Category: sexual orientation

What makes someone gay and can people change orientation?

In 2010, I submitted a summary of sexual orientation research to Uganda’s Independent. They published it in their Uganda Talks section. In light of the passage of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill and recent discussions on this blog, I am reprinting it here. There isn’t much that I would change about it three years later but I will comment at the end of the post.

At Uganda Talks we welcome guest blogs from our readers. Today, Professor Warren Throckmorton writes about the anti-homosexuality bill:
Defending the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, Hon. David Bahati told the BBC, “It’s [homosexuality] not an inborn orientation, it’s a behaviour learnt – and it can be unlearnt.” Is this true?
Hon. Bahati’s assertion is not consistent with current research on sexuality. While much is being learned about sexuality, the reasons why sexual attractions take the direction they do for any given person are not well known. There are many theories but no clear answers. I think this is a surprising fact for many people.
At the outset, we must be clear about what we mean when we discuss homosexuality. For instance, homosexuality and pedophilia are not the same. As with straight adults, adult homosexuals prefer other adults. In addition, we also need to make a distinction between attractions and behavior. What draws our attention and attraction is almost certainly not chosen. Behavior, on the other hand, is much more subject to reflection and choice. People may have various kinds of physical desires but for reasons of conscience decide not to act on them. In the case of homosexuality, some believe adult intimacy with someone of the same gender is right or morally neutral. In any case, as everyone knows, it is difficult to avoid acting on sexual desires, even when one’s religious views forbid such behavior.
Having strong religious views is not reason to overlook research and mislead citizens about the nature of homosexuality and sexual orientation in general. The Anti-Homosexuality Bill states in the opening section:
This legislation further recognizes the fact that same sex attraction is not an innate and immutable characteristic.
However, we do not know this to be the case. Most researchers around the world agree that there is no consensus about the causes of any given person’s sexual orientation. While it seems unlikely that there is one biological or genetic cause for all homosexuals, there are data which suggest that genetic and hormonal factors during pre-natal development have some impact on our desires, in different ways for different people.
On the other hand, there is very little evidence for the role of parenting on the direction of one’s sexual attractions. A common theory is that homosexuals are not well bonded with the parent of the same-sex and that heterosexuals have strong bonds with their same-sex parents. However, think about this: Many straight people have absent or hostile same-sex parents and turn out to be completely heterosexual. Many gays have had wonderful, loving relationships with both parents and yet begin to experience same-sex attractions in their early teens or before. The research on the subject does not lend strong support for parenting factors as primary causes for sexual orientation.
Another commonly held view is that sexual abuse or recruitment makes people gay. This cannot be true for most homosexuals since most homosexuals have not had these experiences. Some same-sex attracted people recall such experiences but so too do many heterosexuals. A recent study in the United States found that some who were sexually abused had a somewhat greater likelihood of trying homosexual behavior but that there was no relationship statistically between sexual abuse and exclusive homosexual orientation. Some people might experiment, but most often they seek heterosexual partners without coercion or therapy. I need to point out however, that the majority of people who were sexually abused did not later try homosexual behavior nor were they likely to become homosexual.
Thus, the matter of cause is a scientific mystery. However, we do know that once established sexual orientation seems to be quite durable. Several studies have found brain differences between homosexual and heterosexual people. Even Christian oriented programs designed to change sexual orientation have not been very successful. A recent study of participants in an Exodus International (the largest Christian ministry aimed toward homosexuality) found a small group of people who expressed change. Just over 20% of subjects remaining in the study reported some degree of movement from being attracted to the same sex toward developing attractions to the opposite sex, but most did not. Even among those who said they developed heterosexual attractions, most continued to struggle with homosexual desire.
Furthermore, in a study I conducted recently, only 3 out of 107 primarily same-sex attracted heterosexually married males described lifetime shifts from homosexual to heterosexual attractions. It does not seem scientifically reasonable to mandate state coerced therapy when the success among those who freely choose counseling or ministry assistance is so low. All groups who conduct such counseling stress that an absence of coercion and mandate is necessary for any benefit.
Regarding the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, all concerned, including Uganda’s homosexual advocates, agree that law should protect children. However, the bill seeks to legislate an end to homosexuality based on the faulty premises that homosexuality is about recruitment and that it is learned and easily unlearned. Research provides no support for these notions. In light of this, President Museveni’s call to slow down and discuss the issues with those who oppose the bill seems especially wise.
Warren Throckmorton, PhD is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Grove City College in Pennsylvania, United States. His specialty is counseling responses with sexual identity concerns and can be reached via his website at www.wthrockmorton.com
N.B. The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of Independent Publications Ltd.

I can add that my study eventually included over 260 participants with no increase in number of people who claim extreme change. It just doesn’t happen very often. I wish I would have emphasized more the brain differences which have been reported.  Whatever causal factors turn out to important, it is well established that sexual attractions are not chosen.
From my point of view, there is no compelling state interest in criminalizing homosexual behavior. The Ugandan lawmakers claim that gays recruit children, but have never provided evidence to that effect. Furthermore, all gay groups in Uganda vocally support the laws which already criminalize what is termed “defilement” of children.
See also:
Sexual identity: Our bodies tell us who we are.
SPLC Myth #4: Homosexuals don’t live nearly as long as heterosexuals
NARTH article asking why homosexuality isn’t a disorder
Mental Health Status and Homosexuality

Parliament Spokeswoman: Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill Has Passed (UPDATED)

UPDATE: Parliament issued a statement regarding the Anti-Homosexuality Bill which is provided in full at the end of this post.
……..
Helen Kawesa, spokeswoman for Uganda’s Parliament, told me this morning that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill was affirmed by the lawmakers in Kampala during today’s session. “Yes, it has been passed,” she said, speaking about the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.
The bill is not on the agenda posted on Parliament’s website, but Kawesa said it was on the paper she had.
The Parliament passed the Anti-Pornography Bill yesterday. However, according to Kawesa, the bill passed today is the Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009. Kawesa indicated that she would send a copy of the revised AHB via email.
The parliament has come close to considering the bill several times since 2009. See this link for my prior coverage of the bill.
Developing, watch for updates.
UPDATE: The BBC is now reporting the same thing. So is Uganda’s Monitor. No comment as yet from the country’s president Yowari Museveni. Museveni had indicated in the past that he did not favor the bill. However, Museveni can only delay the bill; he cannot stop it under Uganda’s constitution.
According to the BBC, the prime minister opposed the action on procedural grounds saying there was not a quorum.
Ugandan civil rights leader Frank Mugisha issued this statement to me this morning:

I am outraged and disappointed that our MPs [members of Parliament]  have expressed ignorance and passed the bill; but we shall challenge it in all avenues. It won’t be law.

A protest is planned today in London at the Uganda House.
This report of the Legal and Parliamentary committee contains alterations in the original bill which may be in the bill passed earlier today. The full text of the original bill can be viewed here.
Ugandan minister Martin Ssempa is glowing this morning after the passage of his pet project. Remember when he tweeted his friend Matt Barber that I was the “chief of falsified news?”


UPDATE: Uganda’s New Vision is reporting that the Parliament rejected a call to reduce sentences for homosexual behavior to 14 years, instead making the penalty life in prison. Uganda’s prime minister Amama Mbabazi told the New Vision that “consultations” would be held among executive members of the government. The copy of the bill in the NV article is the original version, and may not represent what was passed earlier today.
I spoke again to Parliament spokeswoman Helen Kawesa who said the position of the speaker is that there was a quorum when the bill was passed.  Kawesa also indicated that government was aware of the plans to address the anti-gay bill.
Here is the minority report which was not incorporated by Parliament. Although I have yet to see the bill language, Uganda’s Parliament Watch is reporting that the death penalty was removed with life in prison replacing it.
Parliament’s statement:

Parliament has finally passed the controversial Anti-Homosexuality Bill, criminalizing, outlawing and providing harsh jail terms for same sex relationships in the country.
The Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009, a Private Members’ Bill, was first presented to Parliament by Hon. David Bahati (NRM, Ndorwa West) in October 2009. It was one of the pending bills not considered at the end of the 8th Parliament, but saved and re-introduced for consideration by the 9th Parliament.
The Bill was then referred to the Committee on Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, which received submissions from among others the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Uganda Law Reform Commission, Uganda Human Rights Commission, Uganda Prisons Service, Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights and Constitutional Law and the National Association of Social Workers of Uganda.
Hon. Benson Obua Ogwal (UPC, Moroto), was excited as he moved the Bill for its Second Reading.
“Ugandans have been anxiously waiting for this Bill. This day will be good day for all Ugandans,” he said.
The Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009 seeks to establish a comprehensive consolidated legislation to protect the traditional family by prohibiting any form of sexual relations between persons of the same sex; and the promotion or recognition of such sexual relations in public institutions and other places through or with the support of any government entity in Uganda or any other non governmental organization inside or outside the country.
The Committee on Legal and Parliamentary Affairs said in its Report, “The Bill aims at strengthening the nation’s capacity to deal with emerging internal and external threats to the traditional heterosexual family.”
The Committee also said that there is need to protect the children and youth of Uganda who are vulnerable to sexual abuse and deviations as a result of cultural changes, uncensored information technologies, parentless child development settings and increasing attempts by homosexuals to raise children in homosexual relationships through adoption and foster care.
The Anti Homosexuality Bill provides a fourteen year jail term for one convicted for the offence of homosexuality; and imprisonment for life for the offence of aggravated homosexuality.
However, two Independent Hon. Sam Otada (Kibanda) and Fox Odoi (West Budama North) differed from their colleagues on the Committee arguing that the Bill is discriminatory and that homosexuality was already prohibited in other existing laws.
“What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom should not be the business of this Parliament. It is not right to have the state allowed in the bedrooms of people,” they stated in their Minority Report.
The Prime Minister and Leader of Government Business, Rt. Hon. Amama Mbabazi, who also sought to defer the consideration of the Bill, argued that government was involved in negotiations over the proposed legislation.
“I was not aware that this Bill was coming up for debate. There are some issues on which we are still consulting,” he said adding, “This is an important Bill that we need to pass with a quorum in Parliament.”
The Bill, having been passed by Parliament, will be forwarded to the President for his assent before it can become law in Uganda.

Advocacy efforts against the bill should now be directed toward president Yowari Museveni.

Open Forum: Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson On Hiatus Over Sexual Orientation Remarks

I do like Duck Dynasty. Most episodes are hilarious. Even though we know they’re acting, it is fun to pretend that all the crazy shenanigans are spontaneous and good ol’ boy fun. And the image of a tight-knit evangelical family praying on air is appealing even while they demand more money for their appearances.
The DD patriarch Phil Robertson is pretty blunt most of the time and he talks about sex on air nearly in the same breath as he thanks God for another good day on planet earth. His bluntness has gotten him into a scrape with the Hollywood types over remarks he made in an interview with GQ.
In it, he waxes crude on the advantages and disadvantages of male and female erogenous zones, happy blacks in pre-Civil rights Louisiana, and his ghostwritten book he has never read (guess that makes him a Christian celebrity).  Probably what got him placed “on hiatus” were his remarks that appeared to equate homosexuality with bestiality and terrorism.  As I read it, he sounded like a lot of evangelicals, which is, of course, a problem we evangelicals have not solved.
Robertson went on to say that he didn’t advocate judging people (even as he did it). In the minds of many evangelicals, especially among the older set, being gay is considered to be a choice. A man preferring males to females is just a sinful choice which is like preferring shrimp to ducks, beardless to beards or terrorism to patriotism. However, we’re all sinners, the thinking goes, and so I can say whatever I feel about your choice as long as I criticize my pre-Jesus choices too.
While that thinking seemed reasonable at one time, it does not come across as a winsome witness in the present day. Whether fair or not, I think Christians should spend some time to learn how non-Christians think about these matters. We should maintain moral foundations for ourselves (hard enough to do), but we cannot insist that non-Christians agree with us or even accept outdated beliefs about the nature of sexual orientation. Like it or not, being gay or straight is not a matter of choosing between competing body parts.  Instead of leading with what he doesn’t understand, perhaps Robertson would have been better off to lead with what he does understand:

“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job,” he added. “We just love ‘em, give ‘em the good news about Jesus…

Good place to stop right there.
What do you think about the matter? Keep it respectful and clean and discuss in the comments section.
 

PFOX Plays The Victim; Wants To Fix One Problem By Causing Another

Today, the Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays dropped a news release criticizing Virginia’s public universities for failing to distribute their literature to students. In the release, PFOX claims discrimination based on religion and ex-gayness is what motivates the lack of ex-gay literature.
While I don’t doubt that some of those counseling center staffers have problems with conservative religion, I submit that they are correct in their decision not to provide PFOX literature to students.  Much of what PFOX and related groups (e.g., International Healing Foundation, Voice of the Voiceless) promote is scientifically questionable and should be avoided for that reason alone.
The irony is that the group who conducted the undercover investigation accuse the university centers of suppressing accurate information when it is the ex-gay groups which (also?) do this. They know there is no peer reviewed research on therapeutic change that supports them. They also know that at least one of their therapeutic methods (i.e., cartharsis) has been evaluated via research and found to be harmful in some instances. They also know that their narrative regarding homosexuality (i.e., failures in the parent-child relationship) is scientifically dubious and yet they continue to promote this view as if it is supported by research and experience.
It may be that the counseling center directors favor gay affirming religion over non-affirming religion. If so, this would be problematic if the centers are publicly funded. However, any such finding of fact would not be reason to hand out erroneous literature to students. If there are non-affirming groups on campus or in the community (e.g., Andrew Marin’s groups or some other religious group which does not promote debunked theories and methods) then information about those groups should be made available to religious students. Therapeutically neutral approaches should be taught to center counselors to help them avoid establishing an approved religious stance on the subject in a public university. However, PFOX and Voice of the Voiceless should not be allowed to use religious discrimination as a basis to promote their problematic materials.

International Healing Foundation Announces The End Of Homosexuality

Really. Just look.

Announcing
THE END OF HOMOSEXUALITY
Want to Know How?

Greetings,
Want to be part of an exciting revolution? Want to end homosexuality and prevent bullying? Want to protect your children and grandchildren?
Everyday our kids are being inundated with false information about homosexuality-born that way and cannot change. This is both scientifically and scripturally untrue. We at IHF have developed solutions to end homosexuality:
1. Coming Out Straight: a plan to heal unwanted same-sex attraction (SSA)
2. Gay Children Straight Parents: a plan for family healing
3. Counselor Training Program: education for therapists & ministry leaders

Eventually all of this turns into a request for money. Want to end the gay? You gotta pay to play.
There is one thing that can be said about International Healing Foundation: Change is Possible.
They change their message and tone frequently. Good cop and bad cop, all in one package, all in one day.
Speaking of that slogan – change is possible – nearly two years ago, Cohen and IHF apologized for it.

We at IHF wish to offer a sincere, heartfelt apology to everyone in the LGBTQ community who may have been hurt by our message of “change.” As the director of IHF, I apologize and ask your forgiveness. I did not realize that by stating, “Change is Possible,” some would be offended. That was the furthest thing from my heart and mind. To think that our message of “change” would cause further pain to LGBTQ youth and adults is painful to imagine … I am deeply and profoundly sorry.

Now I can envision another future apology: We at IHF wish to apologize for claiming to bring about the end of homosexuality. We did not realize that by announcing the end of homosexuality, some would be offended.
One would be hard pressed to find a more confusing organization than IHF. On their “coming out loved” website, they claim to accept gays:

Some live a heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transgender, or transsexual life, while others are unsure about their sexuality and seek to explore alternatives. We uphold your right of self-determination, to follow the path that fills your heart with love. 

Bringing in the bullying theme heightens the confusion and contradiction. I can only imagine how IHF’s message would be received by a GLB teen or young adult. IHF is now identifying with the bullies who also want to end homosexuality and is doing so in the name of preventing bullying.
Surreal.