Year: 2008

I talked about it here and yesterday, ReutersHealth published an article about Frisch’s gay mortality study. With a sure to be provocative title, the article summarizes the main findings.
I have been surprised that only bloggers – and few of them – have picked up on this research. There is a little something here for everyone; there is some evidence of reduced longevity but not to the degree hoped for by the Camerons.

Mortality declines as same-sex marriage endures
Last Updated: 2008-11-24 13:33:59 -0400 (Reuters Health)
By Joene Hendry
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – Mortality among same-sex married men and women in Denmark is higher than that of the general population within the first 3 years of marriage, but then declines to more closely resemble mortality the general Danish population, researchers report.
Nevertheless, these findings sharply contradict what Frisch’s group describes as “flawed claims” that people in same-sex marriages live an average of 20 years shorter than heterosexually married people.

The last sentence, of course, refers to the Camerons.

This news report from the Netherlands Information Services, an English language Dutch new service, is intriguing.

Govt Subsidises ‘Homosexuality Healers’
THE HAGUE, 22/11/08 – Emancipation Minister Ronald Plasterk subsidises two Christian organisations that see homosexuality as a curable complaint.
Plasterk recently announced he would give subsidies to Christian gay organisations with the goal of making homosexuality discussible in these circles. But according to De Pers newspaper, these organisations work with therapists that are supposed to ‘cure’ homosexuals of their proclivity. They also only accept homosexuality when it is not actually practised.
Refo Anders is receiving 84,000 euros. “Homosexual feelings, okay. But we reject practising,” confirmed chairman Johan Quist in De Pers. Dealing with homosexual feelings means either celibate living or becoming heterosexual, is also the view of Johan van de Sluis, board member of the Onze Weg (Our Way) foundation, which is receiving 50,000 euros.
Gay interests organisation COC chairman Wouter Neerings is astonished. “Minister Plasterk is normally a man of sound judgement. It looks like a political compromise with ChristenUnie.”
In a reaction, Plasterk said: “These organisations have access to circles where there would otherwise be no homo-emancipation at all. Of course I do not support the aims completely, but they have taken important hurdles. For example, the recognition that there are homos in Christian circles.”

Plasterk is an acclaimed molecular biologist, writer and of late politician, who serves as the Minister of Education, Culture and Science in the Netherlands. As such, he is responsible for “emancipation” or setting policies supportive of equal rights for women and gays. He rejects Christianity, yet apparently believes there is value in making “homosexuality discussible in these circles.”
I have some question about the characterization of the recipients as “homosexuality healers.” Refo Anders, one of the organizations receiving the money, has expressed reservations regarding change therapy. I cannot vouch for Google translation but here is a link to a page where it appears that Anders believes his group has been mischaracterized by the Dutch press. An excerpt:

The Press newspaper in an article called Refo Anders as a gay “healer”
Despite that Refo Anders in his vision document wrote that they skeptical about change therapy The Press considers it better to know and places it among the gay Refo Otherwise healers.
Otherwise Refo Foundation regrets this “low to the ground” way of journalism companies, particularly since the journalist (Koen Verhelst) a nuanced story that he has heard total passes even after he was recalled on factual inaccuracies in his story, even the inappropriate use of the name of Refo Otherwise urged not to him by corrections that after 37 minutes of us got on his concept press release (which he himself for a few days needed to write).

As I read through the materials, the approach sounds more like Wendy Gritter’s New Directions, than a change ministry.
UPDATE: Johan Quist, of Refo Anders wrote to explain a little further. Although his English is much better than my Dutch, it may take a couple of reads to catch the meaning.

We do not like to change the human with therapy, but otherwise we believe that God has the power to change people, it’s a work inside the heart of a human from God himself. Also its really important that people find the way back to the warm relation with God and from this warm relation God will show him the way to live; some people have to live his total life with homo-feelings And other people God will change, it’s the free way of God !

This is not a homosexuality healing or reparative therapy organization. Rather, this is a Christian ministry with a reformed theology which supports non-gay-affirming people who strive to live by their traditional reformed faith. I like this approach and think it has much to recommend it over the reparative based ministry often practiced in the U.S.

A new study by Andrew Francis of Emory University in the Journal of Sex Research casts doubt on both the fraternal birth-order effect and reparative drive theory.
Here is the abstract:

Using a nationally representative sample of young adults, I identify the family-demographic correlates of sexual orientation in men and women. Hence, I test the maternal immune hypothesis, which posits that the only biodemographic correlate of male homosexuality is the number of older brothers, and there are no biodemographic correlates of female homosexuality. For men, I find that having one older brother does not raise the likelihood of homosexuality. Although having multiple older brothers has a positive coefficient, it is not significant. Moreover, having any older sisters lowers the likelihood of homosexual or bisexual identity. For women, I find that having an older brother or having any sisters decreases the likelihood of homosexuality. Family structure, ethnicity, and education are also significantly correlated with male and female sexual orientation. Therefore, the maternal immune hypothesis cannot explain the entire pattern of family-demographic correlates. The findings are consistent with either biological or social theories of sexual orientation.

The sample is large and the measures of sexual orientation, while brief, cover behavior and attractions. Here is more on the sampling:

I use the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), a nationally representative study of adolescent health in the United States (Udry, 2003). Adolescents in grades 7 through 12 were initially interviewed in 1995 and 1996 (Waves I and II) and were reinterviewed in 2001 (Wave III). The sample size of male respondents is about 5,000, and the sample size of female respondents is about 5,600. Table 1 displays summary statistics. At Wave III, all respondents in the sample were 18 years old or older. About 88% were between the ages of 20 and 24.

Sexual orientation was assessed with this item:

‘‘Choose the description that best fits how you think about yourself: 100% heterosexual; mostly heterosexual, but somewhat attracted to people of your own sex; bisexual, that is, attracted to men and women equally; mostly homosexual, but somewhat attracted to people of the opposite sex; or 100% homosexual.’’

As noted, the theory that the likelihood of any homosexuality is enhanced via more older brothers is not supported by this large, representative sample. In addition to a look at older brothers, Francis also examined other family demographics. Although unrelated to homosexual behavior or attraction, having older sisters was associated with a slightly reduced identification as less than 100% heterosexual. This finding contrasted with the 2002 Bearman and Bruckner study which found an elevation in homosexual romantic attraction for fraternal twin males with a female twin.
For females, Francis found that having siblings decreased slightly the likelihood of most same-sex outcomes. None of the correlates predict sexual orientation well. In every case, the size of the differences were trivial. With large samples, one does not need a large difference between groups to attain statistical significance.
Francis also examined family structure and found more trivial associations. For instance, he found a 3.8% increase in the likelihood of ever having a same-sex sexual partner among those who did not live with either parent. In contrast to reparative theory expectations, he reported that identifying as less than 100% heterosexual for males was associated with living with only dad. No romantic attraction or same-sex behavior was reported for males living with only mother.
There were other factors which Francis reported but the real take home point from this study is how little any of these variables predict sexual orientation. This study undermines reparative drive theory due to the unremarkable performance of the parental variables to predict orientation. One would expect to find great differences between male heterosexual participants and same-sex attracted participants if fathering/mothering were crucial to male sexual orientation as Joe Nicolosi teaches. In fact in this YouTube video, Nicolosi says that the main factor in the development of male homosexuality is a distant or hostile father.
The Francis article finds very little predictive power in family dynamics of any kind. There is no predictive power at all for those whose parents are separated. Living with dad should insulate against a homosexual outcome and living with mom alone should enhance the likelihood of same-sex attraction and/or behavior. In this sample, it does not.

The Washington Times is reporting what seems like a smart move: Barack Obama will probably deal with the most serious problems facing the nation first and postpone action on potentially divisive actions, like the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” My guess is that Obama will delay the push until after the 2010 mid-term elections.
Bob Knight is quoted as suggesting that Americans don’t have this policy on their radar now but will be quick to react negatively if the policy is debated nationally. I think he is probably on target. While attitudes toward homosexuals continue to become more positive, I think questions about practical matters of living arrangements, morale and recruitment will be raised by opponents.

Richard Cohen has added some content to his YouTube account with a new infomercial and a clip of an interview on CNN with Charles Socarides and Cohen from what appears to be the early to mid 90s (probably 1994 given this article). Socarides mentions NARTH so it would be after the founding of that organization in 1992. The sound does not match the speakers but this is an interesting clip nonetheless which demonstrates that NARTH’s premise in the early days was to return homosexuality to a status of mental disorder.