Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While I'm reviewing the list of sites posted, I don't mind responding to your post. It seems that you are suggesting that'no Christian' Psychologist, regardless of their credentials should conduct any study whatsoever, while, of course, homosexual researchers clearly have an open mind. That's a pretty convenient, clever, and discriminatory way of eliminating opposing studies.
No one in the homosexual community cried fowl, when the once beloved researchers, Bailey and Pillard produced the results of their refuted 'Twin studies'. Why didn't the homosexual community, with their integrity and open mindedness, simply dismiss the study due to the fact that Pillard was a gay activist, or even because he was gay?
No studies or findings I presented were created on the basis of religion. You will not find one scripturally supported conclusion/finding. If we conduct discussions using your logic, why not include political affiliation as well? I would have to assume that because most liberals are democrats, using your logic, I would be forced to assume that no scientist or psychologist whose political affiliation is democrat, is capable of conducting unbiased research, and therefore I should not accept any studies which do not conform to my way of thinking.
Is this really the point that you're trying to make? That only homosexuals, liberals, democrats, and gay activists, possess the moral constitution necessary to exercise enough integrity to produce an unbiased study??
Below is a link to a conservative Christian Psychologist/researcher who is quite well known and well respected in the field of sexual orientation.
Dr Warren Throckmorten. (He is heterosexual btw)
If you do a search on his website for "sexual abuse" or "reparative therapy" you will find articles where he reviews and dissects articles by NARTH and shows in detail how they misrepresent other studies about homosexuality.
"My academic work has been published by journals of the American Psychological Association, the American Mental Health Counseling Association and the Christian Association for Psychological Studies.
I am on the Clinical Advisory Board of the American Association of Christian Counselors.
Past-president of the American Mental Health Counselors Association and past-chair of the Ethics Committee."
He also reviews a recent large long term prospective study (Wilson and Widon, 2009) of adults who were sexually abused as children and follows them 30 years later. The results do not support your views.
So there is a huge difference between an honest Christian psychologist and researcher who is open minded and doesn't force his religious beliefs on clients, and those from NARTH who are pushing an anti-gay religiously motivated agenda based on non-evidenced based junk science and lies.
Homosexuals seem to be professionals at soliciting sympathy, playing the victim, straining the definition of love, and labeling anyone who disagrees with them, as bigoted, or ignorant, but are ill-prepared to provide substantial proof which can't be refuted, or explained. I'll understand if your next post contains more of the same, and so will the readers.
Are you up to the task???
So, have YOU found anything from reputable sources yet to back up your claims?
[quote=Jaymax;19344495]Below is a link to a conservative Christian Psychologist/researcher who is quite well known and well respected in the field of sexual orientation.
Dr Warren Throckmorten. (He is heterosexual btw)
If you do a search on his website for "sexual abuse" or "reparative therapy" you will find articles where he reviews and dissects articles by NARTH and shows in detail how they misrepresent other studies about homosexuality.
I am not that familiar with the NARTH group, and if Christian, I share their beliefs, however if you believe that their position, extending into their research has tainted their objectivity, based on their adherence to scripture, I won't take issue with that, as it would spark a religious discussion, which is pointless.
I've not had a lot of time, but I did review one of the studies/articles on the list you provided.
The report by an M.D., MPH, was divided into 6 main parts.
Introduction Definitions Etiology and Prevalence Special Needs Office Practice Health Care
I wasn't exactly sure what you wanted me to see in this report. It appears to be primarily instructional, advising Pediatricians to be prepared for possible homosexuality in children, for whom, this Dr. thought they needed to be prepared.
The issue I believed we were discussing was homosexual orientation and sexual abuse leading to homosexuality. The only statistics provided in this article dealt with the frequency of the occurence of homosexuality in adolescents, which is of course irrelevant. These statistics were supported with references to studies by Sorenson, and Garofalo, and a brief reference to Kinsey. Kinsey has pretty much been completely discredited as having any real place in the history of scientific studies. This Zoologist, somehow became a self proclaimed 'sexologist' and made his mark after conducting interviews with various individuals, homosexuals, heterosexuals and child molesters. I read a biography a number of years ago about his life and my conclusion was that this was a very sick individual. I don't think it's necessary to expound, but I can locate the biography if necessary.
Did you read the report? For me it read more like a high school essay, than the product of medical science. It did reference the study of monozygotic twins, assumably referring to the refuted Twin studies of Bailey and Pillard.
The only item I found to be of interest was the reference to prenatal androgen exposure influencing the development of sexual orientation, but I am pretty certain that these studies are purely theoretical, and were difficult to replicate. There was also a reference to sexually dimorphic regions of the brain. This would have to have been a reference to the refuted study of Simon Levay, in his research on the Anterior Hypothalamus.
I believe there was also a reference to increased fecundity in the maternal lines of certain families. However, simply because there is a notable increase in the occurrence of homosexuality within certain family lines, does not completely discount environmental influence in these lines.
There was nothing of use in the study you provided. It told me little more than what I already knew, and there was nothing conclusive. What were you hoping that I would find? This is one of the studies/reports you provided when I'd asked for someone to provide studies with conclusive findings. This one definitely is not it. I plan to look over the next one on your list, and I'll comment afterward.
I am still firmly convinced that there is a link between the sexual abuse of children and their subsequent behavioral choices related to sex. I am also still very much convinced that sexual orientation is not innate, and this particular study/report/instructional document, has not proven otherwise. We are in a climate of 'extreme political correctness', and so I know that peer reviewed studies proving the abuse link will take some time.
am still firmly convinced that there is a link between the sexual abuse of children and their subsequent behavioral choices related to sex. I am also still very much convinced that sexual orientation is not innate, and this particular study/report/instructional document, has not proven otherwise. We are in a climate of 'extreme political correctness', and so I know that peer reviewed studies proving the abuse link will take some time.
There's no question or doubt in scientists' minds of the correlation between sexual abuse and sexual behavior. Sexual abuse does indeed affect sexual behavior. What it doesn't affect is sexual orientation. Many sexual abuse victims are asexual or hypersexual or don't like to mix sex and love, etc., but all that has to do with sexual behavior, which is distinct from sexual orientation. There are also links between sexual abuse and fetishes, for example there have been studies done that link a history of abuse in medical settings with medical fetishes and so on but that is also very distinct from a homosexual orientation which is still within the realm of mutually consensual adult sex.
Study, performed by Camperio Ciani, Corna, and Capiluppi, (Royal Society of London).
The report suggested that there may be an evolutionary advantage to the presence of homosexuality in our society, increasing the survival of the species, so to speak. This report, if I understood it correctly, suggested that theoretically, a homosexual gene is transferred by the X chromosome, (from the mother), which then performs 2 primary functions. It increases the mother's fertility, and also influences the sexual orientation of the child.
The researchers studied the family trees of a number of homosexuals and a number of heterosexuals. They noticed increased fecundity among mothers in the family trees of the homosexual subjects, suggesting that the presence of homosexuality in society could very well increase the population due to its supposed fertility enhancing affect on females. I won't comment on how the theories initially conflicted with darwins theories of selection, for the simple reason that darwin's evolutionary theories are still, simply theories.
Again, the results of the study are purely theoretical, and the only thing that has actually been established is, that women in the family lines of homosexuals tend to be more fertile. Once again, no clear genetic link to sexual orientation has been established.
Last edited by Pennsylvanian1; 05-30-2011 at 05:40 PM..
There's no question or doubt in scientists' minds of the correlation between sexual abuse and sexual behavior. Sexual abuse does indeed affect sexual behavior. What it doesn't affect is sexual orientation. Many sexual abuse victims are asexual or hypersexual or don't like to mix sex and love, etc., but all that has to do with sexual behavior, which is distinct from sexual orientation. There are also links between sexual abuse and fetishes, for example there have been studies done that link a history of abuse in medical settings with medical fetishes and so on but that is also very distinct from a homosexual orientation which is still within the realm of mutually consensual adult sex.
I agree with most of your post, however, your last statement suggests a distinction between the causative factors predisposing an individual to sexual deviation, and those responsible for homosexuality, but I contend that no distinction, study/report, or even an intelligent opinion, has been submitted to verify your position conclusively.
I want to add that I am aware that I am, in fact, at a disadvantage, with regard to locating opposing data/reports, but this of course is due to an extremely sexually charged social climate which chooses rather to view such issues like child molestation, and homosexuality, as more of a positive sexual revolution, than perversion. We can thank individuals like Hugh Hefner and Alfred Kinsey for that, both of whom are, even today, applauded for their contributions.
Last edited by Pennsylvanian1; 05-30-2011 at 08:14 PM..
I agree with most of your post, however, your last statement suggests a distinction between the causative factors predisposing an individual to sexual deviation, and those responsible for homosexuality, but I contend that no distinction, study/report, or even an intelligent opinion, has been submitted to verify your position conclusively.
I want to add that I am aware that I am, in fact, at a disadvantage, with regard to locating opposing data/reports, but this of course is due to an extremely sexually charged social climate which chooses rather to view such issues like child molestation, and homosexuality, as more of a positive sexual revolution, than perversion. We can thank individuals like Hugh Hefner and Alfred Kinsey for that, both of whom are, even today, applauded for their contributions.
Please show me somewhere other than NAMBLA where child molestation is viewed in a positive light.
I am not that familiar with the NARTH group, and if Christian, I share their beliefs, however if you believe that their position, extending into their research has tainted their objectivity, based on their adherence to scripture, I won't take issue with that, as it would spark a religious discussion, which is pointless.
I've not had a lot of time, but I did review one of the studies/articles on the list you provided.
The report by an M.D., MPH, was divided into 6 main parts.
Introduction Definitions Etiology and Prevalence Special Needs Office Practice Health Care
............
I am still firmly convinced that there is a link between the sexual abuse of children and their subsequent behavioral choices related to sex. I am also still very much convinced that sexual orientation is not innate, and this particular study/report/instructional document, has not proven otherwise. We are in a climate of 'extreme political correctness', and so I know that peer reviewed studies proving the abuse link will take some time.
You missed the part in Etiology and Prevalence where they report: "there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation".
Bear in mind that the The American College of Pediatricians is comprised of over 60,000 clinical members. ALL the mainstream health associations disagree with
Millions of health professionals worldwide disagree with your unsupported, relgiously biased, layman opinions.
So what makes you qualified to give an "educated" opinion on this topic?
In contrast, NARTH has maybe a 100 clinical members who are all religiously opposed to homosexuality. If you don't know who NARTH are, then you haven't even begun to research this topic. You will find that they are often the source of "junk science" articles on anti-gay websites. They don't publish in peer-reviewed Journals, because their articles would never be accepted. They write basically unscientfic anti-gay "propaganda" dressed up with lot's of citations (mostly back to themselves or misrepresentations of studies by others) to look impressive to the layman.
I'm waiting for you to find even one study that conclusively shows that sexual abuse causes homosexuality. A Study published in reputable peer-reviewed Journals. That way they are accountable to experts in this field, unlike articles by NARTH or the Mormon article you presented.
You are the one making the claim that sexual abuse is the cause of homosexuality - it's up to you to find evidence-based support for your opinions.
Are you up for the task?
PS: I could tell you that it's a waste of time looking. But because you are so fixed and rigid in your views, (despite no evidence for them other than a religious need to believe homosexuality is either a choice or caused by abuse), you need to learn for yourself, that there isn't any scientific support for your views.. Perhaps if you do some honest research from peer-reviewed sources, you might realise that your opinions are prejudiced by your religious views on homosexuality.
Last edited by Ceist; 05-31-2011 at 05:34 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
