1.There must be discrimination with marriage.
2. Acceptance of homosexual marriage would be damaging for society.
3. Same sex relationships rarely produce long term monogamous relationships
4. Legalizing same sex marriage is a slippery slope.
5. No one is born gay
6. Homosexuals can change
1.There must be discrimination with marriage.
The argument that samesex marriage provides “equality” is inconsistent.
1.In fact, all of us oppose ''marriage equality'' if that means it is the right of every person to marry anyone they choose. Not everyone can have it: children, siblings, those already married, those with no-one offering to marry them, and so on.
2.To institutionalize marriage between homosexuals because they can express care and love for one another is a silly form of logic. No one thinks that because pedophiles can express care and love for children that their sexual relations with children are legitimate (even if the children express approval). Few would argue that a consensual incestuous relationship between adult siblings or a consensual sexual relationship between more than two adults is grounds to legalize marriage between them, no matter how nice such people may otherwise be.
3.The fact that homosexual unions are sometimes formed in an atmosphere of mutual love says nothing one way or the other about the legitimacy of homosexual intercourse.
It merely confirms that caring bonds can and should be established between members of the same sex. There is an inappropriate category for such bonds: Friendship. Sexual intercourse is not a vital component for establishing a healthy bond between members of the same sex – at least not from a biblical perspective.
It is a requirement of justice and the common good that we treat different cases differently.
Heterosexual marriage alone
–provides a union of 2 different and complementary people
–enables procreation
–provides children with a father and a mother.
2. Acceptance of homosexual marriage would be damaging for society
Heterosexual marriage provides an ideal context for intimacy, trust, mutual support, the bringing up of children, and fruitful interaction with society at large. Fracturing an institution with deep roots in human nature and human necessity will have unspeakable consequences. We already have trouble honouring fidelity, exclusivity, and permanence in marriage; same-sex marriage would make this harder too. Marriage unites men and women so that children have both mothers and fathers - same-sex marriage means actively rejecting this idea.
The statistical evidence
A study by sociology professor at the University of Texas at Austin Mark Regnerus was done which was the largest nationally-representative sample of same-sex households . Using a new, “gold standard” data set of nearly 3,000 randomly selected American young adults, Mr. Regnerus looked at their lives on 40 measures of social, emotional and relationship outcomes. including 175 adults raised by lesbian mothers and 73 adults raised by gay fathers.
He found that, when compared with adults raised in married, mother-father families, adults raised by lesbian mothers had negative outcomes in 24 of 40 categories, while adults raised by gay fathers had negative outcomes in 19 categories. Children of Homosexual couples had greater difficulties than children of intact biological families. Instead, “children appear most apt to succeed well as adults when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day,” he wrote. “The empirical claim that no notable differences exist must go”
It reaffirms — and strengthens — the understanding that the gold standard for raising children is still the intact family founded on marriage of a man and woman who are both spouses to each other and parents to the same children. The same would apply to divorce.
(Findings from the New Family Structures Study, Mark Regnerus, available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610 )
It reaffirms — and strengthens — the understanding that the gold standard for raising children is still the intact family founded on marriage of a man and woman who are both spouses to each other and parents to the same children. The same would apply to divorce.
(Findings from the New Family Structures Study, Mark Regnerus, available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610 )
3. Same sex relationships rarely produce long term monogamous relationships
Other studies are as follows:
The one who wants to change the law who ‘imposes’ a view, since laws impose expectations on everyone. It won’t be a private law for some same-sex couples: everyone is being asked to live under a new definition of marriage and a new morality. This is why the challenge of same sex unions is so urgent and important. Redefining marriage is never simply about marriage. It leads to the redefinition of reproduction and parenthood, produces a legal revolution with vast consequences, replaces an old social order with something completely new, and forces the adoption of a new morality. This last point is especially important. Marriage teaches morality by its very centrality to the culture. With a new concept of marriage comes a new morality, enforced by incredible social pressure and, eventually, legal threats.
Underlying their arguement is the desire to destroy marriage as we know it
It is not the business of the state to say who may be friends or to recognize friendships per se, even highly committed, life-long friendships. If emotional connection were the sole criterion by which the state is to determine what constitutes marriage, it is difficult to see why, say, two maiden aunts who have lived together their entire lives and are deeply committed to each other, could not marry. A similar thing could be said about a three-way sexual relationship, or a child and an adult.
Former Justice Michael Kirby’s testimony to the Senate inquiry into ‘marriage equality’. clearly admitted a wider agenda, he said questions of polygamous marriage could be expected to be considered by parliaments or courts in the future, once same-sex marriage has been safely achieved.
1. Regarded by authors of Scripture with similar revulsion as extreme instances of sexual immorality;
2. Capable of being conducted in the context of adult, consensual, long-term monogamous relationships;
3. Wrong partly on the assumption that they all involve two people who are too much alike;
4. Wrong partly because of the disproportionately high incidence of scientifically measurable problems arising from many such relationships.
There is no single-gene dictating behaviors in humans. Studies testing for genetic influence on behavior attribute to genes only a secondary and indirect role. Prominent UK gay rights activist Peter Tatchell has said:
“An influence is not the same as a cause. Genes and hormones may predispose a person to one sexuality rather than another. But that’s all. Predisposition and determination are two different things.”
A theory of genetically determined behaviour does not coincide with scientific assessments of the role of genes. As Neil and Briar Whitehead put it:
“Science has not yet discovered any genetically dictated behaviour in humans. So far, genetically dictated behaviours of the one-gene-one-triat variety have been found only in very simple organisms... But if many genes are involved in a behaviour, then changes in that behaviour will tend to take place very slowly and steadily (say, changes of a few percent each generation over many generations, perhaps thirty). That being so, homosexuality could not appear and disappear suddenly in family trees the way it does.” (Whitehead, genes, 209 pg 209)
John D’Emilio, Professor of history of women’s and gender studies at the University of Illinois, Chicago, said:
The 1992 United States National Research Council Report on violence and genes says that, violence can be attributed to
Twin studies
Identical twin studies that were done in the early 1990’s, which indicated that when one identical twin self-identified as non-heterosexual the co-twin did likewise roughly 50% of the time. The studies were hailed by the media as proof of the dominant genetic basis for homosexual behavior. The conclusion was premature.
In terms of genetic makeup identical twins are 100% identical. Yet even a non-critical acceptance of the findings indicates that 50% of the time genes did not dictate concordance in sexual identity.The studies showing a roughly 50% concordance rate were riddled with sample bias: volunteers were recruited through advertisements in gay publications.
Most importantly, J. Michael Bailey (author of some of the earlier studies) in his most recent study, published in 2000, corrected the sample bias of earlier studies by sending surveys to a third of the twins named in the Australian Twin Register. This improved study reported that in only 12.3% (not 50%) of the identical twin pairs in which at least one twin was non-heterosexual was the co-twin also non-heterosexual (the concordance for non-identical twins averaged only 4%). In other words, almost nine out of ten times, when one identical twin was non-heterosexual the co-twin was heterosexual. Bailey concluded:
–Urban males were nine times more likely to self-identify as homosexuals than rural males; urban females 2.5 times more likely than rural females.
–Females who were college graduates were nine times more likely to identify themselves as lesbian or bisexual than females who were not educated beyond high school; for males the figure is two times more likely.
The researchers concluded that their results did not “fit with certain analogies to genetically or biologically based traits such as left-handedness or intelligence.” Rather, “an environment that provides increased opportunities for and fewer negative sanctions against same-gender sexuality may both allow and even elicit expression of same-gender interest and sexual behavior” (p. 308).
Criteria for Long-term success
“When governments begin granting political protections, and homosexuality begins getting official ecclesiastical endorsement, support from medical and caring professions, “scientific” backing, and media affirmation, change is not something a self-identified gay person needs to give much thought to – especially if there are rewarding patterns of sexual gratification to give up.” (Whitehead, Genes, pg 197)
Imagine a society that endorsed pedophilia – how much more difficult would it be to induce pedophiles to change their behaviour? In the current political climate, not only do ex homosexuals not receive societal congratulations, they also are villfied by homosexual activists groups. Change of any behaviour requires strong personal motivation to change. When society and even the church states that change is both impossible and wrong (homophobic), very few will be inclined to change. (Robert Gagnon, Scriptural perspectives on homosexuality, Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 2005, vol. 24)
Many homosexuals reject the notion of same sex marriage as it flies in the face of the open nature of their relationships. In 1984 a homosexual couple, one a psychiatrist and the other a psychologist, published a book that focused on the sexual habits of the most “stable” gay couples. Of one hundred fifty six couples, only seven had remained monogamous, and not one of the seven relationships had yet reached the 6 year mark. The consensus among the couples interviewed was that the heterosexual model of monogamy did not work for gay relationships. (J. Harry, Gay couples, 1984, pg 115).
Given the opportunity to marry, after laws have been struck down relatively small percentages of homosexuals actually bother to marry compared to their heterosexual counterparts. This raises question about the true need to unravel marriage for the “fair” extension its benefits. Only 12 percent of homosexuals in the Netherlands marry compared to 86 percent of their heterosexual peers. Less than 20 percent of same-sex couples already living together in California married when given the chance in 2008. In contrast, 91 percent of heterosexual couples in California who are living together are married.
Clearly this is about cultural change and tearing down the traditional family ethic, since it seems that most homosexuals living together neither need nor desire to marry, though they do desire to radically change marriage.
Given the opportunity to marry, after laws have been struck down relatively small percentages of homosexuals actually bother to marry compared to their heterosexual counterparts. This raises question about the true need to unravel marriage for the “fair” extension its benefits. Only 12 percent of homosexuals in the Netherlands marry compared to 86 percent of their heterosexual peers. Less than 20 percent of same-sex couples already living together in California married when given the chance in 2008. In contrast, 91 percent of heterosexual couples in California who are living together are married.
Clearly this is about cultural change and tearing down the traditional family ethic, since it seems that most homosexuals living together neither need nor desire to marry, though they do desire to radically change marriage.
Other studies are as follows:
Homosexual
partners
|
Sample size (homosexuals)
|
Less than 10
|
More than 50
|
More than 1000
|
Research conduct
by Bell and Weinbery in 1970
|
1000
|
3%
|
84%
|
28%
|
Homosexual
partners
|
Sample size
(homosexuals)
|
One
|
51-100
|
101-500
|
501-1000
|
1000 or more
|
1987 Multicenter
AIDS cohort study
|
5000
|
2.7%
|
11.8%
|
21.6%
|
11%
|
15/7%
|
Homosexual
partners
|
Sample size
|
One
|
30
|
More than 100
|
Engaged in 3 way
sex
|
Engaged in group
sex (4+)
|
1994 advocate survey
of sexuality and relationships
|
2500
|
1% (2 people)
|
57%
|
25%
|
48%
|
28%
|
Sample size
(homosexuals)
|
Within 1st year of closed relationship
|
Within 6 years of
closed relationship
|
|
1994 Dutch Study
of male sexual habits
|
156
|
Average 2.5
outside partners
|
Average 11
outside partners
|
4. Legalizing same sex marriage is a slippery slope.
It will destroy freedom of religion and speech.
Faith-based schools and other institutions will be pressured to accept and to teach that this form of union is equal in worth to a heterosexual marriage and employ people in same sex marriages. Marriage celebrants will be pressured to assist in such unions. Prohibition will occur of public speech against homosexuality and this process is already visable:
- After 23 years of gay civil unions, Denmark is now forcing the state Lutheran Church to conduct homosexual weddings. Which churches will be next?
- A Christian marriage celebrant in Canada has been dragged before the courts for refusing to perform same-sex weddings.
- In Massachusetts, which has legalised it, parents have been horrified that their kindergarten children were being taught homosexuality as normal without their knowledge. Legalised gay marriage meant there was no right to exempt your child from this teaching.
- In the US even while gay marriage has not been legislated, more than 30 groups who made submissions to the Federal Government’s review of anti-discrimination laws called for protections for religious freedom to go.
Underlying their arguement is the desire to destroy marriage as we know it
It is not the business of the state to say who may be friends or to recognize friendships per se, even highly committed, life-long friendships. If emotional connection were the sole criterion by which the state is to determine what constitutes marriage, it is difficult to see why, say, two maiden aunts who have lived together their entire lives and are deeply committed to each other, could not marry. A similar thing could be said about a three-way sexual relationship, or a child and an adult.
Incest provides a particularly good parallel. Both incestuous relationships and homosexual relationships are:
1. Regarded by authors of Scripture with similar revulsion as extreme instances of sexual immorality;
2. Capable of being conducted in the context of adult, consensual, long-term monogamous relationships;
3. Wrong partly on the assumption that they all involve two people who are too much alike;
4. Wrong partly because of the disproportionately high incidence of scientifically measurable problems arising from many such relationships.
You cannot argue for one without setting a precedent for the other.
Even knowing that there are radicals in all movements, doesn’t lessen the startling admission recently by lesbian journalist Masha Gessen. On a radio show she actually admits that homosexual activists are lying about their radical political agenda. She says that they don’t want to access the institution of marriage; they want to radically redefine and eventually eliminate it.
Here is what she recently said on a radio interview: “It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.
The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.
I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”
(Source: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/why-get-married/4058506)
5. No one is born gay
Even knowing that there are radicals in all movements, doesn’t lessen the startling admission recently by lesbian journalist Masha Gessen. On a radio show she actually admits that homosexual activists are lying about their radical political agenda. She says that they don’t want to access the institution of marriage; they want to radically redefine and eventually eliminate it.
Here is what she recently said on a radio interview: “It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.
The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.
I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”
(Source: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/why-get-married/4058506)
5. No one is born gay
The greatest fear of the homosexual lobby is that some “true” homosexuals somewhere, somehow, might change in sexual orientation. Intellectually, such a change cannot be permitted because that would discredit the fundamental premise of many activists namely, that homosexual orientation is immutable. If you press them for how they know homosexuality is an immutable condition they will say that it is obvious that homosexuals are “born that way,” implying some sort of genetic or hormonal determinism. I have gay friends. Who say they were born gay. I want to say they feel it so much that they would believe it but the research says that they are not.
Statistical evidence
Statistical evidence
There is no single-gene dictating behaviors in humans. Studies testing for genetic influence on behavior attribute to genes only a secondary and indirect role. Prominent UK gay rights activist Peter Tatchell has said:
“An influence is not the same as a cause. Genes and hormones may predispose a person to one sexuality rather than another. But that’s all. Predisposition and determination are two different things.”
A theory of genetically determined behaviour does not coincide with scientific assessments of the role of genes. As Neil and Briar Whitehead put it:
“Science has not yet discovered any genetically dictated behaviour in humans. So far, genetically dictated behaviours of the one-gene-one-triat variety have been found only in very simple organisms... But if many genes are involved in a behaviour, then changes in that behaviour will tend to take place very slowly and steadily (say, changes of a few percent each generation over many generations, perhaps thirty). That being so, homosexuality could not appear and disappear suddenly in family trees the way it does.” (Whitehead, genes, 209 pg 209)
“[B]orn gay” is an idea with a large constituency, LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transexual] and otherwise. It’s an idea designed to allay the ingrained fears of a homophobic society and the internalised fears of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. What’s most amazing to me about the “born gay” phenomenon is that the scientific evidence for it is thin as a reed, yet it doesn’t matter. It’s an idea with such social utility that one doesn’t need much evidence in order to make it attractive and credible."
Neil Whitehead (My Genes Made Me Do It:A Scientific Look at Sexual Orientation, 2nd edition, 2010) reviews and summarises over 10,000 scientific publications. He argues for a roughly 10%/90% nature/nurture effect in homosexuality, while asserting that any genetic effect is very indirect. Whitehead shows that homosexual orientation is not simply biologically driven or fixed and that change toward heterosexuality frequently occurs naturally without any therapeutic interventions.
“interactions among individuals’ psychosocial development, neurological and hormonal differences, and social processes... These studies suggest at most a weak role for genetic processes in influencing potentials for violent behaviour.. If genetic predispositions to violence are discovered they are likely to involve many genes and substantial environmental interaction rather than any simple genetic marker. (Quoted by Whitehead, Genes, 215-216. Jones and Yarhouse (homosexuality, 82)
Twin studies
Identical twin studies that were done in the early 1990’s, which indicated that when one identical twin self-identified as non-heterosexual the co-twin did likewise roughly 50% of the time. The studies were hailed by the media as proof of the dominant genetic basis for homosexual behavior. The conclusion was premature.
In terms of genetic makeup identical twins are 100% identical. Yet even a non-critical acceptance of the findings indicates that 50% of the time genes did not dictate concordance in sexual identity.The studies showing a roughly 50% concordance rate were riddled with sample bias: volunteers were recruited through advertisements in gay publications.
Most importantly, J. Michael Bailey (author of some of the earlier studies) in his most recent study, published in 2000, corrected the sample bias of earlier studies by sending surveys to a third of the twins named in the Australian Twin Register. This improved study reported that in only 12.3% (not 50%) of the identical twin pairs in which at least one twin was non-heterosexual was the co-twin also non-heterosexual (the concordance for non-identical twins averaged only 4%). In other words, almost nine out of ten times, when one identical twin was non-heterosexual the co-twin was heterosexual. Bailey concluded:
“Concordances from prior studies were inflated due to . . . [sample] bias.”
“In contrast to most prior twin studies of sexual orientation . . . ours did not provide statistically significant support for the importance of genetic factors.”
This new study, in contrast to Hamer’s “gay gene” study, suggests that “any major gene for strictly defined homosexuality has either low penetrance or low frequency”—i.e., weak influence.
So while not discounting altogether genetic influence in the development of a homosexual identity, the studies to date suggest that the influence is not major.
In 1993 A study was performed by Byrne et al in a double blind fashion, so that the researchers were unaware of the sexual orientation and practice of the cadavers dissected. The study did confirm a difference between the section of the hypothalamus called INAH-3 of men and women, but was unable to confirm a difference between homosexual and heterosexual men. To date nothing has been proven, and indeed after a literature search on the subject, one scientific reporter commends, “Neuroanatomists may yet find themselves handing the search for the roots of homosexuality back to the social psychologists and sociologists. “ (G Vines, ‘Onscure origins of desire” New scientist, 1992, 136, pg 2-8.
“In contrast to most prior twin studies of sexual orientation . . . ours did not provide statistically significant support for the importance of genetic factors.”
This new study, in contrast to Hamer’s “gay gene” study, suggests that “any major gene for strictly defined homosexuality has either low penetrance or low frequency”—i.e., weak influence.
So while not discounting altogether genetic influence in the development of a homosexual identity, the studies to date suggest that the influence is not major.
·
Anatomical/structural brain differences
In 1993 A study was performed by Byrne et al in a double blind fashion, so that the researchers were unaware of the sexual orientation and practice of the cadavers dissected. The study did confirm a difference between the section of the hypothalamus called INAH-3 of men and women, but was unable to confirm a difference between homosexual and heterosexual men. To date nothing has been proven, and indeed after a literature search on the subject, one scientific reporter commends, “Neuroanatomists may yet find themselves handing the search for the roots of homosexuality back to the social psychologists and sociologists. “ (G Vines, ‘Onscure origins of desire” New scientist, 1992, 136, pg 2-8.
Factors that affect homosexual orientation:
- Absent father (physically or emotionally)
- name calling
- abuse
- influences from the larger cultural environment in terms of expectations and sanctions.
–Urban males were nine times more likely to self-identify as homosexuals than rural males; urban females 2.5 times more likely than rural females.
–Females who were college graduates were nine times more likely to identify themselves as lesbian or bisexual than females who were not educated beyond high school; for males the figure is two times more likely.
In David Greenberg’s 500-page cross-cultural study, The Construction of Homosexuality, He concludes:
“it is reasonable to suppose that if a bunch of Melanesian infants were to be transported in infancy to the United States and adopted, few would seek out the pederastic relationships into which they are inducted in New Guinea, or take younger homosexual partners when they reached maturity. Similarly, American children raised in New Guinea would accommodate themselves to the Melanesian practices. Where social definitions of appropriate and inappropriate behavior are clear and consistent, with positive sanctions for conformity and negative ones for nonconformity, virtually everyone will conform irrespective of genetic inheritance and, to a considerable extent, irrespective of personal psychodynamics. (University of Chicago, 1988), pg 487)
There is a major problem with the gay gene theory, and with all theories that posit the biological programming of sexual orientation. If heterosexuality and homosexuality are, indeed, genetically predetermined, and therefore unchangeable, how do we explain bisexuality or people who, suddenly in mid-life, switch from heterosexuality to homosexuality (or vice versa)? We can’t.
For over half a century, psychoanalysts and other therapists have been reporting beneficial results for homosexuals who have sought such change. Jones and Yarhouse provide tables which list the results of treating homosexual patients from 14 individual therapists (1950s-1990s) and from group treatments (1950s-1970s). Tallying up the numbers, “positive outcomes” will allow that in the treatment of any condition, a 30% success rate may be anticipated. Alcoholics Anonymous has a success rate of somewhere between 25-30%.
“it is reasonable to suppose that if a bunch of Melanesian infants were to be transported in infancy to the United States and adopted, few would seek out the pederastic relationships into which they are inducted in New Guinea, or take younger homosexual partners when they reached maturity. Similarly, American children raised in New Guinea would accommodate themselves to the Melanesian practices. Where social definitions of appropriate and inappropriate behavior are clear and consistent, with positive sanctions for conformity and negative ones for nonconformity, virtually everyone will conform irrespective of genetic inheritance and, to a considerable extent, irrespective of personal psychodynamics. (University of Chicago, 1988), pg 487)
6. Homosexuals can change
For over half a century, psychoanalysts and other therapists have been reporting beneficial results for homosexuals who have sought such change. Jones and Yarhouse provide tables which list the results of treating homosexual patients from 14 individual therapists (1950s-1990s) and from group treatments (1950s-1970s). Tallying up the numbers, “positive outcomes” will allow that in the treatment of any condition, a 30% success rate may be anticipated. Alcoholics Anonymous has a success rate of somewhere between 25-30%.
In 1973 an atheistic Jew, Robert Spitsffer from Columbia university wrote a study to see if change in homosexual orientation was possible. The researcher has previously done much work & got homosexuality struck off the mental disorder list. However in this study Spitsffer concluded “that the door is open, I came to this study as a skeptic. I believed that a homosexual whether born or made, was a homosexual. And that to consider their orientation as a matter of choice was wrong. But the fact is that if I found even one person that could change, the door is open and the change is sexual orientation is possible”. Spitsffer found that 66% of males & 44% of females of the 200 odd subjects tested were able to achieve heterosexual functioning.
A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation” by researchers Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse. The authors conducted a study over a 6-year period that addressed the issue of whether or not people can successfully experience change in same-sex sexual attractions and live beyond them. They looked at 63 individuals and examined at how attempts to deal with their same-sex attractions had worked or not. It was reported that 53% of those surveyed in the study (and, extrapolated to the general population of those seeking freedom from homosexuality) had experienced lasting change. Others who had attempted change and ‘failed’ represented the remaining 47%.
Interestingly, those who regarded themselves as almost completely gay in their sexual identity actually demonstrated the greatest change. (S. L. Jones and M. A. Yarhouse, Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2007), p. 275.)
Among those who experienced no change there was no evidence of harm from participating in such programs. When people in the media claim to have been hurt by ‘ex-gay’ ministries, it is unfair to damn them all on the basis of individual experiences. There has been a maturation and development of this work in recent decades and the overwhelming evidence is of the help given to many.
A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation” by researchers Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse. The authors conducted a study over a 6-year period that addressed the issue of whether or not people can successfully experience change in same-sex sexual attractions and live beyond them. They looked at 63 individuals and examined at how attempts to deal with their same-sex attractions had worked or not. It was reported that 53% of those surveyed in the study (and, extrapolated to the general population of those seeking freedom from homosexuality) had experienced lasting change. Others who had attempted change and ‘failed’ represented the remaining 47%.
Interestingly, those who regarded themselves as almost completely gay in their sexual identity actually demonstrated the greatest change. (S. L. Jones and M. A. Yarhouse, Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2007), p. 275.)
Among those who experienced no change there was no evidence of harm from participating in such programs. When people in the media claim to have been hurt by ‘ex-gay’ ministries, it is unfair to damn them all on the basis of individual experiences. There has been a maturation and development of this work in recent decades and the overwhelming evidence is of the help given to many.
In regards to any sexually permiscuous behaviour we don’t seem to think that change is possible but we do it with alcoholism. Is it a valid reason not to encourage people to pursue therapy? We have no difficulty acknowledging significant change in a “recovering alcoholic” who generally stays away form the bottle but from time to time struggles with an internal, physiologically connected desire to drink. Nor do we accuse Alcoholics Anonymous of being a failure because they have only a 25-30 % success rate, where “success” is not defined as the complete abolition of temptation.
Change does not always means complete re-orientation of desires. Change can include:
Ultimately, in terms of Christian self-definition, the true ex-homosexual is not only someone who never experiences homosexual impulses, just as the ex-adulterer is not only someone who never experiences a desire for sex with women other than his wife. The true ex-homosexual (or, more precisely, ex-”homosexer”) is someone who, by God’s grace and the power of the Spirit, no longer acquiesces to homosexual impulses.Change does not always means complete re-orientation of desires. Change can include:
- A reduction or elimination of homosexual behavior;
- A reduction in the intensity and frequency of homosexual impulses;
- The experience of heterosexual arousal
- Reorientation from exclusive or predominant homo-sexuality to exclusive or predominant heterosexuality.
Criteria for Long-term success
It depends on the existence of a strong support network for their move out of the gay community, including :
- the development of close but non erotic same-sex relationships.
- Forgiveness of the same-sex parent
- overcoming the anxiety associated with living up to heterosexual stereotypes
- overcoming fear of heterosexual courtship customs,
- assertiveness training, and healing of sexual abuse may constitute important elements in the restoration process.
“When governments begin granting political protections, and homosexuality begins getting official ecclesiastical endorsement, support from medical and caring professions, “scientific” backing, and media affirmation, change is not something a self-identified gay person needs to give much thought to – especially if there are rewarding patterns of sexual gratification to give up.” (Whitehead, Genes, pg 197)
Imagine a society that endorsed pedophilia – how much more difficult would it be to induce pedophiles to change their behaviour? In the current political climate, not only do ex homosexuals not receive societal congratulations, they also are villfied by homosexual activists groups. Change of any behaviour requires strong personal motivation to change. When society and even the church states that change is both impossible and wrong (homophobic), very few will be inclined to change. (Robert Gagnon, Scriptural perspectives on homosexuality, Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 2005, vol. 24)
No comments:
Post a Comment