Homosexuality, same-sex attraction: "Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. III"

 

Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. III

Now available through the NARTH - Pilgriamge Bookstore 

Overview of Volume 3 of the Journal of Human Sexuality

____

 

The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH)

 

In addition to peer-reviewed papers and book reviews, volume 3 of the Journal of Human Sexuality contains a new section, "Official Statements of NARTH." This section documents attempts by NARTH to respond to initiatives regarding the right to receive and to offer professional care for unwanted same-sex attractions. These initiatives include those from state (California Association for Marriage and Family Therapists) and national (American Psychological Association) mental healthcare professional associations and from the British Medical Association. Abstracts of the papers and the titles of the book reviews and Official Statements are included below.

 

PAPERS

 

A. Dean Byrd, Homosexual Couples and Parenting: What Science Can and Cannot Say

 

Abstract

 

Relatively little empirical research has been done on homosexual parenting. Although there is a dearth of methodologically sound studies, the literature provides evidence of significant differences between heterosexual and homosexual parenting. While more research is needed in this area, current literature identifies differences in child-rearing, relationship dynamics, mental health, relationship stability, and physical health between heterosexual and homosexual parents, differences that support the position that living in a homosexual family structure may not be in the best interest of a child.

 

Walter R. Schumm, Child Outcomes Associated with Lesbian Parenting: Comments on Biblarz and Stacey's 2010 Report

 

Abstract

 

Biblarz and Stacey (2010a), as well as Biblarz and Savci (2010), recently reviewed the literature on lesbian parenting and concluded that lesbian parents were probably more effective parents than heterosexual parents. They went so far as to question the need for fathers as parents. That literature has been reexamined in this paper. It appears that parental role modeling is important for children of lesbian as well as heterosexual parents. It appears that lesbian parents do tend to divide household labor more equally than do heterosexual parents, which appears to carry over to encouraging their children to adopt less traditional gender roles compared to heterosexual parents. Furthermore, it appears that sons of lesbians tend to be more feminine than sons of heterosexual parents, while daughters of lesbian mothers tend to be more masculine than daughters of heterosexual parents. Thus, parental influence seems important for gender modeling, though complete role reversal is rare.

 

Likewise, lesbian parents appear to be more open to their children at the very least expressing a nontraditional sexual orientation when compared to heterosexual parents. Again, parental influence seems to be an influence, since increasing evidence suggests that children of lesbian mothers, perhaps especially their daughters, are more likely to adopt a nonheterosexual sexual orientation. Some research also suggests that children of lesbian parents are more likely to adopt sexually permissive attitudes, even if they have a heterosexual orientation. Since the children of lesbian parents appear to have much higher exposure to nonheterosexual role models in terms of adult contacts other than their parents, there may be additional modeling from those other adults with respect to nontraditional gender roles and nontraditional sexual orientations, if not sexual

permissiveness.

 

It remains challenging to sort out the effects of sexual orientation on a child's psychological adjustment. First, virtually all studies and outcomes that have yielded adverse results for lesbians' children have been marginalized in the literature; published research has shown that outcomes favorable toward gay or lesbian parenting are more likely to be cited academically than those that are unfavorable, in spite of greater methodological limitations. Second, any significant effects of gay or lesbian parenting most likely operate over long periods of time through intervening variables such as parental goals for their children. In addition, such effects would most likely be tied to gender role or sexual orientation/sexual permissiveness outcomes rather than other variables. The extent to which parents model and encourage delayed gratification

choices-especially those involving sex-may be important intervening variables for

understanding children's psychological outcomes as a function of parental gender and

sexual orientation.

 

Consequently, it appears that recent conclusions about the consequences of lesbian parenting (Biblarz & Savci, 2010; Biblarz & Stacey, 2010a, 2010b) are far from scientifically correct. Parental modeling does appear to play an important role in child socialization for both lesbian and heterosexual parents. However, what is modeled does appear to differ substantially between lesbian and heterosexual parents, with significant consequences for children in terms of a variety of outcomes, most often keyed to gender role orientations or expressions of sexuality. Recent claims that lesbians make better parents than heterosexuals are not warranted scientifically.

 

 

Neil E. Whitehead, Neither Genes nor Choice: Same-Sex Attraction Is Mostly a Unique Reaction to Environmental Factors

 

Abstract

 

This paper uses the seven largest twin registry studies to emphasize that same-sex attraction (SSA) is mostly caused neither by genetics (weak to modest influence) nor direct shared environment (very weak), but by many nonshared individualistic events and reactions, none of which is more than a small minority of total influences, and may well be differing reactions to shared environment. Twin studies sum up all influences (known and yet to be found) and their interactions, so this conclusion about the importance of nonshared factors is unlikely to change with future research into biological or social causes. The mean genetic percentages of shared genetic and environmental factors combined for men and women are 22 and 33% respectively and are not significantly different statistically. They are almost certainly maxima, likely to halve with further research. Recent findings of nonshared environmental epigenetic causes (genetic

expression influenced by the environment) lead again to a conclusion that the genetic influence has possibly been overstated. Nor is deliberate choice of orientation significant; even for adult sexual choice (e.g., heterosexual mate selection), chance predominates. For the development of sexual orientation (ten being the mean age of first attraction), deliberate choice must be a very unusual event.

 

Neil E. Whitehead, Sociological Studies Show Social Factors Produce Adult SSA

 

Abstract

 

An important path analysis study by Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith (1981a) is usually interpreted in the literature as proving there are no social/upbringing effects on development of adult SSA (same-sex attraction). Instead, the study said that varying social factors leading to SSA occur in different ways in various classes, such as bisexuals, blacks, and effeminate homosexuals. It correctly points out that individual factors contribute to SSA for the whole population in small and diverse ways and that any single cause will result in SSA only in small percentages of a population. The present paper shows that these social factors are collectively significant. An important follow-up study (Van Wyk & Geist, 1984) showed sexual experience factors were very important. Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith (1981a) believe that adolescent SSA development is biologically preprogrammed-in other words, it is fixed in childhood and shows no further change. This is shown to be quite erroneous on several counts. For example, recent work on teenage twins with SSA (Bearman & Brueckner, 2002) shows no genetic influence and a predominant nonshared environmental component. The conclusion regarding factors contributing to SSA is that social factors are significant, confirming the observations of clinicians, but the influence of the factors is heavily dependent on personal idiosyncrasy.

 

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.