Homosexuality is not biologically determined - latest research.

On Line opinion ^ | June 08, 2004 | Dr David van Gend

[scripter]

The Titanic of Gay Rights, leaving all in its wake, is about to founder on a large and immovable fact.

My concern is not for the glamorous first-class passengers - the prominent doctors and judges - or for the Mardi Gras exhibitionists leering and lurching across the deck - but for the unknown homosexuals down in their lonely cabins feeling sick.

These are the ones who want to stop the ship and get off. The homosexuals who do not want to be homosexual but who are told that change is impossible, and that any talk of change is disloyal to the Gay crew, even mutinous. 

The iceberg of clinical fact looming up in the dark is this: that homosexuals who want to become heterosexual can and do change, as authoritative medical research has now demonstrated. Given the will, and skilled therapy, there can be an end to the nightmare of same-sex attraction. That is the best news for our heartsick friends down below deck, but it is bad news for the complacent triumphalists of the Gay Titanic.

Bad news for their tall tale that being gay is like being black, an immutable inborn identity. Bad news, in the debate on gay marriage, for their false analogies with apartheid and Aborigines, since blacks cannot stop being blacks, but gays can stop being gay.

Homosexuality emerges in its truer light, not as a minority "genetic identity" but as a complex conditioned behaviour, which can and does change.

As to the exact causes of homosexuality, the medical jury is still out. But the baseless claim, promoted by Justice Michael Kirby and others, that gays are just born that way, is given no support by the American Psychiatric Association. Their Fact Sheet on Sexual Orientation (2000) sums it up: "There are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality".

As to the ability for homosexuals to change, late last year a remarkable research paper was published in the Archives of Sexual Behaviour (October 2003) by one of America's senior psychiatrists, Dr Robert Spitzer. Significantly, this was the same Spitzer whose reforming zeal helped delete homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association's manual of mental disorders back in 1973. Now he has published a detailed review of "200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual orientation". He writes of his research: "Although initially sceptical, in the course of the study, the author became convinced of the possibility of change in some gay men and lesbians." 

In his structured analysis of homosexuals who claimed to have changed their orientation through "reparative therapy", he concluded that the therapy had been genuinely effective: that "almost all of the participants reported substantial changes in the core aspects of sexual orientation, not merely overt behaviour". Against critics who say that attempts to change sexual orientation can cause emotional harm to homosexuals, he notes: "For the participants in our study, there was no evidence of harm".

So our seasick travellers down below in the Titanic can take heart: the desire to shake off sexual disorientation can be, in this eminent and gay-friendly doctor's opinion, "a rational, self-directed goal", and for some it can be successful. The enforcers amongst the ship's crew who accuse you of desertion, of "irrational internalised homophobia", are wrong.

To our shame, some of these enforcers are health professionals. To them Spitzer says: "Mental health professionals should stop moving in the direction of banning therapy that has as its goal a change in sexual orientation. Many patients can make a rational choice to work toward developing their heterosexual potential and minimizing their unwanted homosexual attractions."

Spitzer, once a medical darling of the Gay Rights movement, may now have to walk the plank, because his stubborn telling of the clinical truth has political implications.

The success of Gay activism has been due to portraying Gays as a persecuted minority group, identifying with historically persecuted minorities like blacks, women, Jews. This illusion cannot survive Spitzer's findings, that being Gay is a treatable psychological condition like any other, not an inborn identity.

In the current political debate about same-sex marriage, all talk is of persecuted minorities and human rights, while Spitzer's truth of a treatable condition is nowhere to be heard. Gay activist Rodney Croome thinks back to the Aborigines and accuses the Prime Minister, who opposes same-sex marriage, of denying gays "the full humanity of a disadvantaged group".

In The Australian, Former AMA President Dr Kerryn Phelps likewise accused the Prime Minister of "apartheid" against the gay "minority" in denying them marriage rights. But turning from that bogus racial minority model to Spitzer's therapeutic model, we see that gays can in fact marry, and in Spitzer's study many were married - but first they had to become biologically marriageable by successfully reorientating from homosexual to heterosexual.

The titanic illusion of homosexuality as a fixed inborn identity will take time to sink, but Spitzer's therapeutic iceberg will be more liberating than destructive.  Below decks are the passengers I care about, and they need to know that it is OK to want to escape the suffering of same-sex attraction, and possible to do so. And our health professionals, who alone can man the life rafts, owe them a duty of care in aiding that escape.

Dr David van Gend is a family doctor in Toowoomba, Senior Lecturer in the School of Medicine, University of Queensland, and a medical advisor to the Australian Family Association.

[iconoclast]

bump for later.

[scripter]

That's a great article. I have a few more on the same topic:

Child Molestation and Homosexuality
Homosexual Rape and Murder of Children
Homosexuality and child molestation: the link, the likelihood, the lasting effects.

[petercooper]

Gays are men who want to be women. Lesbians are women who want to be men. Up is down. Down is up.

[familyop]

Thanks again! I'll forward the information to other interested parties along with post #140.

Child Molestation and Homosexuality
Homosexual Rape and Murder of Children
Homosexuality and child molestation: the link, the likelihood, the lasting effects.

And please put me on your ping list.

Actually, this part of the topic is most relevant, especially regarding the homosexual activist arguments about "gay children." Children are not ready for sex--especially sodomy. For legislation purposes, this argument will be more than enough to slap down the arguments of homosexual activists (mostly feminists in their efforts to destroy the family for socialism). But it will still be very interesting to find out what objective research has to say about single parenting and homosexuality. I've been a single parent, myself, but will not allow that experience to sway me toward advocating false research/reports in favor of the continuing high divorce/cohabitation rate.

[evad]

Sheeewowsaah..
that's a lotsa reading to do.

One thing that popped out immediately is the 10% myth:
>> The 10 percent fallacy<<

If every there was a myth, that's a perpetual one that hangs on forever.

[evad]

>>If it's credible then what in the article did you not find credible to make the comments you've made<<

Here's the part that immediately got my eye and I must confess, I still haven't read the article with the scrutiny it deserves.

Some of these traits might be inherited (genetic), while others might have been caused by the "intrauterine environment" (hormones). What this means is that a youngster without these traits will be somewhat less likely to become homosexual later than someone with them.

[evad]

I still haven't read the article with the scrutiny it deserves. I'm going to do that Right Now.

[evad]

Did you have an answer for this question?

>>Why would a young adult that hasn't been exposed to the bad behavior, that hasn't been abused, that's had the best environment, that hasn't had any of the behavioral reasons to be gay, be gay anyway?<<

[scripter]

And please put me on your ping list.

little jeremiah runs the ping list now so he'll add you to the ping list. Warning, though, it can be high volume. lj - please respond so I know you received this.

[tuesday afternoon]

Why would a young adult that hasn't been exposed to the bad behavior, that hasn't been abused, that's had the best environment, that hasn't had any of the behavioral reasons to be gay, be gay anyway?

Maybe the assumption of no abuse is wrong. I read of a study done by FBI profilers on sex offenders. When questioned, only a small percent admitted any sexual/physical abuse as a child. However, when they were given a more intensive questionnaire, 75% were identified as having been molested/abused as children.

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[scripter]

Here's the part that immediately got my eye and I must confess, I still haven't read the article with the scrutiny it deserves.

You have to read the entire article in context. They are talking about traits, also referred to as gifts. The next paragraph states:

What are these traits? If we could identify them precisely, many of them would turn out to be gifts rather than "problems," for example a "sensitive" disposition, a strong creative drive, a keen aesthetic sense. Some of these, such as greater sensitivity, could be related to - or even the same as - physiological traits that also cause trouble, such as a greater-than-average anxiety response to any given stimulus.

The next paragraph contains a key sentence:

In any case, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the behavior "homosexuality" is itself directly inherited.

The traits/gifts are not underlying factors behind homosexuality (behavior).

It's a complicated issue and not everybody has the time nor the inclination to get better educated on the issue and all the surrounding issues. And when you read someone like myself posting information that just seems to contradict what you already believe on the issue, it's difficult to accept. I can understand that. But I can't understand someone continually spouting the same discredited arguments every chance they get. I'm not talking about you, evad. They know who they are.

[scripter]

I posted this last December. I don't know if this post will confuse you or help: the conclusion of: The Gay Gene? by Jeffrey Satinover M.D.. As I said, it's complicated.

[Eva]

My husband's uncle had three kids(2M,1F) all gay.

[familyop]

">>Why would a young adult that hasn't been exposed to the bad behavior, that hasn't been abused, that's had the best environment, that hasn't had any of the behavioral reasons to be gay, be gay anyway?<<"

Thanks for bringing my attention to a fact that we are now uncovering. It will blow both feminism and homosexual advocacy out of the policy waters.

"THE SCIENCE OF GAY PARENTING"
by Maggie Gallagher
Excerpt:
"And sure enough, an astute plumber of footnotes discovers similar flaws in the studies Wald cites: Most compare children of gay parents to "heterosexual families" headed by single mothers. The most optimistic conclusion you could come to from this body of research, if honestly reported, would be: Gay Parents No Worse Than Single Mothers, On Average."

...not to mention bringing us a little humor!

As for cites to references on this, they are all over the Net and were authored by many.

[little jeremiah]

Got it! familyop will be added forthwith, tout suite and instantly.

[William Terrell]

Why would a young adult that hasn't been exposed to the bad behavior, that hasn't been abused, that's had the best environment, that hasn't had any of the behavioral reasons to be gay, be gay anyway?

Well, I don't know of any and if I did, I'd need to know the details.

It could be some things.

As homosexuality becomes more advertised to the younger people, there may be a number that think it's cool to declare themselves homosexual. The same goes for rebellion against parental guidance, expressed as a claim of homosexuality, instead of black leather jackets, to shock and declare independence. None of these would really be homosexual, of course.

Respondents to the question that would end up as that kind of statistic may be lying about their home life and pressures because they are ashamed of the situation, if the study was just a questionnaire instead of case by case.

These are just the ones that came to mind. Maybe I could think of more if I though about it.

[scripter]

Maybe the assumption of no abuse is wrong.

That's a good point. Some will not want to admit abuse or molestation. What we know is that most are victims of abuse or molestation.

What's sad is there are folks who apparently wouldn't offer a homosexual the help he requested. Would they help a drug addict? Why not a homosexual? Some would rather say: "No, you have the freedom to continue living the homosexual life and there's nothing wrong with it, so keep living as you are."

[scripter]

Thanks. I'm out of here until late tonight or tomorrow.

[little jeremiah]

placemark.

Hi, EdR!