Category: sexual orientation

“Abomination: Homosexuality and the Ex-gay Movement” hits film festivals

Exgay Watch reports that the 2006 video Abomination: Homosexuality and the Ex-gay Movement will premiere in New York City on Wednesday, October 24.

I have previously reviewed this video but will give it another look over the next week and add comments in another post. I plan to make some comments about the harm that can result from some reparative therapy approaches and other misguided efforts to change sexual orientation.

One of my prinicipal concerns about Abomination is that the Shidlo and Schroeder study is treated as providing accurate and representative rates of change. Here is a clip from a Canadian talk show where Alicia Salzer again quotes the 4% change rate (as she did on the Montel Williams Show).

Stanton Jones comments on AP sexual orientation cause article

As suspected, Stan Jones was mischaracterized by Lindsay Tanner’s article on genetic contributions to homosexuality. He wrote this explanation to me in an email earlier this evening and is reproduced with his permission.

Regarding Lindsay Tanner’s Associated Press story titled: Study Seeks Genetic Links to Being Gay and elsewhere:

It is unfortunate when through misunderstandings or miscommunications we do not recognize our own views in press reports. Such is the case here. Ms. Tanner describes my views about the genetic research going on in Chicago in the following way:

“Jones said [1] his results suggest biology plays only a minor role in sexual orientation, and [2] that researchers seeking genetic clues generally have a pro-gay agenda that will produce biased results.”

This is extremely disconcerting, as both clauses (my numbers added) in this sentence are misunderstandings of what I was trying to express to Ms. Tanner in my interview with her three weeks ago.

First [1], I did not say that our results from our recently released study of change in sexual orientation indicate low biological or genetic contribution to causation of homosexual orientation. I tried to express to her that the results of our study, in my opinion, say nothing about causation of homosexual orientation. In fact, my memory is that I complained about a conservative columnist who had, based on rumors about our study, declared (erroneously) that our study proved that homosexual orientation is a choice. Apart from our recently released study, however, my read of the scientific literature on causation, expressed in print in a number of places for the last 15 years, is that biology likely does play a role in causation, though less of a role than the man-on-the-street thinks (“it’s like eye color”). So I did make cautious comments about biological causation, but she seemed to draw the conclusion that I was speaking from the results of our study, which I was not.

Causation is likely multivariate and idiosyncratic, including biological factors. I actually applauded good research on the various factors that contribute to the etiology of sexual orientation, and expressed positive anticipation of hearing of the results of this genetic study. I expressed one particular concern about this particular genetic study based on accounts I had read in the media as follows:

That by this study concentrating on pre/self-selected subpopulations selected for higher probabilities of biological factors in causation, the importance of biological factors for the whole population of homosexual persons may be exaggerated because of the uncertain relationship of the study’s subpopulations to that broader population.

Second [2], I emphasized in my interview with Tanner that a lot of good science is done by gay and gay-affirming researchers, and that we hoped to be treated with the same respect that we hoped we demonstrated to good researchers regardless of their ideological leanings. Obviously, however, the values of the researcher interpreters influence where you go with the interpretations of the findings. My concern in this area is that implications of our research be drawn cautiously and with circumspection. Several of the comments in the article itself indicate the way people are willing to jump forward with interpretations of the implications of research.

In Dr. Sanders’s response in the article to my views as represented through Ms. Tanner, he said “We do not have a predetermined point we are trying to prove. . . . We are trying to pry some of nature’s secrets loose with respect to a fundamental human trait.” Anyone who reads our book will find that we also did not have a predetermined point we were trying to prove. We had met people who claimed to have changed, but were open to findings that this change was frequent or infrequent, and also that claimed change was transitory and unsatisfyingly complicated for the participants. Our commitment was and is to reporting straightforwardly what our research population reported to us. Good science can never result when people are trying to create sermon illustrations for pre-determined positions.

Information about the book in question, Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Sexual Orientation Change (InterVarsity Press), is available at the IVPress website. Click on the “AACC Address” link for a 13-page paper summary of the study.

Stanton L. Jones

Provost and Professor of Psychology

Wheaton College

Hey, I read it in the papers – Paul Cameron extends his methods

Reading obituaries probably gets boring and maybe a little morbid, so it is understandable that the Paul Cameron research machine has branched out and included tragic news articles as data collection.

In his spanking new venture, the Empirical Journal of Same Sex Sexual Behavior, Cameron has released a “study” called, Teacher-Pupil Sex Across the World: How Much Is Homosexual? Apparently, the only article in the journal so far, the article’s abstract says:

In news stories in English across the world for 1980-2006, 902 teachers engaged in sex with 3,457 pupils. Teachers engaging in same-sex sex constituted 63% of perpetrators in Ireland, 62% in New Zealand, 60% in Canada, 54% in Scotland, 48% in Australia, 47% in England, and 35% in the U.S.; in smaller samples, homosexuals accounted for 71% of perpetrators in mainland Europe, 26% in Africa, and 13% in Asia. Proportionately more same-sex sexual activity with pupils occurred in the West as compared to Asia and Africa. Most (54% of 810 male, 83% of 92 female) teachers violated only opposite sex pupils; 43% of perpetrators engaged in homosexuality; and 55% of victims were boys. Findings for each country or set of countries were consistent with U.S. studies based on superintendent report, principal report, self-report, and convictions indicating that a male homosexual is the most and a female heterosexual the least apt to have sex with pupils.

Cameron begins the article noting the prevalence of sexual molestations in educational settings and then basically documents the fatal flaw in his paper:

Even though teacher/pupil sexual events are fairly common, an instance of teacher/pupil has to run a veritable gauntlet before it becomes public knowledge. Educational systems try vigorously to assure that teacher molestations are not brought to light. So such an event is likely to be suppressed. (p. 2)

Anyone familiar with schools and teacher behavior knows that these events are frequently covered up with many never getting to trial and thus are not captured by newspapers. Who knows how many actual events occur? Who knows how many of the same-sex perpetrators are married with kids? Not to mention that same sex perpetrations might actually be more likely to be reported and made public. And yet, Cameron considers news reports a source of data adequate enough to include in his inaugural issue. So since he demolished any credibility the study could have, there is no point in going any further, right? Of course, he does, and we get statistics that may end up in a news release somewhere.

Rather than me taking time to predict the next study that will emerge from the headlines, let me turn it over to my readers. What else might we learn from newspapers, folks?

Cameron’s news release on this study is here.

AP story on the Sanders’ study of gay brothers

The Associated Press reports that the Alan Sanders study of gay brothers continues in search of 1000 pairs of gay brothers.

The study’s website describes the scope and purpose:

In 2003, the N.I.H. funded Dr. Alan R. Sanders, a psychiatrist at Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Research Institute to conduct a five-year study of approximately 1,000 pairs of gay brothers, along with any other available brothers and parents from families recruited from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Australia, i.e., mainly English speaking countries since the materials such as the web site, consent form, and questionnaire are in English.

The purpose of this study is to see whether gay brothers on average share genetic regions inherited from their parents. When studying a trait, such as sexual orientation, with genetic techniques it is much more efficient to focus on the less common variant; hence, we are studying families with gay brothers to learn more about the development of male sexual orientation. This study will shed light on the role of genetics in the development of sexual orientation of human males.

Some research indicates that some very ‘feminine’ boys seem to become homosexual more frequently than other boys (reviewed in [1]). The same seems to hold true of some very ‘masculine’ girls. It is also true that many children who become homosexual adults behave just like other members of their own gender. However, it is not our intention to perpetuate stereotypes, or to imply that all gay men are or were ‘feminine’. Rather, our purpose is to understand what impact childhood ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ may have on the adult lives of men who are attracted to other men. In order to explore these observations further, this study will ask participating brothers about their recollections of their childhood behaviors such as play activities, relationships with others, and so on.

Stanton Jones and Alan Chambers were interviewed for this article. The AP writer implied that Stanton said the Exodus study has some relevance to genetics. I don’t believe Stan made such a link:

Skeptics include Stanton Jones, a psychology professor and provost at conservative Christian school Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois. An evangelical Christian, Jones last month announced results of a study he co-authored that says it is possible for gays to “convert” — changing their sexual orientation without harm.

Jones said his results suggest biology plays only a minor role in sexual orientation, and that researchers seeking genetic clues generally have a pro-gay agenda that will produce biased results.

Stanton dismissed such questions last month at the AACC meeting saying the Exodus study had nothing to do with genetics or causes.

UPDATE – 10/16/07 – As expected, I heard from Stan Jones today who said he was not characterized properly by the AP reporter Tanner. In fact, he told the reporter that using his study with Yarhouse to discuss cause was inappropriate. Stan does not think the genetic contribution is likely to be large and perhaps she wrongly combined the two points.

Hutchison issues retraction and explanation

Yesterday, I reported that a rumor was flying around about Exodus President Alan Chambers. Alan acted quickly and appropriately to address the false information. Today, the columnist at the heart of the brouhaha issued an apology to Alan Chambers. To serve fairness and openness, I reproduce it here.

To Alan Chambers and whom it make concern:

A project of mine which was intended to be seen by only a few eyes has been widely published by prying busibodies causing damage to Mr. Chambers and myself. Never the less, conscience and human decency obliges me to make things right. I have had an e-mail conversation with Mr. Chambers, and after a rocky start, we both relaxed and just said what we thought. To the extent that I am a judge of human nature he seems to be an honorable man, and engaging personality and winsomely candid. I believe his answers to my questions because this man is no liar. In our conversation, I disagreed with him on several points and got the impression of an open minded man.

I have concluded that the charges made against him made by Paul Cameron and parroted by me are false. I do not think Cameron is a liar. He is a zealot against evil, but sometimes is hasty and careless about seeing evil where none lies.

My sins in the matter were several. I had no grounds to use the word “sodomy.” Although it is biblically correct word, its revolting connotations should limit its use to carefully accurate and potent situations – never to be thrown about carelessly like I did. As a man who deals in words, I ought to have known better and have no excuse. I have read Cameron for years and trusted him because I share his zeal for truth and his horror of the gay political agenda which is undermining the American family and seducing many pastors. However, I prided myself on a zeal for truth – and here I fell down in the area I thought was my greatest strength. A man of principle does mow down innocent bystanders with the bandwagon of crusade. Why did I not ask myself, could Cameron be wrong in his fragmented snippets? I was in the flow of concentration and did not stop to reflect – as a principled man would do. I apologize to Mr. Cameron for the pain I brought him through these sins.

I never once asked myself what this might mean to Mr. Cameron if a busy body brought it to his attention. My failure to even think about that evinces a lack of humanity. We are fallen beings and we lie to ourselves if we think that being a Christian instantly reverses the fall. This failure to reflect on what a word might mean to the other fellow is for me a dark besetting sin.

Now a word for the voyeuristic busy bodies. The repeated demands that I repent and recant before I understood what has happened and could search my heart and my conscience – such demands evince the morality of a high school clique. If I were one of you in your shallow clique, I would instantly recant just to please you and be spared your censure. If I were to recant just because of group pressure I could not look myself in the mirror. You were trying to force me into an unprincipled move just to mollify you because your favorite guy was mistreated. How does that differ from a high school clique? The juvenile impatience of it all. Where was the patience to wait while I methodically sought for the truth. Where is the adult in your midst?

I was frequently upbraided for not checking sources behind by my sources. If I had intended to publish that would be a legitimate criticism. But a informal project only for a few eyes – not so. I had two sources and it was more than you usually get in a piece for discussion by an intimate group. The ones I chose to see it were chosen for their wisdom and discretion – to guide me in case I got off course. When the piece was released to the lynch mob, I felt violated and betrayed. Such was the deafness of the mob, that even after I explained what had happened, the criticism that I did not check the sources of the sources – kept coming again and again. Open your ears and quit talking nonsense.

In my long project, of which this piece is a footnote, I was trying to figure out if our shallow, lukewarm evangelicalism is in a state of melt down. Mr Chambers proves to me that you still have a few good men. However, the feeding frenzy of the busybodies tilts me towards the melt-down theory. Fred Hutchison

Boxturtle Bulletin has some interesting background on the rift between Exodus and Paul Cameron that sets a context for the information used by Mr. Hutchison.