Comment (18)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
TechnoratiPermissive laws, permissive behaviour
The research shows that legalising same-sex marriage will increase prevalence of homosexuality, says a psychologist
An accumulation of research from around the world finds that societies
which endorse homosexual behavior increase the prevalence of
homosexuality in those societies. The legalization of same-sex
marriage—which is being considered by voters in several US states—is
the ultimate in societal endorsement and will result in more
individuals living a homosexual lifestyle.
Extensive research from Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the United States reveals that homosexuality is primarily environmentally induced. Specifically, social and/or family factors, as well as permissive environments which affirm homosexuality, play major environmental roles in the development of homosexual behavior.
A closer look at the research
Twin study investigations of homosexuality were recently conducted in both Sweden and Finland. Such twin studies compare rates of homosexual behavior between different sibling groups who share varying degrees of genetic similarity (ie, identical twins versus non-identical twins). By comparing such rates, twin studies help sort out the extent to which homosexual behavior is genetic and/or environmental. For instance, if homosexuality is genetic, then in cases where one identical twin is homosexual the co-twin should be homosexual nearly 100 percent of the time because identical twins share 100 percent of their genes.
But that is not what these two large-scale Scandinavian studies found. Both studies revealed that when one identical twin was homosexual the other twin was homosexual only 10 percent or 11 percent of the time. Such findings indicate that homosexuality is not genetically determined.
Instead of genetic factors, these Scandinavian studies concluded that unique environmental factors play the largest role in the development of homosexual behavior. The question as to which specific environmental factors contribute to homosexuality was not answered by these studies although some conclusions are offered by Danish and American research data to be discussed later in this article.
But first, it should be noted that although the Swedish and Finnish twin studies are among the best to date, they still have wide margins of error. In fact, the margins of error are so wide it remains entirely possible that genetic factors play no role in the development of homosexuality. That remains to be determined, but what has been resolved is that the primary factor in the development of homosexuality is environmental.
A Danish research investigation studied two million adults living in Denmark, a country where same-sex marriage has been legal since 1989. This study uncovered a number of specific environmental factors that increase the probability an individual will seek a same-sex rather than an opposite-sex partner for marriage.
For Danish men, the environmental factors associated with higher rates of homosexual marriage include an urban birthplace and an absent or unknown father. Significantly, there was a linear relationship between degree of urbanization of birthplace and whether a man chose homosexual or heterosexual marriage as an adult. In other words, the more urban a man's birthplace, the more likely he was to marry a man, while the more rural a man's birthplace, the more likely he was to marry a woman.
For Danish women, the environmental factors related to increased likelihood of homosexual marriage include an urban birthplace, maternal death during adolescence, and mother-absence.
Interestingly, this Danish research finds that urban birthplace and separation from the same-sex parent both were associated with same-sex marriage for men as well as women. (The latter finding supports psychological theories that have long asserted homosexuality is related to childhood problems—real or perceived—with the same-sex parent). In summary, this study finds that environmental factors that contribute to the development of homosexuality can be social and/or familial.
Finally, an American research study—the most comprehensive and representative survey of sexual behavior in America—reported its findings concerning homosexuality. The results of this study also support an environmental theory of homosexuality, not a genetic one. In particular, this survey identified specific types of environments that increase the likelihood of homosexual behavior. The authors describe these environments as "congenial" to the development of homosexuality.
For American men, the environmental factor most related to homosexual behavior was the degree of urbanization during the teenage years. Specifically, boys who lived in large urban centers between the ages of 14 and 16 were three to six times more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than were boys who lived in rural communities during those same ages. The authors offer the following possibility: "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." Note the word "elicit." These researchers believe that growing up in a more pro-homosexual region may evoke or draw out homosexual behavior in young men. The implication is that some homosexual men who were reared in urban centers would not have become homosexual if reared in non-urban centers. The authors explain, "the environment in which people grow up affects their sexuality in very basic ways."
For American women, the environmental factor most associated with a homosexual or bisexual identity was a higher level of education. And though that was also true for men, the pattern for women was more dramatic. For instance, a woman with a college degree was nine times more likely to identify herself as non-heterosexual than a woman with only a high school diploma. The specific elements that create this marked difference are unclear, but the researchers don't believe it's simply due to higher reporting of non-heterosexuality by more educated individuals. They believe one explanation is the fact that with more acceptance, even encouragement, of homosexuality at universities, more university women embrace a non-heterosexual lifestyle. For an example of how that might develop, see Dennis Prager's article entitled, "College Taught Her Not To Be a Heterosexual."
Based on the findings of this American research study, environments that sanction and/or promote homosexuality induce more individuals to engage in homosexual behavior.
Conclusion
All of the aforementioned research studies from four different countries, each utilizing large, countrywide samples, reveal that homosexual behavior is not genetically determined. Rather, the data find that human sexuality is malleable, and environmental experiences and influences can and do shape its expression. Moreover, these findings are supported by decades of anthropological and sociological evidence that reveal that rates of homosexual behavior fluctuate—sometimes greatly—with changes in the social, cultural, and legal climate. The more an environment affirms or encourages same-sex sexuality—whether an urban center or a university campus—the more homosexuality there will be in that setting.
Social and cultural norms, as well as legal regulations, influence human behavior including sexual behavior. So not surprisingly, as the United States and other Western countries have become increasingly pro-homosexual—socially, politically, and legally—they have experienced an upward trend in the number of individuals engaging in homosexual behavior. That trend will continue if we move beyond mere tolerance of homosexual behavior (which is appropriate) to formally honoring it by legalizing same-sex marriage.
Dr Trayce L. Hansen is a licensed psychologist with a clinical and forensic practice in California.
References
Butler, A.C. (2005). Gender differences in same-sex sexual partnering, 1988-2002. Social Forces, 84, 421-449.
Frisch,
M. & Hviid, A. (2006). Childhood family correlates of heterosexual
and homosexual marriages: A national cohort study of two million Danes.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 533-547.
Langstrom, N., Rahman, Q., Carlstrom, E., & Lichtenstein, P.
(2008). Genetic and environmental effects on same-sex sexual behavior:
A population study of twins in Sweden. Archives of Sexual Behavior, DOI 10.1007/s10508-008-9386-1.
Lauman, E.O., Gagnon, J.H., Michael, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Prager, D. (2005). "College Taught Her Not To Be a Heterosexual." Available on the web at: http://dennisprager.townhall.com.
Santtila, P., Sandnabba, N.K., Harlaar, N., Varjonen, M., Alanko, K., von der Pahlen, B. (2008). Potential for homosexual response is prevalent and genetic. Biological Psychology, 77, 102-105.
TJ,
Bigoted? Does that apply to anyone who questions current sexual morality? The knee jerk label applied by both the intelligentsia, and the not so intelligent (but still left leaning). Sexual morality goes to the essence of our very existence. It is what makes civilisations rise and fall.
Nobody in this forum is advocating hatred, discrimination or intolerance. Homogenital activity should be questioned in the same way as permissive hetrosexual activity. Is this good for society or not.
Trayce, almost no contemporary geneticist uses the phrase “genetically determined” to refer to the strong genetic determinism you’re claiming. Almost every contemporary usage of “genetically determined” refers to moderate or weak determinism - in other words, probable conditional influence. So your statement “that homosexuality is not genetically determined” does indeed dismiss the effect of genetics, under contemporary usage. Långström et al would indeed disagree with you; they label genetics as a “determinant” of homosexual behaviour - a statement which your strong genetic determinism disallows.
You would know this if you were an expert in genetics. As it stands, you’re speaking outside your field of expertise.
Långström et al also specifically ruled out societal attitudes as a factor.
“Read the article yourself.” Funny; I was about to suggest that to you.
Thank you Trayce hansen
I have been saying this for years and just by observation, this is the inevitable course of societies that reject natural law for the weakness of socialist ideologies.
From the contraceptive mentality, ease of divorce, open access to abortion, attempts at “voluntary” euthanasia, this has all been leading to the homosexual lobby groups desire for an increase in thier choice of others to abuse. The (Il)logical next step will be to bury the last taboo, paedophilia! and it is coming fast. Sweden already as a paedophile political party
The homosexual lobby, not being happy with an increase in adult fodder will next feed on the blood of innocence.
If you cannot prevent children by contraceptives, then kill them in the womb, if they are born, corrupt the notion of family so as to enable very possible means to turn them intraverted and feast on thier flesh; this is the homosexual lobbyists dream
In this debate (widely speaking, not only on the basis of this article), the issue of “attraction” or “tendency” is not tackled properly, or in depth. Most likely, because it is extremely difficult. If one has an uncontrollable attraction to take someone elses property or to abuse the use of alcohol or to gamble uncontrollably, the are offered services to help them to deal with this socially unaccepteble and personally destructive “attraction”. We are forming and educating children in the hope that they will not give in to those “attractions” no matter how strong they feel them. The permissivness of societies obviously promotes certain types of behaviours and we can deduce by common sense alone what happens if they become enshrined by the law of the land. The studies only confirm what common sense tells us.
In response to AJ:
Underlying twin study research is the science of behavioral genetics. Behavioral genetics is complex. Every term is quite specific. For instance, genetic influence is NOT genetic determinism. Twin studies basically assess genetic versus environmental INFLUENCE. If homosexuality was genetically DETERMINED, every time one identical twin is homosexual the co-twin would be homosexual about 100% of the time. That is far from what current research reveals. All of the best, most recent studies find that if one identical twin is homosexual the co-twin is homosexual only about 10-11% of the time.
I do not “dismiss the effect of genetics” as you claim. I’m simply putting the findings into perspective. ALL behaviors (sexual and otherwise) are genetically influenced. The question is to what extent when compared with other influences. For instance, the Langstrom study found that environmental influence was nearly twice that of genetic influence for male homosexuality and over four times for female homosexuality. Such findings reveal that environment plays the predominate role in the development of homosexuality. None of the authors of these studies would argue with that conclusion. That’s what they all found.
And in regard to press reports, beware. Researchers (and journalists) want sensational headlines. Press reports often overplay or dramatize research findings. Always read the entire research study for yourself. Don’t rely on press releases (or even the research abstracts). Read the article yourself.
In the movie “Field of Dreams”, Kevin Costner is told, “If you build it, they will come” (refering to a baseball field). It seems that if you allow it (i.e. open homosexual behaviour), homosexuality will increasingly manifest itself in modern society. When that happens, don’t expect to be permitted to comment on the subject because that will be called discrimination. Should one find themselves with homosexual tendencies, that does not mean they have to be enacted upon. God made man and woman for a reason. His perfect reason. He blessed their union. Who are we to doubt it?
Historically speaking, it is interesting to note that the societies in which homosexuality had been officially accepted (ancient Greece, the Aztecs or Egyptian Mamelukes) also relied heavily on the institution of slavery - in case of the Mamelukes, the Circassian slaves were absolutely necessary to supplement the very low birthrate. Even such societies, though, had never tried to introduce “same-sex unions”, or to change the commonsense definition of marriage.
Trayce, your interpretation of the Swedish twins study is at odds with that of its authors.
Långström, Rahman et al (2008) found that genetics has a moderate effect (around 35 per cent) on sexual behaviour, and environmental factors - “not societal attitudes, family or parenting” - around 64 per cent.
Your statement “that homosexuality is not genetically determined” is not supported by the study. You are correct in saying that the study shows that environmental factors play a larger role in sexual behaviour, but to dismiss the effect of genetics (35 per cent) is insupportable.
Here’s the press release from the Swedish twins study, which explains its authors’ view:
http://www.qmul.ac.uk/news/newsrelease.php?news_id=1075
I find this article very interesting, even though it lacks that academic sense of prudence and seems ideologically motivated. The debate is ongoing on issues of human sexuality in general, and more specifically on this thorny question of homosexuality. However, reading the text of Trayce I couldn’t help but wonder if we should just send all those suspected of homosexual behaviour back to the farm! Research seems to be convincing enough that there are no homosexuals out in the farmlands, right? I couldn’t help but wonder if the total ban on homosexuality in traditional societies has actually proven to eliminate the phenomenon altogether. For a long time now, some religious groups have been stoning homosexuals to death but still can’t claim to have eradicated the envirenmental factors that lead to same-sex attraction. I still wonder how is it that homosexuality is found even in the most hostile God-fearing communities which we certainly can’t accuse of “eliciting” even the mention of this terrible issue, let alone same-sex marriage!
Oh, and is it actually the recognition of same-sex marriage that makes peopulations go gay? Is there a study that shows how the Danish nation has been converted to homosexuality since it legalised same-sex marriage in the 1990’s? It would be scary indeed, as it would just show how fragile and malleable heterosexuality can be in humans. Or may be it would suggest that heterosexuality may be a phenomenon too, resulting from environmental factors.
Last but not least, I could probably also ask a not so polite question about what really makes Trayce, and many others, experience such deep seated fear about the potentially devastating social effects of same-sex marriage. But then, may be I shouldn’t as she is a psychologist after all! A passionate, ideologically driven psychologist.
Permissive laws, permissive behaviours?
Interesting title to begin with…
Yester days’ research on non-white people seems quite close to this sort of research,
full of bigoted datas that is included to suit their masters’ agendas.
Permissive is a universal temptation for both heterosexuals AND homosexuals.
So the issue is not whether homosexuality is learned or genetic, but whether we continue to accept that homosexual genital activity is “intrinsically disordered”. Catholic doctrine can no longer continue stating that it accepts the homosexual orientation as given, but then morally condemn the sexual expression of that tendency.
Whether the person is permissive or not is another matter, but lets argue each point separately and not mix up several different matters.
In response to Eric’s citing of several Bailey studies:
1) The Bailey studies that Eric cites are old, outdated, and not well-designed. They utilized small samples gathered from volunteers who answered ads in homosexual magazines. All current researchers, including Bailey himself, acknowledge that those earlier twin studies, which utilized such non-representative and skewed samples are unreliable. More recent twin studies, such as those I cite in my original piece, are the largest, most up-to-date twin studies available in the world. These current studies used representative samples gathered from nationwide populations.
2) Those interested might also want to review a more recent Bailey study. Bailey, Dunne, & Martin (2000) conducted a twin study utilizing the Australian Twin Registry. That study found 11% pairwise concordance for identical twins (a percentage similar to the studies I cited). In their concluding comments, Bailey and colleagues admitted, “this study did not provide statistically significant support for the importance of genetic factors [for homosexual orientation].”
3) One final note: Be careful when reading twin studies not to confuse probandwise concordance with pairwise concordance, they are different. Pairwise concordance is read simply and straightforwardly. If the pairwise concordance is 11%, that means that every time one identical twin is homosexual, his co-twin is also homosexual only 11% of the time. Probandwise concordance is different and leads to confusion.
The real points of these studies are 1) that homosexuality is a learned NOT a genetic disposition, a chosen NOT an inherited imposition! 2) that homosexuality undermines the stability of the society by eliminating normal relationships! 3) that there is a hope of freedom from the bondage of the bad decisions that led into the homosexual lifestyle for those who will choose to pursue it! 4) Society should do all it can to oppose those people whose sole aim is to make the homosexual lifestyle seem attractive or “With-it” like some of the hopeless cases that are elevated to stardom & glory by a corrupt media.
Where did you get the average # of partners for a heterosexual male is 5?
The data I find says that the average 40 year old heterosexal reports having 31 sexual partners in their lifetime, and the average heterosexual female reports 8. Then there is a note that says the researchers believe that men tend to over report partners and females under report.
The use of twins in a genetic v’s environment study of homosexuality is flawed from the start. The twins are generally subjected to the same domestic environment during their childhood and formative years.
The results of such studies could support either argument.
In the genetic v’s environment debate, the real evidence is the increase in homosexual activity, in persons who would otherwise be identified as heterosexual, when such persons are placed in an environment dominated by the same sex. i.e. prisons. Kinsey was quite prepared to consider this phenomena.
The real question that western civilisation seems to have ignored is whether society should endorse homogenital activities as a healthy lifestyle choice. I use the term homogenital with purpose, a male homosexual has, on average, 50 sexual partners during a lifetime v’s a hetrosexaul male who has 5. Societies preferred position, on both counts, should be 1.
Page 1 of 2 : 1 2 >