Gay-to-straight therapy repudiated

[InfiniteNow]

As a Science Forum, we have to respect scientific studies over opinion. Opinion can inform, but it is not the judge and juror. Results speak for themselves.

 

<...>

 

I thought this argument would die a short death, but interpretation prevails, it seems.

Indeed, but what has prevailed is the need to continually correct falsehoods and inaccuracies from other posters.

 

 

Speaking of results:

 

The Real Story on Gay Genes | Sex & Gender | DISCOVER Magazine

Whether or not a gay gene, a set of gay genes, or some other biological mechanism is ever found, one thing is clear: The environment a child grows up in has nothing to do with what makes most gay men gay. Two of the most convincing studies have proved conclusively that sexual orientation in men has a genetic cause.

 

<...>

 

Bocklandt is quick to point out that most likely there is no single “gay gene”—no single switch for sexual orientation. Instead, there are probably a handful of genes that work in ways as yet unexplained.

 

<...>

 

He thinks it is likely that perhaps 5 to 15 genes explain sexual orientation in most people.

 

 

A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation -- Hamer et al. 261 (5119): 321 -- Science

The role of genetics in male sexual orientation was investigated by pedigree and linkage analyses on 114 families of homosexual men. Increased rates of same-sex orientation were found in the maternal uncles and male cousins of these subjects, but not in their fathers or paternal relatives, suggesting the possibility of sex-linked transmission in a portion of the population. DNA linkage analysis of a selected group of 40 families in which there were two gay brothers and no indication of nonmaternal transmission revealed a correlation between homosexual orientation and the inheritance of polymorphic markers on the X chromosome in approximately 64 percent of the sib-pairs tested. The linkage to markers on Xq28, the subtelomeric region of the long arm of the sex chromosome, had a multipoint lod score of 4.0 (P = 10(-5), indicating a statistical confidence level of more than 99 percent that at least one subtype of male sexual orientation is genetically influenced.

 

 

Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity — Proceedings B

The Darwinian paradox of male homosexuality in humans is examined, i.e. if male homosexuality has a genetic component and homosexuals reproduce less than heterosexuals, then why is this trait maintained in the population? In a sample of 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men and their relatives (a total of over 4600 individuals), we found that female maternal relatives of homosexuals have higher fecundity than female maternal relatives of heterosexuals and that this difference is not found in female paternal relatives. The study confirms previous reports, in particular that homosexuals have more maternal than paternal male homosexual relatives, that homosexual males are more often later-born than first–born and that they have more older brothers than older sisters. We discuss the findings and their implications for current research on male homosexuality.

 

 

 

A genetic study of male sexual orientation

Homosexual male probands with monozygotic cotwins, dizygotic cotwins, or adoptive brothers were recruited using homophile publications. Sexual orientation of relatives was assessed either by asking relatives directly, or when this was impossible, asking the probands. Of the relatives whose sexual orientation could be rated, 52% (29/56) of monozygotic cotwins, 22% (12/54) of dizygotic cotwins, and 11% (6/57) of adoptive brothers were homosexual. Heritabilities were substantial under a wide range of assumptions about the population base rate of homosexuality and ascertainment bias

 

 

 

SpringerLink - Journal Article

We examined data from a large cohort of homosexual and heterosexual females and males concerning their siblings' sexual orientations. As in previous studies, both male and female homosexuality were familial. Homosexual females had an excess of homosexual brothers compared to heteroxual subjects, thus providing evidence that similar familial factors influence both male and female homosexuality. Furthermore, despite the large sample size, homosexual females and males did not differ significantly from each other in their proportions of either homosexual sisters or homosexual brothers. Thus, results were most consistent with the possibility that similar familial factors influence male and female sexual orientation.

 

We also examined whether some parental influences comprised shared environmental effects on sexual orientation. Scales attempting to measure such influences failed to distinguish subjects with homosexual siblings from subjects with only heterosexual siblings and, thus, did not appear to measure shared environmental determinants of sexual orientation.

 

 

 

 

Here, too: http://tigger.uic.edu/~bmustans/Mustanski_etal_2005.pdf

 

 

 

 

And... even though I addressed this in my very first post to the thread, people can learn more about evolution explaining homosexuality here:

 

Evolution myths: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality - life - 16 April 2008 - New Scientist

 

 

 

Either way, all of this actual data based in actual reality has been shared numerous times already. I'm not hopeful sharing them again will help these folks who simply dismiss science since it disagrees with their preconceptions.

[TheBigDog]

there is also a gap between those who perceive homosexuality to be a problem that needs to be fixed and those who accept it as being natural

Nobody here is saying homosexuality is a problem. We are saying that an individual who doe not want to be homosexual, but has found themselves in a homosexual lifestyle should be able to seek therapy to achieve that goal. THEY believe that it is something they want to change, not me. It is a matter of giving freedom to choose identity, including sexuality. The problem here is a battle between religious folks and gay activism; fringe groups. With legitimate therapy that is similar to those being touted by the religious groups, and decried by the APA falling with the poisoning of religion.

 

Bill

[Cedars]

i note that when i discuss plants or bugs with cedars for example, we exchange links, make observations, discuss them in relation to what we can find recorded in academia, and then draw agreeable conclusions on our observations. here however on this topic, cedars has ceased to provide links and discounted social science as suspect.

 

I posted a link to the ORIGINAL press release and noted the FULL report was linked at the bottom of the page. At that point I had not completed reading of the (frankly much too long) position paper.

 

My next post #52 referenced the aforementioned linked FULL report.

My next post, #59 linked to the def of Bigot, in response to the veiled attacks.

Number #63 did not require a link.

Number 65 provided a link. Its not just me who finds the 'science' of psychology 'airy-fairy'.

 

However, Turtle, you posted #35 No link and no relevant material. #38 no link, no content. Next you link to an online therapist who's webpage does not list his license number, his education but does give his fees. He probably is licensed in Wisconsin. Quite a few MN licensees jumped the border because of the difference in fees and regulations.

 

#60 you attempt to define visceral bigot but miss the mark greatly. From your own link below: "Part III ends with a discussion of bigotry, particularly "visceral bigotry": deeply irrational, deeply entrenched prejudices serving central emotional needs, and leading to injustice, violence and atrocity. "

 

Up to this point in time, I have seen no deeply entrenched prejudices/irrationality, and no one encouraged injustice, violence nor atrocity towards the homosexual community. So you have stretched the limits of bigotry, in a not so veiled attack against people who do not fall lock step into what seems to be your own personal (and highly exaggerated) definition of both bigotry and the combination buzz word "visceral bigot"

saying i wouldn't want my kid to be gay and all the variations we have seen is a gut reaction. the bone in the throat, the gnawing in the gut, and other such colorful phrases i have used to describe it. enter then my submitted link and a clinically defined term for my colloquialisms; "visceral bigotry".

I wouldnt want my kid to be gay. I cant think of a single parent who hopes their kid will grow up to be a homosexual. I did know one couple who feared their 5 year old was going to be gay. Spent some time laughing at them, spent some time trying to reassure them his behaviors at that time were not an indication of sexuality. One thing for sure, at 24 hes not gay. Not wanting your kid to be gay is totally different than saying "if my kid is gay, I will reject them".

 

 

Mike W. Martin - From Morality to Mental Health: Virtue and Vice in a Therapeutic Culture - Reviewed by Judith Andre, Michigan State University - Philosophical Reviews - University of Notre Dame

[InfiniteNow]

Nobody here is saying homosexuality is a problem. We are saying that an individual who doe not want to be homosexual, but has found themselves in a homosexual lifestyle should be able to seek therapy to achieve that goal. THEY believe that it is something they want to change, not me. It is a matter of giving freedom to choose identity, including sexuality. The problem here is a battle between religious folks and gay activism; fringe groups. With legitimate therapy that is similar to those being touted by the religious groups, and decried by the APA falling with the poisoning of religion.

 

Bill

 

Do you also feel that people should be able to use therapy to change themselves from a black person into a white person?

[freeztar]

Do you also feel that people should be able to use therapy to change themselves from a black person into a white person?

 

Ask MJ?

 

Weak argument. :shrug:

[Larv]

Do you also feel that people should be able to use therapy to change themselves from a black person into a white person?

Well, maybe. There is therapy available to change a pink man into a blue man.

[pamela]

As a Science Forum, we have to respect scientific studies over opinion. Opinion can inform, but it is not the judge and juror. Results speak for themselves

in these particular types of studies the results have to be concluded over many years after the therapy is done.As i have stated earlier, i knew of one such person who had undergone this therapy. Sure he was "cured" and miserable.It wasnt until he accepted who he was that he finally had peace within himself and tossed the therapy indoctrination aside.Your article-forgiveness and healing for what?

 

Bill- i venture not even to go near the word normal. It means nothing. We are all different and unique so some preconceived idea of what normal is pointless.If all i am is exposed to is a group of autistic children then i would deem that normal by whatever pathetic standard society has placed. My son is different by those standards but he is normal to himself and his mom.Should i "cure " him of his borderlineautisticeducablymentallydisabledintermittantexplosive self???? i accept him as he is .I do not treat him differently. I teach him, discipline him, love him and raise him as i would any child.

Nobody here is saying homosexuality is a problem. We are saying that an individual who doe not want to be homosexual, but has found themselves in a homosexual lifestyle should be able to seek therapy to achieve that goal.

and i am saying find out WHY first

I wouldnt want my kid to be gay. I cant think of a single parent who hopes their kid will grow up to be a homosexual.

why not? grandchildren? adopt...

if my boys are gay that is fine, it does not change how i feel. I want them to grow up to be the best possible persons that they can be

Well, maybe. There is therapy available to change a pink man into a blue man.

your weak attempt at comic relief?

[Turtle]

Ignore?

 

:D

 

I think the point was a miss.

 

:) my bad; missed your point i did. moving on...:shrug:

 

I wouldnt want my kid to be gay. I cant think of a single parent who hopes their kid will grow up to be a homosexual.

 

there is no way to interpret that except that you have an intuitive feeling that gay is bad. put whatever lipstick on the pig you care; it's still a pig.

 

Nobody here is saying homosexuality is a problem.

 

oh?

In the rush to make homosexuality universally accepted it appears that some people have to get thrown under the proverbial bus.

 

sounds like you have said universal acceptance of homosexuality is a problem to me. unless thrown under buses is a good thing. ;)

 

now back to some science, as someone said we lack studies of a particular sort and i found that not so. :(

 

Multiple factors involved in sexual orientation: New study — Warren Throckmorton

PRESS RELEASE 16 June 2008] A unique new study from the Swedish medical university Karolinska Institute (KI) suggests that the attitude of families and the public have little impact on if adults decide to have sex with persons of the same or the opposite sex. Instead, hereditary factors and the individual’s unique experiences have the strongest influence on our choice of sexual partners. ...

[InfiniteNow]

Weak argument. :)

 

It was not an argument, it was a question. It was a question which showed how ridiculous the questions from Bill and Larv continue to be. I have provided evidence of the genetic nature of homosexuality (as have several others). Skin color is also genetic. Their suggestion that therapy can change sexual preference (while also directly counter to the data shared in the OP of this very thread) is akin to suggesting that psychotherapy can change a persons skin color.

 

Also, freeztar... Really? Out of all of the posts I've made to this thread, and all of the posts from those who are on the opposing side of the debate from me... you chose NOT to post openly about their weak arguments, and you then instead single out that one sentence of mine to do so?

 

Really? Talk about selective moderation. ;)

 

 

Where have you been? If you're the arbiter and judge of a weak argument, how come you haven't been calling out the weaknesses of others which have been rampant throughout this entire thread for days now? :(

 

Give me a break. :D

 

 

 

 

I wouldnt want my kid to be gay.

It's comments like this which cause people to suggest you're displaying the tendencies of a bigot, Cedars. :shrug:

 

 

 

 

I don’t even treat God and the Laws of Gravity with reverence. Indeed I don’t even treat myself with reverence. I’d prefer to find the humor in it all and laugh about it. And there’s plenty of opportunities for irreverent humor here on this thread.

<...>

I would like to dignify them by accepting them into my realm of good humor.

<...>

And for that I must seek comic relief or otherwise go insane.

 

But Larv, once it's become obvious that your comments ARE offending others, and despite that you still choose to continue making them, then you must realize that you are no longer being funny. Unless maybe you are autistic, there is no reason that a person at your age should lack the basic social skills to easily recognize this.

 

You make what you feel is a joke. It is made clear that you have offended people. You then continue over and over and over again with that same style of humor, despite knowing that you are being perceived as offensive. By continuing like this, you're really not being funny... You're being foolish, hateful, and appearing bigoted.

 

 

 

 

 

i note that when i discuss plants or bugs with cedars for example, we exchange links, make observations, discuss them in relation to what we can find recorded in academia, and then draw agreeable conclusions on our observations. here however on this topic, cedars has ceased to provide links and discounted social science as suspect. well all those biology records go to determine endangered species assessments etcetera and those determinations use the exact same suite of statistical methods that social sciences use. :( why should statistical analysis be valid in one case and not the other? in short, it shouldn't. shorter still, it's not.

QFT.

 

 

 

 

while the "against gay" group <snip> has provided virtually no links to academic science sources other than the article in the op, while those of us in support of equal treatment for gays have provided copious quantities of said supporting material countering opinions asserted as facts. the anecdotes just don't qualify as evidence.

Precisely. What is the deal? One side offers anecdotes and arguments grounded in logical fallacies, and the other offers evidence in support of their positions and rational arguments... Isn't this a science site? Didn't freeztar come in and remind everyone of EXACTLY that just earlier today?

 

 

I think what we really need now is for somebody on the staff to come in and remind everyone of the rules of the forum about backing up ones claims with relevant citations. However, it would certainly appear that part of the problem is that one of the senior most staff members is a participant in ths thread... a participant who is on the side requiring said reminder about the rules. ;)

[freeztar]

It was not an argument, it was a question. It was a question which showed how ridiculous the questions from Bill and Larv continue to be. I have provided evidence of the genetic nature of homosexuality. Skin color is also genetic. Their suggestion that therapy can change sexual preference (while also directly counter to the data shared in the OP of this very thread) is akin to suggesting that psychotherapy can change a persons skin color.

 

Also, freeztar... Really? Out of all of the posts I've made to this thread, and all of the posts from those who are on the opposing side of the debate from me... you chose NOT to post openly about their weak arguments, and you then instead single out that one sentence of mine to do so?

 

Really? Talk about selective moderation. :)

 

I guess my hopes were misplaced. :shrug:

 

Infinitenow,

 

You've shown excellence in this thread with respect to backing up one's claim. Few have shown that.

 

Nonetheless, it's become a personal fight, as evidenced by the rest of this post.

Attack the argument (issue, if you prefer), rather than the proponent.

 

Not only does it move things along more smoothly, it also makes the antagonist feel good. :(

 

For instance, I agree with you and I see your point. ;)

[Larv]

You're being foolish, hateful, and appearing bigoted.

Damn! I thought I was a saint.

 

As Bill has already said, there really is no black and white with this issue; it's all about the gaps. And it is you who is "being "foolish, hateful, and appearing bigoted." You would have a psychologist apply therapy on a confused 12-year-old boy for accepting his homosexuality when it is entirely possible that he is heterosexual.

[pamela]

well we are a passionate lot when it comes to those ideas that we hold dear. How about a compromise? the boy is SEXUAL. Now from there, let the therapist help him to understand his feelings, emotions and attractions and fears and go from there.The boy should be able to draw some conclusions as to what would be the best expression of his sexuality:)

[TheBigDog]

sounds like you have said universal acceptance of homosexuality is a problem to me. unless thrown under buses is a good thing. :shrug:

There is still not universal acceptance of the moon landings, Turtle. Universal acceptance of homosexuality does not reflect those posting here on either side of the debate. I am speaking of the greater movement to gain acceptance of homosexuality in the hearts of the people of the world.

 

My experience is that there is useful therapy being thrown out with the bad. There are people who benefit from therapy that is no longer approved by the APA because they have rejected some therapy because of who does it and why. Those are the people who are being thrown under the bus.

 

Bill

[freeztar]

There are people who benefit from therapy that is no longer approved by the APA because they have rejected some therapy because of who does it and why. Those are the people who are being thrown under the bus.

 

Bill

 

I don't think so. Therapy is still a viable option, for everyone.

 

The APA seems to be making the statement that, in their opinion, gay-to-straight therapy has not traditionally shown success. They cite reasons for this, which CraigD already covered, and which is plain to view to those that read the statement issued by the APA.

 

It does not invalidate therapy. It suggests that therapy related to gay-to-straight conversion is not a proper therapeutic approach.

 

It's not the end of pschology, it's merely a statement made by the APA. :shrug:

[CraigD]

Much misunderstanding and acrimony concerning the subject of “(sexual orientation) conversion therapy” arises, I think, from the mistaken perception that sexual orientation is

1. a clear, on/off binary characteristic, like blood RdH factor
   
2. unambiguously measurable
   

What the past half century or so of scientific research, such as Kinsey’s, has revealed, is that neither of these perceptions is accurate. A key finding of this research, with many, more general applications in psychology and sociology, is that traits such as sexual preference – “gayness” or “straitness” – are not objectively measurable. All that is measurable is behavior. The approach used by Kinsey’s group was to measure, with imperfect but the best techniques available to them, was to record instances of specific people having physical contacts with others leading to orgasm.

 

Summaries of the “Kinsey scale” findings are available at such online sources as page 4 of http://www.samabhavanasociety.org/research_pdf5_Kinseys_scale_report.pdf, and illustrate why it’s problematical to consider sexual orientation a simple binary characteristic. According to it, 37% of males and 13% of females have had at least one same-sex experience to orgasm, while only 4% of white males have had sex with only other males since the onset of adolescence, 2 to 6% of females age 20-35. This leaves a significant population of males and females for whom a simple, binary “gay or strait” designation isn’t useful or meaningful.

 

Sexuality is complicated. We should be wary of arguments premised on oversimplifications of it.

[Turtle]

In the rush to make homosexuality universally accepted it appears that some people have to get thrown under the proverbial bus.

 

sounds like you have said universal acceptance of homosexuality is a problem to me. unless thrown under buses is a good thing.

 

There is still not universal acceptance of the moon landings, Turtle. Universal acceptance of homosexuality does not reflect those posting here on either side of the debate.

 

HUH? you used the term universal first bill. now you denounce it? which is it bill? you continually imply some sort of gay conspiracy is after something you think is yours/heterosexuals exclusively.

 

I am speaking of the greater movement to gain acceptance of homosexuality in the hearts of the people of the world.

like a damn slave revolt. how dare they step out of their place. :)

 

My experience is that there is useful therapy being thrown out with the bad. There are people who benefit from therapy that is no longer approved by the APA because they have rejected some therapy because of who does it and why. Those are the people who are being thrown under the bus.

your experience is both flawed and immaterial as a scientific source. i recall you self-identified as a "fixer" in your blog or some-such here and i submit this is more of the same. you still have offered no scientifc information of any kind in support of your assertions and in fact the most current scientific information has been offered in the opening post of this thread & counters your "opinion".

 

to quote pink floyd, teacher leave those kids alone.

 

PS no i didn't give a link in this post. it is a non-sequitor to conclude i implied that i add a link to every post i make, simply because i pointed out i had added links when those arguing against me have provided far fewer to no links.

[TheBigDog]

Much misunderstanding and acrimony concerning the subject of “(sexual orientation) conversion therapy” arises, I think, from the mistaken perception that sexual orientation is

1. a clear, on/off binary characteristic, like blood RdH factor
   
2. unambiguously measurable
   

What the past half century or so of scientific research, such as Kinsey’s, has revealed, is that neither of these perceptions is accurate. A key finding of this research, with many, more general applications in psychology and sociology, is that traits such as sexual preference – “gayness” or “straitness” – are not objectively measurable. All that is measurable is behavior. The approach used by Kinsey’s group was to measure, with imperfect but the best techniques available to them, was to record instances of specific people having physical contacts with others leading to orgasm.

 

Summaries of the “Kinsey scale” findings are available at such online sources as page 4 of http://www.samabhavanasociety.org/research_pdf5_Kinseys_scale_report.pdf, and illustrate why it’s problematical to consider sexual orientation a simple binary characteristic. According to it, 37% of males and 13% of females have had at least one same-sex experience to orgasm, while only 4% of white males have had sex with only other males since the onset of adolescence, 2 to 6% of females age 20-35. This leaves a significant population of males and females for whom a simple, binary “gay or strait” designation isn’t useful or meaningful.

 

Sexuality is complicated. We should be wary of arguments premised on oversimplifications of it.

I would caution against relying upon the Kinsey numbers. Some of the 100% populations mentioned in the report you linked were prison populations where the subjects being questioned had not had access to the opposite sex for some period of time, and where the only sexual outlet was masturbation or homosexuality.

 

Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach -- The Sociology of Human Sexuality

 

Bill