the dynamics of a forced single sex environment are sufficiently different from the rest of the world that we can’t make a good comparison nor draw conclusions in this case.
What you seem to be saying is that prison proves that many people would choose homosexuality if they were denyed access to the opposite sex and they were in an enviroment whereas homosexual behavior was more accepted as it is in prison.
Many children and young adults though go through akward periods of life whereas sexuality and social situations with the opposite sex can be very stressful and whereas they have problems coping. Many may want to have sexual relations with the opposite sex but it is not working out for them and they struggle with their self-esteem.
We also know that preying on children and young adults is much more prevelant among those who practise homosexuality.
So if we are telling our children that homosexuality should be treated as being equal to heterosexuality would that not tend to lend itself to a similar type of choice in the minds of some of these young adults or children?
If they are already struggling to find themselves sexually and are feeling stressed because they are being rejected by the opposite sex then we are only setting them up for worse confusion if and when they are confronted by homsexuality from a predetor.
It seems that the prison analogy works fine.
I totally disagree. The natural heterosexual is completely disgusted by sex with the same gender. Morever, there are many prohibitions that people have for moral and other reasons.
You want it to be your way and not look at this as a legitimate point.
The real point is that people make CHOICES. Furthermore, have you ever heard of something called, “an acquired taste?” Sometimes that’s exactly what happens. Not always. I am not speaking of every single instance of homosexuality. It is a complex issue that you appear to be trying to simplify.
As for the gay sex vs. celibacy, I can assure you that most men would choose celibacy and as for the possible death/injury, that is completely exaggerated.
I just had to respond to your excellent point. I am actually reading something about determinism right now and it is beyond fascinating.
I think your points are excellent but I do think that environment plays a factor in how people sometimes WILL choose. They still have free will but depending on situations, sometimes it takes more strength than at other times. An example of this is the married man who works with all men, never travels and only sees women when he is with his wife. He never strays. Well, if he really wanted to, I suppose he could look up trouble (particularly easy nowadays with the internet). Contrast that with the man who works with many, many attractive women and has to travel sometimes WITH women or is on the road for long stretches. Am I defending THAT particular man’s straying, if he does? No, absolutely not, but I do believe that he must work harder at the job to remain faithful. This is simplistic, I realize, but environment DOES affect people. However, I do not subscribe the the determinist theories.
There were WAY more homosexuals in pre-biblical times. When the Pentateuch was written and God forbade it in the LAW, things changed. There will ALWAYS be more homosexuality when it is socially acceptable.
There will always be homosexuals - true - but when it is considered okay and a culturally legitimate practice, the numbers will go up.
If as the evidence now demonstrates, homosexual behavior is LEARNED not genetic then the debate should move to prevention. Does society have an interest in PREVENTING the teaching of this behavior.
If the behavior is learned then what is the cause? Should that cause be identified, then how much effort should society expend to prevent that cause?
Nobody without those proclivities would EVER say “Hey, it is acceptable now, so what the heck?”
Iran has not freed themselves of homosexuality by killing them, they have just driven them underground (unless you are a Mullah caught molesting a boy, in which case you can have a sex change forced on the boy and that is supposed to make everything OK again).
Cultural conditions can produce such proclivities in those developing their sexuality, boarding school, sexual segregation, the burkha, etc. Hard to get ‘programmed’ to be sexually attracted to women when you never see them.
You either have those proclivities and hide them, or you have those proclivities and do not hide them; or you do not have those proclivities.
Don't make me quote Andrew Dice Clay at you! ;)
Yes, I agree with you. Context or environment can play a factor. So we could say that man has free will, but not a perfect free will. He may even do things thoughtlessly and spontaneously. Or he may simply be mistaken and choose to do the wrong thing, thinking it is the right thing. The example you give is a good one.
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Checkout: http://SilencingChristians.com
Oy. Who said it had anything to do with the “environment” the parents created? When I say that homosexuality is often a creation of environment, I am using the term broadly, just as the writer of the article that was originally posted. For instance, individuals in certain occupations are far more likely to experiment - this is an environmental construct. Just like college is now an environment where this is occurring. I don’t believe there are any more “true,” if that term can even be used, homosexuals today than there were 50 years ago. However, because it has become trendy - look, one of the big songs of last year was “I Kissed a Girl” by that female singer - people are gravitating towards this lifestyle. Once a person begins on this path, he/she might decide to continue. It is a CHOICE and they are exercising free will in this regard. Now, these people are different from those that will say they had “feelings” as a child and knew they were different, etc. etc. I have much more complex theories about those people, based on research I have read, but I think they are the truly torn people who believe they HAVE NO choice. They are only one part of this population. Others do it for other reasons. Some women turn to women because they have had bad experiences with men.
Finally, one case in point. Remember Ellen DeGeneres and her old girlfriend, Ann Heche? Heche said she was a lesbian and had a very long relationship with Ellen and then she’s suddenly NOT a lesbian and ends up married to a man and had at least one child - then cheats on hubby with one of the hot costars on her show “Men in Trees.”
This is why I am not inclined to believe these people are BORN this way. While I think it’s much deeper for many of them than they just decided to be gay or lesbian, for others, it really was as simple as that.
The more I read about how humanism has crept into every area of our culture, the more afraid I am for our culture. We are listening to fools telling US what is normal, right, and good; rather than listening to what God says (not you or I necessarily but our culture in general).
I think I know what you mean by humanism. I think you mean multicutural relativism and radical materialism. But the word humanism is ambiguous. It has many meanings. The word was first used in the early Renaissance for a type of Christian education combined with classical studies. And it seems to me that is the type of humanism we are in need of today.
I have been doing some reading in the types of education advocated in the early Renaissance. To my amazement, both the Catholic south and the Protestant north advocated the same sort of humanist education. But of course they meant something quite different from the popular meaning of the word humanist today.
I have also discovered that there was a movement in the early 1900s called the New Humanism. It was Christian and classical. It sought to counter the effects of naturalism, that is a belief in only progress and natural evolution. I have only begun my researches, but so far I have found the subject very rewarding.
Well, my understanding of humanism was that during the enlightenment it was the lightening rod for the new kind of thought which was that mankind, that is humans, were the source of knowledge and what would ultimately progress us and save us; thus human = humanistic. So, when you say multicultural relativism or radical materialism, that is fine for today but these concepts, and more, all have their roots in humanistic principles.
If you want to read a great book (if you can find it), it’s called “Idols for Destruction: The Conflict Between Christian Faith and American Culture” by Schlossberg. As a historian of European history, he reaches back to show us how we got to where we are and he covers historicism, nature, and other facets of thought.
I was not speaking of the enlightenment but of the Renaissance. The Renaissance took place several centuries before. The original humanism was Christian humanism. It did not start with the proposition that man is the measure of all things. On the contrary, this humanism stated that God is the source of all things that are good and true. But humans need an education to learn what is good and true. Hence the proper studies for educating a human being are the humanistic studies. And this was not really new in the Renaissance. The Renaissance simply echoed what had been said for centuries about the proper education of a human being.
If you want to read a great book (if you can find it), it’s called “Idols for Destruction: The Conflict Between Christian Faith and American Culture” by Schlossberg. As a historian of European history, he reaches back to show us how we got to where we are and he covers historicism, nature, and other facets of thought.
I have not read this book. But I have read a good bit of history to know that the meaning and content of humanism has changed since the Renaissance. But there is a movement today to return to this original humanism as the proper study for the Christian Academy.
At any rate, an essential part of learning history is to read what people in the past wrote. And since you were kind enough to recommend a book, let me recommend The Great Tradition edited by Richard M. Gamble. He has assembled excerpts from the writings of 57 writers covering 2500 years, including Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Basil the Great, Chrysostom, Thomas Aquinus, Petrarch, Erasmus, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Edmund Burke, John Henry Newman, C.S. Lewis, Dorothy Sayers, T.S. Eliot, to name just a few.
I only caution that if anyone should ever pick up this book, do not start reading it just before bed. You will still be reading when the clock strikes 4 AM.
Well, you are talking to a bibliophile. I am in college, however, so don’t have a lot of free time for reading non-college material. I will take you up on that - the book sounds great and right up my alley.
And just for clarification, I know that the Renaissance was before the Enlightenment but I was not familiar with the humanistic thought you were talking about since I would, personally, not ascribe the term “humanism” to Christian ideology at all, of one is being true to Christ-like teachings.
Thanks!
It is a good thing to love books. But I would not call this book non-college material. I would say that if a college is not teaching what all of these author's define as the proper study for a human, then it may be time to reexamine the curriculum.
If I could quote the last sentence of Gamble's very brief introduction:
The Great Tradition patiently endures, ready to speak on its own behalf, ready to challenge narrow prejudices, ready to examine those with the courage to be interrogated by it, ready to teach those who are willing to be made unfit for the modern world.
The Great Tradition educates for wisdom and virtue, not power and vanity, not for utility, speed, novelty, or specialization.
I was not familiar with the humanistic thought you were talking about since I would, personally, not ascribe the term “humanism” to Christian ideology at all, of one is being true to Christ-like teachings.
At one time I did not associate humanism with Christianity either. Then I began to read about the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. This was a very different kind of humanism--not the modern variety.
Good luck with your studies.
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.