The Evangelical Blackout of Research on Sexual Orientation

Of late, I have given several talks to a variety of evangelical groups about the current research on sexual orientation. Along the way, I have been contacted by evangelicals who ask about the current status of sexual orientation research. After the conversations and speeches, many questions come up. One question I hear after almost all of these conversations is: Why haven’t we seen anything about these studies?

Many of the questioners read evangelical publications and consume evangelical media. However, they don’t know anything about the brain research of Ivanka Savic in Sweden (2005, 2006, 2008) or Adam Safron and colleagues at Northwestern University (since 2005). Their knowledge of research stops at Dean Hamer or Simon Levay (both published studies in the 1990s).  They know there is no gay gene but they don’t know about the significant brain, perceptual and cognitive differences reported within the past six years by various researchers around the world.

Many evangelicals believe homosexuality is due to abuse. Some will say with confidence that gays are more likely to be abused than straights but they are unaware of the actual magnitudes of difference. However, they are unaware of the 2009 study by Wilson and Widom which found no relationship between abuse and having a gay partner for men or women (men were more likely to have had at least one gay experience in their adult lives but not a recent partner). They are unaware of the 2010 work of Wells and colleagues in New Zealand that found 81.6% of gays reported no sexual abuse in their lives. Abuse is also higher among gender non-conforming children, whether gay or straight. Given that gays are more likely to be gender non-conforming in their histories, it seems likely that greater reports of abuse among gays relate in part to gender non-conformity, and have little, if anything, to do with cause of attractions for the majority of people who are same-sex attracted.

Many evangelicals I speak to think that change of orientation is pretty common and the evidence is being suppressed by the gay-friendly media. Some of them will point to the Jones and Yarhouse study of Exodus participants. Some will even say that over half of the participants changed orientation. When I explain to them what change means in the context of the study, they are surprised. Then I point out a study, also by Mark Yarhouse, that found no change in orientation for men and women in mixed orientation marriages. They wonder why that study was not reported in the media. I wonder the same thing.

I could be wrong but I don’t think any of the studies to which I have referred here have been reported in the Christian press. The Jones and Yarhouse study was reported widely, but the Yarhouse study showing no change among sexual minorities in mixed orientation couples – which is more recent – was not reported anywhere. NARTH – a group of mostly lay people but which claims to be a scientific group – has no information on the 2008 study by Savic and Lindstrom showing clear structural differences in the brain associated with sexual orientation differences. Shouldn’t a scientific organization which claims to be interested in the science of sexual orientation report information which is relevant to sexual orientation? That omission is only one of many.

Many evangelicals get their information from NARTH through groups like Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Exodus International, etc. Others get information from Christian media. However, these studies are not reported in these places. No wonder most evangelicals approach sexual orientation with a 1990s mindset. It is as if the evangelical world is in blackout mode when it comes to current studies on sexual orientation.

I suspect the culture war is to blame. It cannot be because sexual orientation is not news. The issue comes up in the Presidential campaigns and other news all the time. However, evangelicals are quite unprepared to discuss this very current topic with the most recent and best scholarship.

In my view, Christian media and organizations have a responsibility to provide this information to their readers and consumers. Given the backlog of unreported studies, there is plenty of material for their reporting.

Print Friendly

  • StraightGrandmother

    THIS! Love, LOVE, LOVE

    And as Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama said before the UN in Geneva Switzerland yesterday Dec 6th,

    “Like being a woman, like being a racial religious tribal or ethnic minority, being LGBT does not make you less human. And that is why gay rights are Human Rights and Human Rights are gay rights.”

    “Some believe homosexuality is a Western phenomenon… but gay people belong to every society in the world…. Being gay is not a Western invention, it is a human reality.”

    Of course, it bears noting that rarely are cultural and religious traditions and teachings actually in conflict with the protection of human rights. Indeed, our religion and our culture are sources of compassion and inspiration toward our fellow human beings. It was not only those who’ve justified slavery who leaned on religion, it was also those who sought to abolish it. And let us keep in mind that our commitments to protect the freedom of religion and to defend the dignity of LGBT people emanate from a common source. For many of us, religious belief and practice is a vital source of meaning and identity, and fundamental to who we are as people. And likewise, for most of us, the bonds of love and family that we forge are also vital sources of meaning and identity. And caring for others is an expression of what it means to be fully human. It is because the human experience is universal that human rights are universal and cut across all religions and cultures.

    The fourth issue is what history teaches us about how we make progress towards rights for all. Progress starts with honest discussion. Now, there are some who say and believe that all gay people are pedophiles, that homosexuality is a disease that can be caught or cured, or that gays recruit others to become gay. Well, these notions are simply not true. They are also unlikely to disappear if those who promote or accept them are dismissed out of hand rather than invited to share their fears and concerns. No one has ever abandoned a belief because he was forced to do so.

    Universal human rights include freedom of expression and freedom of belief, even if our words or beliefs denigrate the humanity of others. Yet, while we are each free to believe whatever we choose, we cannot do whatever we choose, not in a world where we protect the human rights of all.

    But progress comes from changes in laws. In many places, including my own country, legal protections have preceded, not followed, broader recognition of rights. Laws have a teaching effect. Laws that discriminate validate other kinds of discrimination. Laws that require equal protections reinforce the moral imperative of equality. And practically speaking, it is often the case that laws must change before fears about change dissipate.

    Finally, progress comes from being willing to walk a mile in someone else’s shoes. We need to ask ourselves, “How would it feel if it were a crime to love the person I love? How would it feel to be discriminated against for something about myself that I cannot change?” This challenge applies to all of us as we reflect upon deeply held beliefs, as we work to embrace tolerance and respect for the dignity of all persons, and as we engage humbly with those with whom we disagree in the hope of creating greater understanding.

    http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/12/06/383003/sec-clinton-to-un-gay-rights-are-human-rights-and-human-rights-are-gay-rights/

    This speech by Hillary Clinton is the I Have a Dream Speech for persons who are gay, lesbain, bi-sexual, transgender and their supporters and allies. As I read various LGBT websites and comments on the speech so many people, especially older people in their 50′s and 60′s, commented that they were crying during the speech, I did also.

    Warren you are doing what Hillary Clinton & Barak Obama said what needs to be done,

    The fourth issue is what history teaches us about how we make progress towards rights for all. Progress starts with honest discussion.

    No one has ever abandoned a belief because he was forced to do so.

    This article Warren, coming on the heals of Hillary Rodham Clintons speech at the U.N. Lifts me up. I hope you take time to follow the link above and see and hear the full speech, it will Lift You Up.

  • StraightGrandmother

    Here is one of those Christian News Outlets you talked about Warren, Christian Broacast News, interviewing Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council on yesterdays speech about Human Rights for people who are gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u8Mdv-SetXk

    Sprigg says that it is NOT TRUE that sexual minorities can change their sexual orientation or their behavior.

    We know the drill, Christian News Outlets interview The Family Research Council (A certified HATE GROUP by the Southern Poverty Law Center) FRC simply repeats the junk scinece of NARTH, all roads lead to NARTH.

    (Interesting comments at YouTube on the video) I gave it a thumbs down.

  • Patrocles

    ” has no information on the 2008 studies by Savic and Lindstrom showing clear structural differences in the brain based on sexual orientation differences”

    Perhaps you wanted to write: “sexual orientation differences based on structural differences in the brain”??

    Conventional wisdom tells that the average gay man is more feminine and the average lesbian women more masculine than their heterosexual counterparts. And that’s the most simple, but not much interesting, explanation for Savic’ foundings.

    Only, masculinity/feminity is not categorical, but gradual. And I suppose, it’s the same with brain (a)symmetry. So Savic’ ought to have compared the relation between degrees/numbers, not classified samples.

  • Michael Bussee

    Many evangelicals get their information from NARTH through groups like Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Exodus International, etc. Others get information from Christian media.

    What else would you expect? Why would such evangelicals want to risk having their prejudices rocked by actual scientific evidence? In the evangelical churches I attended, science was the enemy of faith. If the facts contradicted the dogma, the facts had to go.

  • Michael Bussee

    Many evangelicals I speak to think that change of orientation is pretty common and the evidence is being suppressed by the gay-friendly media. Some of them will point to the Jones and Yarhouse study of Exodus participants. Some will even say that over half of the participants changed orientation.

    When I explain to them what change means in the context of the study, they are surprised. Then I point out the study, also by Mark Yarhouse, that found no change in orientation for men and women in mixed orientation marriages, they wonder why that study was not reported in the media. I wonder the same thing.

    I could be wrong but I don’t think any of the studies to which I have referred here have been reported in the Christian press. The Jones and Yarhouse study was reported widely, but the Yarhouse study showing no change among sexual minorities in mixed orientation couples – which is more recent – was not reported anywhere.

    I am glad that you specifically mentioned the Yarhouse studies. In my discussions with “Ex-gay/Reparative Therapy” advocates, they almost always point to the first Yarhouse study as conclusive “proof” that gays can change their sexual orientation if they really want to.

    They don’t seem to understand what he meant by “change”. Perhaps they don’t want to understand. And they know nothing at all of his more recent study. To his credit, I understand that Mr. Yarhouse is tyring to clear up the misunderstanding.

  • Patrocles

    Sorry -

    of course “Savic’ findings”, not her “foundings”!

  • http://aebrain.blogspot.com Zoe Brain

    In the evangelical churches I attended, science was the enemy of faith. If the facts contradicted the dogma, the facts had to go.

    This is stated explicitly in Coalition of Revival’s The Christian World View of Psychology and Counseling, a manual for Christian Counselors.

    1. Authority

    We affirm that the Bible is the authoritative source of knowledge for psychology and counseling as in all other areas of life. We deny that any other source of knowledge is equally authoritative with the Bible for psychology and counseling.

    6.Scientific Method

    We affirm that the scientific method is useful in carrying out the creation mandate of Genesis 1:28 to subdue and have dominion over creation when the investigators have Biblical presuppositions and when the Bible does not directly give us the answers we seek; that the use of the scientific method is entirely controlled by the presuppositions of the investigators and therefore the results are a pronouncement of faith rather than of scientific fact; and that the faith nature of the results of scientific investigation is evidenced by the investigators’ proselytizing intent, that is, their attempt to transform man into their idea of what man should be. We deny that the scientific method can ever be applied in psychology without its being thoroughly determined by the presuppositions of the investigators.

    When Science shows what they want it to show, it is trumpeted as proof. When it doesn’t, it’s ignored or dismissed.

    Warren, please wake up and smell the coffee. They’ve always been like this, it’s the inherent nature of Evangelism as it is practiced in the USA. It’s incompatible with Integrity, and with Christ’s teachings.

    If only there were more like you (OK, we disagree on some things, but you strive so hard to find the truth). But there are not. I don’t know how to reform “Evangelical Christianity” in the US, it’s not my belief system, it’s yours, but the intellectual corruption is now in the bone.

    They lie, they distort, and above all, they conceal. And as a result, those who are non-specialists, who rely on them as authoritative and trustworthy sources, are misled.

    Don’t make the mistake of Demonising them. Yes, there are true monsters (George Rekers comes to mind, haunted by his own personal demons), but the majority of the liers, concealers and distorters are just trying to do God’s will. The vast majority who are misled by them are decent, honest people too.

    We really ought to discuss Trans issues soon, Warren. I think it’s pretty clear that just as you’re an expert on sexual orientation (and that’s not my area) and are aware of the research, you’re not up to speed to the same degree on research on gender identity (my area of expertise). It’s been concealed from you, and life’s too short to go hunting for the data in every area.

    I’d like you to test my conclusions and reasoning. I need the peer review.

    I’ve tried to expose the data on my blog and elsewhere. 2/3 of the time I’m building up a nice, neat, coherent picture, the other 1/3 tearing it down by showing that things aren’t that simple, that there are holes in the theory and limits on our knowledge, and trying to explore those limits and uncertainties. I use Wittgenstein’s ladder a lot too, it’s complex.

  • Lynn David

    Warren….. Many evangelicals get their information from NARTH through groups like Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Exodus International, etc. Others get information from Christian media. However, these studies are not reported in these places. No wonder most evangelicals approach sexual orientation with a 1990s mindset. It is as if the evangelical world is in blackout mode when it comes to current studies on sexual orientation.

    More like a 1950s mindset with a smattering of later info.

    It seems most anti-gay websites necessarily operate with information that is 10+ years behind the times. If something new comes up and makes a splash in the secular press then the anti-gay contingent can always rely upon their pseudo-scientific anti-gay associations – like NARTH – to come up with a weak but seemingly plausible rebuttal to sweep the new science under the rug. The biblical gnosis or worldview must be preserved at any cost. Even if it is ultimately their very integrity as a religion.

  • Caryn LeMur

    Thank you Warren for publishing this note. I have always enjoyed your (and Mark Y’s) honesty and bravery. At times I forget that those who work in the overlap between science and psychology and faith are also subject to prejudice. May our Lord Jesus continue to ‘strengthen your frame’ and ‘meet your needs in a sun-scorched land.’

    I hope the discussions will one day progress to consideration of the ‘wisdom from heaven’ that is ‘impartial and full of mercy’ [James 3]. This is where thoughtful and loving debate is needed.

    After all, we know from Matt 5 that ‘he that marries the divorced woman commits adultery’, and I praise the church for learning to give great mercy to those that live in adultery-by-remarriage.

    My hope is that as the church world-wide matures, that they will extend the same rich mercy with impartiality to those in same-sex relationships. The ‘wisdom from heaven’ is calling out to any that dare to hear.

    Much love in Christ always and unconditionally; Caryn

  • David Blakeslee

    Great post…I hope you have more to say.

    I would suggest however, saying they are stuck in the 1990′s overlooks the Spitzer study of 2003. Just sayin’

    Inviting Evangelicals to be at the cutting edge of science (I don’t think) is their core interest.

    They are interested in the “tried and true” of human culture and tradition and seek to find where science confirms what they already believe…

    My hope is that as the church world-wide matures, that they will extend the same rich mercy with impartiality to those in same-sex relationships. The ‘wisdom from heaven’ is calling out to any that dare to hear.

    About right….and this will come easier when the Evangelicals place in proper perspective Rom 1:28 and the story of Sodom.

  • GusII

    When sermons are often out of context individual verses cobbled together to make a point should we expect anything different when it comes to science?

  • StraightGrandmother

    David Blakeslee=

    and this will come easier when the Evangelicals place in proper perspective Rom 1:28 and the story of Sodom.

    StraightGrandmother = okay. What is the proper perspective of Rom 1:28 and the story of Sodom?

    And thank you for writing on a level that I can understand, before I had a hard time understanding what you would write, your writing is simpler now and I appreciate that.

  • AJ

    Blakeslee,

    As with SG, I’m wondering what your take is on Romans 1:28 and the story of Sodom. I can’t tell from your post.

  • David Blakeslee

    Romans 1:28 -32 is a listing of very petty, common sins (except murder) of which every human being partakes. This follows the v 26 condemnation of same sex behavior. Political evangelicals only wish to politicize the same sex behavior. In this regard they are being inconsistent in the least, but brutal to a terrified minority within their own churches.

    Paul seems to think that sinners are welcome in the church a few short chapters later (Romans 7 and 8); acknowledging that we are forever stuck with our shortcomings and that God’s grace is more than sufficient.

    How do Same Sex attracted Christians come out in their churches? They don’t or rarely. Few have the courage or support to stand face to face, on equal footing with other members. The support systems that are available have flaws, we can improve them; but not before we undue the profound hatred and disgust generated by the distortion of the Story of Sodom and the selective attention to Romans 1:26. It is beyond internalizes homophobia…it is the terror of eternal damnation.

    Regarding Sodom: This is how later prophets viewed the judgement of this city.

    Ezekiel 16:48-50

    As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done. “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. (NIV)

    As the story goes, all the men of the city surrounded Lot and the Angels and demanded that the men should come out so they could have sex with them. Statistically unlikely they were all gay…and even if they were, why would they be satisfied by a female concubine?

    More likely this was a form of heterosexual male rape to humiliate unwanted and uninvited visitors to the town. A form of intimidation by the leaders of the city to maintain tight control over the city by keeping “unapproved people” out. Humiliate and assault them sexually, and they will happily leave and order will be restored.

    Can’t remember where I first found this info, but his is a “weak link” : http://www.christiangay.com/he_loves/sodom.htm others may know better links.

  • http://www.comingout4christians.net Dave

    Just FYI .. a lengthy discussion on Sodom can be found here.

    Dave

  • http://funfrotfacts.blogspot.com Throbert McGee

    AFAIK, Jewish scholars are unanimous in their opinion that Sodom was not destroyed because of sexual sins in general — let alone homosexual sin specifically.

    And I’m not talking only about hippy-dippy liberal Jewish theologians — even the black-hatted haredim (aka, “Ultra Orthodox”), who consider homosexuality to be an almost unspeakable sin, agree that (homo)sexual sinning was a very minor detail in God’s judgment against Sodom.

    According to the Talmud, there was an old story in Jewish folklore about a starving desert traveler who came knocking on the gates of Sodom, asking for food and drink. The Sodomites refused to give him even a thimbleful of water, except for one virgin girl who felt sorry for the traveler. At breakfast, lunch, and dinner, she complained of indigestion and secretly hid her portion of food in her sleeve. Then, late at night, when everyone in the city was asleep, she took the saved-up food along with a goatskin of water to the top of the city walls, and lowered them down to the grateful traveler. (She knew better than to open the city gates, just in case the “starving traveler” was really a bandit or enemy soldier with a whole legion of comrades in hiding.)

    So, the girl of Sodom only gave the stranger the little bit of food that was rightfully hers to share, and she did it in a way that did not endanger the city’s security.

    But a night watchman saw what the girl did, and the next day, when the Men of Sodom discovered her very modest act of charity…

    …they publicly raped her to death, mutilated her body, and threw her remains to the wild dogs, as an example to other Sodom residents who might be inclined to show compassion to a stranger.

    Whether this incident actually happened is doubtful, but that’s unimportant — the point is that centuries before Jesus, Jews understood that the “Sin of Sodom” had nothing to do with sex, let alone homosexuality specifically.

  • David Blakeslee

    Thanks Throbert.

    David

    We have also talked about this before on this thread

    http://wthrockmorton.com/2009/03/20/uganda-antigay-group-holds-first-meeting/

    I was hoping for a link to a more scholarly analysis.

  • http://www.comiingout4christians.net Dave

    Not sure of scholarly research online .. but you might check out this book .. Genesis: Interpretation : A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching for a more in depth analysis.

    Dave

  • Michael Bussee

    About the “Evangelical Blackout of Research on Sexual Orientation”, Warren pointed out:

    Many evangelicals I speak to think that change of orientation is pretty common and the evidence is being suppressed by the gay-friendly media. Some of them will point to the Jones and Yarhouse study of Exodus participants. Some will even say that over half of the participants changed orientation.

    Interesting that Exodus itself makes such a claim:

    “NARTH is an excellent professional, scientific, and therapeutic organization … that provides much research and many articles helping the lay person to understand some of the root contributing factors of same-sex attraction.”

    The “success rate” for ministries such as ours is not 1-2%, as Rev. Bagnuolo claims; rather it is 53%, according to the most recent study (2007/2009) by psychologists Stanton L. Jones of Wheaton College and Mark A. Yarhouse of Regent University.”

    http://exodusinternational.org/2010/02/dispelling-the-myths-about-onebyone-and-exodus-international/

  • http://funfrotfacts.blogspot.com Throbert McGee

    Belatedly, this point occurs to me: the “Sin of Sodom” was, indeed, the Opposite of Love (to use Jeremy’s phrasing).

    However, this sin that was the Opposite of Love was NOT inappropriate sexual behavior of any kind; it was a selfishness so fanatical that they’d sooner murder one of their own daughters than see her showing kindheartedness to an outsider!

  • stephen

    SG. There was no Sodom in reality. It is a mythical place that has left no physical trace behind. The above comments detailing the exegesis of the fable are to the point. I have never understood that story as having to do with sex. It makes no sense. However, if we’re going to talk Sodom let’s not forget what happens after the brimstone:

    Lot is the only man worthy of saving. Right? As he escapes with his wife and daughters his wife is killed. Her fault. Lot holes up in the hills above the smoldering rubble of the city. His daughters get to talking and decide on a plan. They get their father drunk then rape him to impregnate themselves. Both of them. On two separate occasions. They date rape their dad.

    Let me put that another way: the two daughters get their dad drunk and do stuff with him (I won’t describe, I know folks here have problems with the acts of sexual congress but I’m thinking cowgirl style) so that they can have his children.

    Though Lot is drunk he manages to avoid vintner’s wilt twice. He makes his daughters great with child.

    Incest good. Lot, the only good man spared from the destruction of Sodom fathers children on his children.

    Clearly, like Noah and the Ark, this is a foundation myth that has become corrupted. As a guide to moral behavior it is contemptible.

  • Jayhuck

    Stephen,

    I appreciate and agree with almost everything

    You have to say, but to be fair regarding the existence of these two cities

    The historical existence of Sodom and Gomorrah is still in dispute by archaeologists

    – Wikipedia

  • StraightGrandmother

    You have got to agree that Stephen makes a good point. That part of the Bible story is not taught in Sunday school.

  • StraightGrandmother

    And here we have the Maryland Christians just pounding away in indignation only concerned with themselves, they have no compassion. I wish Warren would go talk to these people in Maryland and tell them that being gay is not a choice and not likely to change.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TRt2ls2EidM

    And anyway the Bible is mute about lesbians so I don’t know why they are thrown under the pews.

    I’ll tell you one thing I sure am glad I am not gay it is much much easier to be heterosexual. I don’t know how you guys and gals keep your sanity. Look at these ministers they are forming an army against you. This is stigmatization to the MAX.

  • http://aebrain.blogspot.com Zoe Brain

    Here’s “Christian” research:

    http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201112080008

  • StraightGrandmother

    Zoe you are the perfect person to help me!

    I need help with something (no it is not gonna cost you money just a short bit of time)

    Could you kindly e-mail me at my name and then Google Mail?

  • David Blakeslee

    Stephen,

    I have never heard any fundamentalist or evangelical endorse Lot’s incest of his daughters.

  • StraightGrandmother

    David, I think you kind of have that in reverse don’t you? Isn’t it Lot’s daughters incestious rape of their father?

  • Jayhuck

    David B -

    I have never heard any fundamentalist or evangelical endorse Lot’s incest of his daughters.

    I think the problem is, when it comes to Evangelical Christians, is that you don’t hear an endorsement of the incest, but you also don’t hear any objections. When talking about Sodom, in my limited experience, this isn’t the issue that is raised as problematic.

  • http://funfrotfacts.blogspot.com Throbert McGee

    The guilt of Lot’s daughters is lessened by their motivation: they didn’t do it out of incestuous lust for their dad, but because they sincerely (though mistakenly) believed that the entire population of the world had been wiped out by the fire and brimstone, and that they had to get pregnant to preserve the human race.

    Lot’s own guilt, in turn, is lessened by the fact that he was totally drunk at the time.

    Of course, for both Jews and Christians, there’s a “theological need” to find mitigating factors that reduce the taint of the incest, since King David is descended (via Ruth) from Moab (son of Lot’s elder daughter), while David’s grandson Rehoboam is descended (via his mother Naamah) from Ammon (the son of Lot’s younger daughter).

    Thus, if you believe the genealogy in the Gospel of Matthew (which includes Rehoboam in the line), both of the incestuously-conceived sons, Moab and Ammon, are ancestors of Jesus.

    And Jews, for their part, also expect the Messiah to be of the Davidic line, and thus most definitely a descendant of Moab, although not necessarily of Ammon as well.

  • http://funfrotfacts.blogspot.com Throbert McGee

    Thus, if you believe the genealogy in the Gospel of Matthew (which includes Rehoboam in the line)

    Just to be clear, Luke’s genealogy disagrees, and connects Jesus to David not via David’s half-Ammonite grandson Rehoboam, but via a different grandson of David named Matthata,

    So Luke’s version links Jesus only to Moab (again, by way of David’s great-grandmother Ruth), but not to Ammon.

  • TwirlyGirly

    Warren,

    Do you have a working link to the study by Adam Safron? The link provided in your article is dead. I’m interesting in reading the study.

  • TwirlyGirly

    Warren,

    Never mind! I found it here:

  • TwirlyGirly

    Oops! Would someone please explain how to post a link? I hit the “link” button, and typed the URL into the pop-up box, and while the link did display in the post preview, it was not included in the comment when I submitted it.

  • Kellen

    The problem with many of the brain studies is that they do not provide compelling information (or any information) about causation.

  • Reed Boyer

    *gasp!* Good Heavens, Captain Renault! Apparently there is gambling going on in Casablanca.

  • Pingback: The Evangelical Blackout of Sexual Orientation Research, Part 2 — Warren Throckmorton

  • Pingback: What I Missed | An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy

  • Pingback: How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 60 - City-Data Forum

  • Pingback: Top Ten Posts – 2011 — Warren Throckmorton

  • Pingback: Do you feel it is correct to teach children that homosexuality is normal and natural? - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 32 - City-Data Forum

  • Pingback: Why do so many people believe being gay is a lifestyle choice, when it's already been proven to NOT be? - Page 15 - City-Data Forum

  • Jaymax

    @ Straightgrandmother.

    For an interesting and scholarly view of Romans 1:26, I found Jeremy Townsend’s article very interesting:

    http://www.jeramyt.org/papers/paulcybl.html

    and for Corinthian’s 1:6-9, a well researched article by Dale B martin (Professor of Religious studies at Yale University:

    http://www.clgs.org/arsenokoit%C3%A9s-and-malakos-meanings-and-consequences

  • Pingback: why do people who believe being gay is a choice, not just simply go to the source and ask gay people? - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 22 - City-Data Forum

  • Regan DuCasse

    Thank you for this Dr. T,

    I have been very frustrated, as have my friends who have posted here, the manipulation, if not deliberate omissions of research information. There have been several so called scholars from Harvard, or well known pundits like Dave Blankenhorn, called upon to present evidence in courts (or their articles are used as evidence) to maintain discrimination against gay people. The frustration is also among those legitimate researchers whose work is being distorted. The anti gay choose to ignore their entreats to stop or correct it. Or they treat said researcher with some considerable condescension, if not disdain.

    Of which they are not apologetic, let alone accountable.

    These distortions, omissions and manipulations are used in the Senate and halls of Congress from which laws are created or maintained that damages gay lives.

    This especially should require accountability for lying to achieve such an aim.

    There has been considerable and willful denial of current information, possibly whether there was a blackout or not. And typically the fallback position is to claim that religious freedom is in danger if such truths are allowed to be revealed.

    In any case, this blackout isn’t surprising. It’s only part of larger tactical agenda to obviously maintain ignorance, fear and distrust of gay people. These are very powerful and efficient ways of keeping gay people where they want them. Regardless of how dangerous and spiteful it truly is.

  • Pingback: Sex in the City's Cynthia Nixon: I Chose to Be Gay - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 11 - City-Data Forum

  • Pingback: Reparative therapy and confirmation bias: Langer & Abelson’s 1974 study of clinical bias — Warren Throckmorton

  • omuzinyi omulungi

    the evangelicals have really lost it. in africa we say the higher you climb a tree, the more you expose your arse. take a look at what the lead counsel for the three most homophbic pastors said at at a public dialogue recently. check here:

    http://www.mask.org.za/ugandan-lawyer-argues-case-for-gay-rights-before-christian-audience/

    they have crowded capitalism, greed, hatrade and spiritual colonialism into one disgusting bomb…. hatrade!!! but it has exploded in their face. THEY HAVE STOOD OUT AS A RADICAL INTOLERANT LOT. oH BOY!!!!

  • Pingback: Evangelicals don’t know the facts about sexual orientation … or don’t want them. | Skipping to the Piccolo

  • Pingback: Clear demonstration of christian bigotry. - Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheism, God, Universe, Science, Spirituality, Faith, Evidence - Page 9 - City-Data Forum

  • Pingback: Warren Throckmorton on the Evangelical Blackout of Research on Sexual Orientation « [IainBradford]

  • stephen

    WT. What an interesting link. I was very struck by a connection I’d never made before: the OP points out that the symbol of racial intolerance, hate, and violence in the US was/is the burning cross. Though I don’t subscribe to the ideas of evangelical Christianity I try to understand, honor, and am moved by them. In the discussion of the lives of gay Americans it might be a idea to start filtering out those voices once represented by the burning cross who now seem to know that God Hates Fags. That crabbed, ignorant, and fearful worldview didn’t represent Christianity then nor does it now.

  • Pingback: Christians, Tell Me Why I Should Oppose Gay Marriage - Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheism, God, Universe, Science, Spirituality, Faith, Evidence - Page 5 - City-Data Forum

  • Michael Tyler

    The final comment proceeding mine is the most conclusive without apparent bias. thx. Michael

  • StraightGrandmother

    Meatkins =

    Unless there is stone cold, irrefutable evidence to prove homosexuality is indeed biological, it should not be treated as something that cannot be changed.

    StraightGrandmother= It is very very very rare for me to attack or insult anyone. Very Rare. I always talk to the issues, but if you read this article by Throckmorton, and then you went and posted that on a message board you are a MeatHead.

    Michael Tyler, please go join Meathead and take reading comprehension lessons. I have lost my patience. Hopefully someone will be able to respond to you properly, I just can’t tonight. I’m done.

  • David M.

    Well, Michael, you’re entitled to your opinion. But if you are referring to the message “posted by Meatkins,” it is quite biased, illogical and not well educated about sexual orientation. There is very strong evidence that biology is a fairly strong factor in determining orientation. But there are other factors as well. The more important point, though, is that studies are strong indeed in showing that orientation is innate, that is, it can change only to a degree and only in rare cases. The notion that every man should marry a woman is highly problematic given the innate homosexuality of some of us. I am one of many homosexual men who tried to be married to women. Sometimes it works in its own way, but often enough it falls apart, even after 20-25 years of trying. I wouldn’t recommend it.

  • http://Wordofawoman.com Michelle Krabill

    So glad to have found you. You may enjoy my current series.

    http://wordofawoman.com/2012/03/19/god-and-homosexuality-part-3/

  • Pingback: Some Truth Is God’s Truth? « Disoriented. Reoriented.

  • Pingback: Same-Sex Marriage: the Next 10 States - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 5 - City-Data Forum

  • Pingback: Author of ex-gay study renounces his own work - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 5 - City-Data Forum

  • Pingback: Everwhere but America: Gay Marriage support spreads around the World - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 13 - City-Data Forum

  • Pingback: The Scandal of the Evangelical Double Mind


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X