Born Gay? (Homosexuality: Part 3 of 3)

APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen
(The Carillon, June 17, 2010)

Born Gay?
(Homosexuality: Part 3 of 3)
There are a number of popular confusions surrounding the issues of homosexual sex and same-sex marriage. Previously, I discussed homophobia, bigotry, and intolerance, plus I discussed the claim that health problems associated with homosexual sex are (allegedly) due to oppressive attitudes of the larger society. Today I will set out yet another popular confusion and I will offer two clarifications.

(Please note: I will do my best to be respectful to all persons, whether those persons approve of same-sex sexual relations or not.)

Popular confusion: Science shows that homosexuals are born that way and so cannot change.

Clarification 1. The claim that science shows that homosexuals are wholly determined to be gay or lesbian by biological or genetic factors is false.

According to Dr. Tom Benton, president of the American College of Pediatricians, “there is no scientific evidence that an individual is born ‘gay’ or ‘transgender.’ Instead, the best available research points to multiple factors—primarily social and familial—that predispose children and adolescents to homosexual attraction and/or gender confusion.”

Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, a psychiatrist educated at MIT and Harvard University, concurs. According to Satinover, most of the studies which purport to show that homosexual orientation is genetically or biologically based have been seriously flawed. Satinover adds: "a certain genetic constitution may make homosexuality more readily available as an option, but it is not a cause of homosexuality."

In other words, scientific evidence does not show that homosexual orientation is biologically determined; rather, scientific evidence shows that homosexual orientation is due to a cluster of influences—i.e., some biological influences (e.g., genes that may predispose, not causally determine) plus some social and psychological influences (e.g., problems in early family relationships, sexual abuse) plus individual choices (which tend to reinforce or undermine a predisposition).

Clarification 2. Significantly, because homosexuals are not born that way (see previous clarification), many persons who have unwanted homosexual attractions can change them.

According to Benton, “It is also critical to understand that these conditions [i.e., homosexual attractions and gender confusion] can respond well to therapy.”

Significantly, according to the 2009 landmark study What Research Shows (done by the U.S.-based National Association for Research and Therapy for Homosexuality), “over a century of experiential evidence, clinical reports, and research evidence demonstrate that it is possible for both men and women to change from homosexuality to heterosexuality [and] that efforts to change are not generally harmful.”

In other words, for those persons who have unwanted homosexual urges, there is real hope for change. (For further verification of this hope, check, for starters, the webpage of Exodus International; see especially the testimonies of individuals who claim to have overcome same-sex urges.)

It is not the case, therefore, that science shows people are born homosexual and so cannot change.

P.S. One additional clarification: It should be noted that a tiny percentage of the human population consists of hermaphrodites or intersexed people, i.e., persons born with a mixture of male and female anatomical components. Such persons are to be loved and respected, surely. It should be noted too that such persons are not the topic of today’s column.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, teaches philosophy at Providence College, Otterburne, Manitoba, Canada. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

It's all society's fault? (Homosexuality: Part 2 of 3)

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen
(The Carillon, June 3, 2010)

It’s all society’s fault?
(Homosexuality: Part 2 of 3)

There are a number of popular confusions surrounding the issues of homosexual sex and same-sex marriage. Last time I discussed homophobia, bigotry, and intolerance. Today I will set out another popular confusion and I will offer three clarifications.

(Please note: I will do my best to be respectful to all persons, whether those persons approve of same-sex sexual relations or not.)

Popular confusion: It is an established fact that the higher rates of health problems associated with homosexual sex are ultimately due to the oppressive attitudes (towards homosexuals) of the population at large.

Clarification 1. There is some truth to this claim: for example, in 1998 the young homosexual man Matthew Shepherd was brutally murdered [apparently simply] because he was gay. Surely, where homosexuals are in fact oppressed by others, the rights of homosexuals should be protected—just as the rights of heterosexuals are protected. “Gay-bashing” is wrong, period.

Clarification 2. As important as clarification 1 is, the claim that the higher rates of homosexual health problems are ultimately due to the larger population’s oppressive attitudes towards homosexuals has not been established as true in the required broader sense, i.e., in the sense that the larger society's (alleged) general oppression is causally connected to the various health problems associated with same-sex sexual behaviour.

Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, psychologist and past president of the U.S.-based National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), reports the following: “One research study was designed to measure whether distress [for homosexuals] would decrease in societies where homosexuals enjoyed a high level of tolerance. The researchers compared gay-friendly societies, such as Holland and Denmark, with societies more hostile to homosexuality. The study found a higher level of distress among homosexuals in every culture, not just those that disapprove of homosexuality."

Also, NARTH’s 2009 landmark study What Research Shows states the following: “The usual hypothesis is that societal discrimination against homosexuals is solely or primarily responsible for the development of this pathology [i.e., the pathology of higher rates of various health problems associated with homosexual sex]. However, specific attempts to confirm this societal discrimination hypothesis have been unsuccessful, and the alternative possibility—that these conditions may somehow be related to the psychological structure of a homosexual orientation or consequences of a homosexual lifestyle—has not been disconfirmed. Indeed, several cross-cultural studies suggest that this higher rate of psychological disturbance [which in turn is associated with unhealthy sexual behaviour] is in fact independent of a culture's tolerance of—or hostility toward—homosexual behavior.” (The NARTH report goes on to suggest, wisely, that further study is needed.)

Clarification 3. Finally, the following inconvenient truth needs to be stated: Some sexual practices that constitute a principal feature of same-sex relations, especially among men, are physically unhealthy, period, regardless of the attitudes of others in the larger population. (For verification, check, for starters, NARTH’s medical issues webpage plus the homosexuality webpage of the Christian Medical and Dental Associations [see especially the list of references under "Physical Health" in CMDA's Annotated References].)

Thus, the popular claim—that the higher rates of health problems associated with homosexual sex are ultimately due to the larger population’s oppressive attitudes towards homosexuals—is dubious.

I hasten to add: This does not mean that oppressive attitudes towards homosexuals are therefore justified—they aren’t. However, it does mean that, in the future, causal explanations concerning same-sex health problems should be more carefully considered.

In the meantime, it may be wise for parents and teachers to notice that in March 2010 the American College of Pediatricians (ACP) sent a letter to U.S. high schools, a letter in which ACP cautions teachers about affirming students’ same-sex attraction—not to oppress such students, but to promote their good health. To read the letter, look here.

P.S. Please keep in mind my comments on homophobia, bigotry, and intolerance, which I set out in the previous installment of this column: "Homophobia, bigotry, intolerance?"

(Hendrik van der Breggen, Ph.D., teaches philosophy at Providence College, Otterburne, Manitoba, Canada. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

Homophobia, bigotry, intolerance? (Homosexuality: Part 1 of 3)

APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen

(The Carillon, May 20, 2010)

Homophobia, bigotry, intolerance?
(Homosexuality: Part 1 of 3)

There are a number of popular confusions surrounding the issues of homosexual sex and same-sex marriage. Today I will set out one of these confusions plus offer seven clarifications. (Please note: I will do my best to be respectful to all persons, whether those persons approve of same-sex sexual relations or not.)

Popular Confusion: If you criticize same-sex sexual relationships, then ipso facto (by that very fact) we can judge that you are homophobic, a bigot, and/or intolerant, and so your criticisms should be ignored.

Clarification 1. A phobia is an irrational fear of something. For example, arachnophobia is an irrational fear of arachnids—i.e., spiders. However, it is possible to have a rational fear of or concern about spiders, especially if there is evidence that the spiders in question are dangerous to your health (or dangerous to your children’s health, or dangerous to your friends’ health). Similarly, it is possible to have a rational concern about homosexual sex if there is evidence that such sexual behaviour is unhealthy or dangerous for the parties involved. Not all fears or concerns, then, are phobias. In fact, some fears or concerns can be reasonable, if there are good grounds for those fears or concerns.

Clarification 2. The term bigot describes someone who has a tendency to hold a view or opinion blindly, without giving careful consideration to contrary evidence. Significantly, an attempt to reason with care and to examine evidence when one has a reasonable concern about a topic need not be an instance of bigotry.

Clarification 3. Calling a critic of same-sex relations names such as "homophobe" and "bigot" and then dismissing the critic’s arguments on the basis of his/her alleged personality disorder (whether it’s homophobia or bigotry or both) is to commit the ad hominem fallacy. The ad hominem fallacy is the mistake in reasoning wherein the arguer is attacked instead of his/her argument, when doing so is not relevant. Surely, the critic’s argument should be assessed on the basis of its merits. (Note: If the arguer is in fact a homophobe or bigot, this may give us grounds to suspect that his/her arguments are not strong; nevertheless, whether the arguments are in fact strong or not depends on the arguments themselves.)

Clarification 4. Not all tolerance is good, and not all intolerance is bad. Police are rightly intolerant of drunk driving, spousal abuse, and murder. Teachers are rightly intolerant of cheating and bullying. Parents are rightly intolerant of children playing with matches. If it is reasonable to think that an act can seriously harm another person, then it is good to be intolerant of such acts. Tolerance of such acts would be not good.

Clarification 5. In the case of same-sex sexual relations, the (secular, public) issue has to do (minimally) with balancing possible harm and freedom. So the following questions should be addressed: Are there good reasons for thinking that homosexual sex has harmful consequences to self or others? Or not? If there are such harmful consequences, are they sufficiently harmful to self or others that we should question the wisdom of engaging in or promoting such sexual behaviour? Or not? For the sake of truth, and for the sake of avoiding possible harm to innocents, these are questions we should dare to ask.

Clarification 6. Considerable evidence strongly suggests that serious health-related problems are associated with homosexual sex, more so than with heterosexual sex. (For verification, check, for starters, the medical issues webpage from the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality [see especially part III of NARTH's What Research Shows]; plus check the position statement webpage from the Christian Medical and Dental Associations [see especially the list of references under “Physical Health” in CMDA’s Annotated References].) If such problems are in fact serious—as they very much seem to be—then responsible and caring people should want to know about them.

Clarification 7. Responsible and caring people, whether homosexual or not, should be free to talk about the above problems with neither fear of homophobia, bigotry, and intolerance, nor fear of false accusations thereof. Open discussion and truth-seeking are important—and so is showing respect to those with whom one disagrees.

P.S. Here is an important letter that the American College of Pediatricians sent in March 2010 to U.S. high schools, a letter in which the ACP cautions teachers about affirming students’ same-sex attraction: ACP letter.

P.P.S. Is being gay like race?

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, teaches philosophy at Providence College, Otterburne, Manitoba, Canada. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)