Category: sexual orientation

60 Minutes segment: Mother of fraternal twin boys a lesbian

In this 60 Minutes segment “Gay or Straight?” the mother of the young fraternal twins is a lesbian who was artificially inseminated to form a fatherless family. For some reason, I think I had heard this from some source that I cannot now find. The web story on the segment is available on the CBS News website. Dr. Michael Bailey disclosed this information today in response to a question from the audience at the Catholic University of America conference on sexual orientation. The 60 Minutes segment was shown to lead off the day.

While this fact alone does not invalidate potential biological explanations, it does call them into question as the only plausible explanation. In the interests of reporting the facts of the story, CBS News should have at least mentioned the context of the twins existence. Leaving aside this disclosure, ruling out parental influence in this situation flies in the face of what we know about how parents regard and treat fraternal twins. Parents often think of them and rate them on a variety of personality dimensions as more divergent than they actually are. It is entirely conceivable to me that a parent might take any temperamental difference and accentuate it (e.g., at 18 months of age, one twin’s desire for a Barbie while the other wanted a fire truck). This may not have happened routinely, of course I don’t know, but to rule it out requires the discounting of other well-established evidence.

Same-sex marriage conference at Catholic Univ. of America

I’ll write about this when I get back…

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

Columbus School of Law, Interdisciplinary Program in Law & Religion

The Marriage Law Project, Washington, DC 20064

What’s the Story? A multidisciplinary discussion of Same-Sex Marriage & Religious Liberty

Monday, December 11, 2006

8:30-10:00am Sexual Orientation, Gay Marriage and Child Well- Being: Understanding the Social and Behavioral Science Debate

Are people born gay? Is there a gay gene? Because social and behavioral scientists study the ways in which society’s understanding of human sexuality affects the daily lives of individuals and groups, social and behavioral science data are among the most important components of the SSM debate. A panel of leading experts will discuss what the latest identical- twin studies and other cutting-edge scientific research suggests about the origins of sexual orientation.

Scheduled panelists include:

Michael Bailey, PhD, Professor, Northwestern University

Bradford Wilcox, PhD, Assistant Professor, University of Virginia

Warren Throckmorton, PhD, Associate Professor, Grove City College

10:15-12:00 Human Sexuality, Catholic Teaching & Human Rights

Drawing on Scripture, tradition, and the natural law, the Catechism of the Catholic Church makes two points central to the marriage debate: 1) The equality of all persons rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it: Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design (1935) and 2) All extra-marital sexual activity is forbidden (2351-2359). “Queer Theorists” the leading edge thinkers of the GLBTT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, and transsexual) community take precisely the opposite view. They argue that any attempt to draw a distinction between the dignity of persons “who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies” (Catechism 2358) and their sexual conduct is at best, irrational, and, at worst, evidence of anti-homosexual hostility. So too with the traditional understandings of marriage, family, sex, gender, and sexuality.

Scheduled Panelists include:

Rev. Thomas Acklin, O.S.B, S.T.D, Ph.D, Director Of Counseling, St. Vincent Seminary

The Rev. Donald Paul Sullins, MDiv., PhD., Associate Professor, The Catholic University of America

David Crawford,PhD, Assistant Professor, John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family

1:30pm-3:00 – Send Lawyers, Lobbyists, and Lots of Money!

A panel on the financial and legal consequences for Catholic institutions when gay marriage and domestic partnerships become official state public policy. Because legalization of SSM is based on the premise that restricting marriage to opposite sex couples is a form of discrimination on the basis of sex or sexual orientation, one of the most significant dangers facing the Church is litigation that seeks to prove that Church teaching is discriminatory. If accepted, religious organizations will not only be forced to pay damages, but also the attorney fees of the plaintiffs who sue them. Because many states also take the view that discrimination by charitable organizations is against public policy, the Church will also face a sustained attack on its tax exempt status.

Scheduled Panelists include:

Marc Stern, Assistant Executive Director of the American Jewish Congress and Co-Director of its Commission on Law and Social Action

Anthony Picarello, Esq., President and General Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

Jordan Lorence, Esq., Senior Legal Counsel, Alliance Defense Fund

Robert Destro, Esq., Professor, The Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of America

3:15-4:30 p.m. Religious Expression or Illegal Discrimination? Reports from the Streets

Scheduled Panelists include:

Paul Devin, Esq., Supreme Advocate, Knights of Columbus

Daniel Avila, Massachusetts Catholic Conference, Associate Director for Policy & Research

James Sweeney, Esq., Legal Counsel, California Catholic Conference

Another fraternal birth order research report

Title: Fraternal birth order and ratio of heterosexual/homosexual feelings in women and men.

Journal: Journal of Homosexuality. 2006; 51(4):161-74.

Authors: McConaghy N, Hadzi-Pavlovic D, Stevens C, Manicavasagar V, Buhrich N, & Vollmer-Conna U.

ABSTRACT

Studies of the 2-3% of persons who identify as homosexual found men but not women had more older brothers than persons who identify as heterosexual. The present study investigated the birth order in the approximately 20% of men and women who anonymously report some homosexual feelings, few of whom identify as homosexual. The number of older brothers and sisters was investigated in seven cohorts: 319 male twins; and 49, 54, and 61 female and 66, 116, and 50 male medical students. Both women and men who anonymously reported homosexual feelings had a greater mean number of older brothers and sisters than did those who reported no homosexual feelings. The difference was stronger in relation to brothers than sisters. The birth order effect was not related to the strength of the subjects’ degree of homosexual compared with heterosexual feelings. Its presence in women could not be accounted for by the widely accepted hypothesis that the birth order effect is due to amaternal immune reaction provoked only by male fetuses. The lack of relationship between the strength of the effect and degree of homosexual feelings in the men and women suggests the influence of birth order on homosexual feelings was not due to a biological, but a social process in the subjects studied. Investigating the neglected significant percentage of predominantly heterosexual men and women who anonymously report some homosexual feelings may aid in understanding the factors influencing sexual orientation, and identity. doi:10.1300/J082v51n04_09.

I haven’t seen the full report as yet, but will update when I do.

CDC, anal sex, and risk

Related to a couple of previous posts, I thought it would be helpful to review what The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has to say about anal sex and risk.

Can I get HIV from anal sex?

Yes. In fact, unprotected (without a condom) anal sex (intercourse) is considered to be very risky behavior. It is possible for either sex partner to become infected with HIV during anal sex. HIV can be found in the blood, semen, pre-seminal fluid, or vaginal fluid of a person infected with the virus. In general, the person receiving the semen is at greater risk of getting HIV because the lining of the rectum is thin and may allow the virus to enter the body during anal sex. However, a person who inserts his penis into an infected partner also is at risk because HIV can enter through the urethra (the opening at the tip of the penis) or through small cuts, abrasions, or open sores on the penis.

Not having (abstaining from) sex is the most effective way to avoid HIV. If people choose to have anal sex, they should use a latex condom. Most of the time, condoms work well. However, condoms are more likely to break during anal sex than during vaginal sex. Thus, even with a condom, anal sex can be risky. A person should use generous amounts of water-based lubricant in addition to the condom to reduce the chances of the condom breaking.

Working with clients, I provide this information and accentuate the risks involved. This is true for men and women, no matter what their erotic orientation.

For information purposes, Laumann et al found that 25% of men and 20% of women reported anal sex. Among gay and bisexual men, 76% of the survey respondents had experienced insertive anal intercourse and 82% receptive. This was in 1994, I suspect the numbers are higher among straights now.

To me, this means that straights need the CDC information and some gays do not engage in anal sex (although they need the information as well). Assumptions that all gay males do this routinely, while often correct, are not always true. Frequency of such activities and with whom are important factors for health care professionals to ask about and they are the determinants of disease, not sexual attractions per se. My view is that sexual promiscuity in gay men owes more to being male than being attracted to the same sex. Of course, this is not proven but it fits my clinical experience and observations better than assuming the reverse.

There are people of both sexes and all sexual orientations who are at high risk for acquiring and spreading STDs. These individuals often have significant emotional needs and profit from interventions that are individually suited to their needs.

Take away point: People who do not manage their intimate lives well are at higher risk for disease and emotional distress than those who do.