New study destroys myths about gender identity and same-sex attraction

The prophets and the Proclamation on the Family are correct once again.  A major new study that you can read HERE destroys many of the myths about gender identity and same-sex attraction.  Among the findings of the study:

The belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property—that people are ‘born that way’—is not supported by scientific evidence.

Likewise, the belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex—so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’—is not supported by scientific evidence.

Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behavior will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood. There is no evidence that all such children should be encouraged to become transgender, much less subjected to hormone treatments or surgery.

Non-heterosexual and transgender people have higher rates of mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population. Discrimination alone does not account for the entire disparity.


The 143-page report discusses more than 200 peer-reviewed studies and documents what scientific research does and does not show about sexuality and gender.  The report was authored by two of the nation’s leading scholars on mental health and sexuality.

The major takeaway, as the editor of the journal explains, is that “some of the most frequently heard claims about sexuality and gender are not supported by scientific evidence.”

This entry was posted in General by Geoff B.. Bookmark the permalink.

About Geoff B.

Geoff B graduated from Stanford University (class of 1985) and worked in journalism for several years until about 1992, when he took up his second career in telecommunications sales. He has held many callings in the Church, but his favorite calling is father and husband. Geoff is active in martial arts and loves hiking and skiing. Geoff has five children and lives in Colorado.

30 thoughts on “New study destroys myths about gender identity and same-sex attraction

  1. Ya, Dr. McHugh sounds a real religious zealot country bumpkin:

    Sadly, the one goal of progressivism is the long run game, where the vast majority of traditional or even religious leaning scholars are forced out or drowned out from being able to contribute to the scientific “consensus”. In effect, they are generational institutional farmers raising their own cultural hegemony — which is why they feel so confident in their wrong side of history arguments.

    Unfortunately for us all the principles that underline traditional morality can’t be discarded without undermining what made our society possible. So within a couple more decades or fewer, when everything (individual integrity, the family, schools, government) collapses catastrophically the progressives will only have themselves to blame.

    But it’s good to see for the time being there are still people of principle trying to push back scientifically against the consensus.

  2. The overview of the studies does not reach the politically correct conclusion so it must surely be disavowed.

  3. Unfortunately, the more mature segments of the population who still care about ‘silly things’ like research are no longer running the show when it comes to the culture of the young, and that includes many parents who have no interest in being strong leaders for their children.

    Just out of curiosity, I took one of those “What’s my gender?” on-line tests (which I had to do while avoiding thinking too because of the outright goofiness of the questions and answers.) I’m 40% both genders, which identity I share with 25% of the population (which they could tell even though I skipped at least half of the questions). Another test told me I was “pan-gender”. This is what counts as research for most young people.

    We have failed as a broader culture to effectively guide our children through the difficulties of growing up healthy, particularly in the centrally important area of sex. These issues surrounding sexuality and gender are exploding right now, probably because of the combination of family breakdown and bad education, and the fallout is not going to be particularly happy.

    Hopefully, it will become increasingly obvious to those willing to keep the commandments that the commandments themselves are one of the chief mercies God has given us in this life to guide us toward our most cherished desires. As the myriad and diverse negative consequences of sexual recklessness take hold in the lives of loved ones, many will see that grace and obedience are inseparable. This because obedience is the only way to achieve the accomplishments of greatest value, like healthy and happy family relationships in this life, as well as the life to come. Grace most often comes in the ability of the repentant to resist destructive temptations, thus cutting off the adversary’s power over their lives.

    I truly wish this study could destroy the myths surrounding destructive sexuality. But I think instead it will just be something accepted by those who already agreed with it, and ignored by those who disagree. Our culture has trained us to be skeptical of God Himself. From there, it’s not too hard to be skeptical of any other purported authority who makes broad declarations about how people behave, especially when it comes to ‘personal decisions’.

  4. Relative to sexual orientation, reading the Mayer & McHugh study left me with a more complex picture than the over-simplistic summary statements and their interpretations by others. The authors state: “the idea that people are ‘born that way’–is not supported by scientific evidence” and “While there is evidence that biological factors such as genes and hormones are associated with sexual behaviors and attractions, there are no compelling causal biological explanations for human sexual orientation.” (p. 7). After seemingly closing the door on non-choice causes, they state: “sexual orientation is not a choice” (p. 13); that “Research suggests that while genetic or innate factors may influence the emergence of same-sex attractions, these biological factors cannot provide a complete explanation, and environmental and experiential factors may also play an important role.” (p. 26); that from “the studies of twins…” though sexual orientation isn’t determined by genes, “there is evidence that genes play a role in influencing sexual orientation” (p. 31); that “As is often true of human behavioral tendencies, there may be genetic contributions to the tendency toward homosexual inclinations or behaviors.” (p. 33); that “genes play a modest role in contributing to the development of sexual attractions” (p. 34); that “stress may also play some role in influencing …sex-typical behaviors in early childhood…” [and] “may originate from the mother” (p. 35); and finally that “Hormonal conditions [prenatal] that contribute to disorders of sex development may contribute to the development of non-heterosexual orientations in some individuals” (p. 39). So, if it isn’t a choice (typically), but can’t be firmly shown to be biological, environmental or experiential (p. 26), then what is the cause? I’m not proposing one, but I am suggesting that simplistic interpretations and reporting of this study are misleading. The study’s authors chose a poor flag bearer in the form of the phrase “born that way” to communicate a critical summary point. The phrase is polarizing and has no common definition. How do the authors mean people are not “born that way” when they cite many situations where people were born with what were contributors to non-heterosexual orientations?
    Does it mean completely and immutably born that way, or just born with inclinations or propensities? Unfortunately, there will be those that run it up the flag pole and claim bullet-proof support of their positions when the meaning of the prime term “born that way” is unclear.

  5. KarlS, good comment. Nice to see somebody who actually took the time to read the study. The study also says that sexual orientation is often a combination of factors. And yes the study says that some people appear to be born with non-heterosexual inclinations. I think the summary mentioned in the OP would be more accurate if it said that it is not scientifically accurate to say that ALL people with same-sex attraction are born with these inclinations.

    GSO, thanks for actually looking at Dr. McHugh’s bio. We have gotten several of the inevitable attacks on Dr. McHugh’s character from commenters, and they have been sent to the internet trash heap. The goal of progressives and social justice warriors these days is, as you say, to attempt to drown out any dissenting voices with screams of outrage. This applies to all scientific studies that attempt to contradict the manufactured “consensus” on many subjects. Luckily, there is one blog in the Mormon world where people can still discuss things from a faithful perspective.

  6. I would just reiterate the comment that inclination is not justification for action.

    There are some parents who feel and inclination to eat their children. It is not justified for them to actually eat their children. There are many other inclinations that range from the temptations to commit cardinal sin to venal sin, to mere selfishness that doesn’t rise to the standard of being considered sin.

    Just because I experience a passing (or enduring) desire for a thing does not justify me in acting to wrongfully possess the thing.

    I haven’t taken any of the gender quizzes. I already know what they would likely say, and I choose my life independent of their labeling.

  7. Meg, I have seen several studies that show that the majority of people with same-sex attraction never act on it. There are also many studies that show that some people feel same-sex attraction at some times in their life (maybe focused on one person) and then never feel it later in life. Sexuality is much more complex and fluid than people seem to believe these days.

    Choice is definitely involved.

    But “eat their children?????” I’m not at all sure what you mean by that. I would think you meant “beat their children,” but you said “eat their children” twice. If there are a lot of people out there who want to eat their children our society is much worse off than I thought. Please explain.

  8. Geoff, yes, loving a child so much, a woman wants to eat it. it’s a thing. I’ve heard it before, IRL and on line. I assume it’s based on some female hormone thing, where emotions are tied into eating. you’ve never heard it before?

  9. KentS, there are all sorts of in-born or seemingly inborn propensities and inclinations that many or most humans have, that we expect everyone to overcome. Most men have a propensity to be promiscuous with as many women as possible. We can have inclinations to consume alcohol, even to excess. We have inclinations to over eat. I love me a large Papa John’s Supreme pizza. We have propensities to be lazy. Some have propensity towards violence and unrighteous dominion (bullying, selfishness).

    Children have all sorts of negative inclinations, and it is part of raising them correctly to get them to overcome/outgrow those things. Overcoming those inborn childish propensities/inclinations is _expected_.

    Likewise, having a genetic predisposition to alcoholism is not considered justification for driving while drunk, or drunkenly beating one’s spouse. If you have a predisposition to alcoholism, or you can’t handle liquor, just don’t drink, period!

    In short, all the “natural man” stuff that scripture says is bad for us, are generally/mostly such human-nature predispositions.

    Since the 1970’s, it has been politically incorrect to talk about things that cause or influence children to grow up into homosexual activity. But if you talk with older psychologists, or read older books, you can find out what those things are, including sexual abuse, and dysfunctional family relationships.

    A friend and I did an informal survey among our gay (male) friends/acquaintances and found that well over half were abused (ie, raped/molested) by older males while they were minors.

    the _imprinting_ effects of a first sexual encounter are tremendous. That’s one reason why casual premarital sex is so destructive, bonds are made and then ripped apart. The effect is even worse for pre-adolescents whose sexuality is still in early phases of development, and no where near sexual maturity.

    In short, sex is addictive, the endorphins are powerful. And it imprints, somewhat like how one’s first alcoholic drink becomes their drink of choice throughout life.

    I was fortunate that I could give up alcohol cold turkey, because my body stopped tolerating it, even one drink caused a semi-hangover. Though I still had to deal with things that caused or were “drivers” that made me want to drink in the first place.

    My over-eating addiction was harder. You can’t just give up food. That took a lot of education about nutrition, and trial and error about what foods are satiating and nutritious, but not excess calories. It took 5 years to lose 50 pounds, and it’s still a psychological battle, as we are “married” or tightly tied psychologically to our eating habits. I’ve kept the weight off 7 years, but it takes constant conscious decision-making about food/eating choices.

    So, yeah, you either choose to give in to your inclinations/propensities, or you choose to put forth the effort to overcome them. We all have our demons to overcome. Food and sex demons/problems/dysfunctions, however you want to word it, seem to be very basic human things that are extremely difficult to overcome.

    But like Meg points out, and as apostles have said, to whatever degree these things are disabilities, handicaps, diseases, whatever, they will be cured in the resurrection. Same-sex attraction and food addiction will be cured and gone as well as depression, autism, schizophrenia, drug addiction, etc. Our minds will be made whole just like our bodies will be made whole.

  10. No one is “born that way” when it comes to the commandments of God. Some might say that Jesus was, but even Jesus had “inclinations” that would lead Him contrary to the will of God. Certainly He was born with the inclinations that were challenged during His temptation, like the inclination to eat. Or in his final suffering, the inclination not to be killed.

    I guess where people feel it has pertinence is in the realm of law and culture that is secular. But even still, like Meg said, just because people feel inclined is no justification. People are genuinely inclined to do almost everything that people have ever bothered to make illegal. Marriage and sexual proscriptions are right up there on the list of things that have been legally enforced to prevent people from just following any pressing inclination that would damage the continuation of their society, because women are extremely vulnerable to permanent reproductive damage AND children have a lot of difficulty thriving when effectual care is not taken for their upbringing. (Damage to large numbers of male reproductive potential is not a serious survival threat.)

    But there is also the idea that people are interested in being able to say something like, “You must live the life you were born to live. You shouldn’t let your unique talents and perspective go to waste.” But anyone with a little imagination knows there are limits to this.

    This video illustrates the idea of limits pretty well:

    He starts by asking people if they accept him as a woman, then saying he’s Chinese, then saying he’s 7 years old, then he’s says he’s 6’5″. And the strain of limitations really is apparent in the answers of the college students.

    It’s astonishing that so many young people believe that encouraging someone in their delusions is “kind”. And that’s why, in the end, the science won’t matter anymore in this debate. When obvious truth becomes the enemy of “kindness”, “kindness” (or “love”, as they say) “wins”.

    This is why I think the debate is primarily philosophical rather than scientific, and it’s a problem to imply that “research” can teach us what we ought to do. We need to start speaking to people in terms of courage and honor and fairness showing why it’s unfair, dishonorable and cowardly to the people we love to support self-delusion.

  11. Everyone knows bones are crunchy. Who’d want to eat crunchy bones? But child bones. Those are more flexible.

  12. Bookslinger & Lucinda, I appreciate the dialogue and I’ve done a lot of thinking about these types of comparisons (i.e., many people have propensities, inclinations and challenges and the idea that gays’ SSA is somehow analogous). However, for me they don’t hold up as being real good comparisons. For example, the following are some propensities you listed (and I added a few) that a person may be somewhat ‘born’ with or at least doesn’t cognizantly choose—it seems to be in their ‘nature.’ People with these ‘traits’ want to do them or at least it’s hard for them not to do them. –drinking alcohol, over-eating, anger, judging, promiscuity, pornography. The previous are essentially behavioral challenges, but others could be added to the list of “not chosen” challenges, e.g., not being able to have children, physical disease, mental and emotional issues, being born into an abusive family, poverty, etc.

    You propose we add same sex attraction (SSA) to the list as analogous. Nominally, each one of the conditions results in some, if not only, poor outcomes at least temporarily for the individual who accedes to or has them thrust upon them, except SSA which if acceded to has both desirable and undesirable outcomes. Exceptions to the negatives of challenges of all kinds are the value from working through challenges and the compassion that may be gained in the process and in facilitating service for others.

    So, where I think we can logically say for all, but SSA, “these things you are inclined to do or that have happened to you are only going to bring you unhappiness or other bad outcomes (exceptions noted), so it’s in your best interest to resist, overcome or endure.” But, the person with SSA (especially a Church member) looks at their options and sees a different situation. They can, by a simple choice to follow the gay lifestyle (no addiction to overcome, like over-eating or alcohol, no disease to cure, etc.), experience the benefits of some of the most basic human needs and yearnings (companionship, support, love, romance, touch, intimacy, sharing joys, sorrows and challenges with someone you love, etc.) that they would otherwise forfeit. But, if they do choose the gay lifestyle, they know it will likely result in shame and guilt and a loss of religious connection and community and family acceptance and potential psychosocial challenges. Or, they can with much difficulty without a guarantee of success just cope with being celibate and essentially alone without a life partner their entire life; also risking psychosocial challenges and some marginalization within the Church and family.

    Those with SSA are dealing with challenges and choices that are very, very difficult, especially for Church members. And, to reduce it to being just another of life’s serious challenges seems inaccurate. Just as we should be careful not to minimize anyone’s challenges, we should be cautious in judging a gay person for the choices they make, for we don’t know how the conflicting options were weighted in their minds and hearts. I feel we should be cautious in making simplistic comparisons of the challenges of gays, especially in the Church, lest we rationalize ourselves into a non-empathetic mindset and ultimately un-Christian behavior.

  13. I have been without a partner for more than 27 years. Yet even though celibacy has been my lot, I have been happy and fufilled. We live in a society that tells us sex is necessary to a normal life. This is one of the arguments for yielding to same sex attraction. One of the tragedies I see too often is mothers and fathers who have several children, yet they abandon their marriages in order to honor their attraction to a same-sex lover. Many view them as heroes who have been honest instead of being chained down by tradition. I view them as silly, selfish twits. One of the most disturbing trends allied to homosexuality is transgender manifestations. Entire peer groups are deciding that they were born in the wrong bodies and mutilating surgery and use of hormones is becoming a dangerous fad. It is unfashionable and politically incorrect to stand against this kind of folly. Some school systems are forbidding teachers to call their students boys and girls. I could weep because this dangerous delusion has affected one of my grandchildren, but each of us has a right to damn ourselves.

  14. Lucinda:
    The inclination to eat itself was not the temptation when Christ was tempted. The suggestion to turn stones into bread was the actual temptation. The distinction should be drawn. I cannot comment on the ‘born that way’ question yet about Jesus following the commandments of God since I am not sure what it means. Maybe you could clarify.
    But I have heard the “born that way” claim often enough to have thought a little about it. I think it is a red herring. It’s of intellectual interest as to whether there could be some reason that people actually have an inborn instinct toward sexual perversion. But I don’t see how the answer to that question is pertinent morally or would make any difference as to whether it’s a good thing.
    If those interviewed in the video were a representative sample, then… what’s a kinder word for ‘brainwashed’?
    I agree that the ground has shifted from a scientific question to a philosophical question when people seem to be willing to believe lies about issues of gender.
    Maybe then it is time to be ready to discuss why truth itself matters.

  15. KarlS, it is a good thing to be sympathetic to those going through struggles. I have no issues with that. It is quite another thing to *encourage* people to break sacred commandments and covenants. The former is good — the latter is evil and ultimately damages peoples’ eternal progress. The assumption of society today is that if you don’t encourage people to break commandments and covenants you lack compassion for them. I would say that the exact opposite is the truth: that by encouraging people not to break commandments and covenants you are being loving and Christ-like. The Savior had endless love and understanding for us all, but he never encouraged sin. That should be our model.

  16. Geoff, I appreciate and agree with what you said and am not intending to encourage violation of God’s law and will. However, I would add some qualifiers in your sentence, “The assumption of *some parts* of society today is that if you don’t *freely allow and in some cases* encourage people to break commandments and covenants you lack compassion for them.” Thanks for the interchange!

  17. The born that way is a red herring. The real issue is whether it is something that for most people can be changed by force of will. It doesn’t appear it can. That says nothing about ethics in my view although I understand why some disagree.

  18. KarlS, you have some erroneous understandings of the nature of SSA and of homosexual lifestyles.

    I put forth those anaolgies with other inborn propensities for those cases where SSA is or may be inborn. but, “inborn” SSA is definitely in the minority. The majority of gay men were NOT born with SSA. Some estimates are that as few as 15% of homosexual men are “true” homosexuals who are “hard coded from birth” with SSA.

    You would not know this if you are under 55 years of age or so, or did not read or associate with psychologists who are presently over the age of about 65 or 70. The classification of SSA as a “natural” or inborn thing was a controversial and political thing that the leadership of the APA did back in the 70’s, against the will of the majority of their members.

    If you talk to older psychologists, or older priests who have heard tens of thousands of confessions, they will tell you that the vast majority “are in it for the kink”. They will tell you that at least 50% were sexually abused as children. They will tell you that effeminate behavior as a child does not necessarily lead to homosexuality, but that the constant teasing and accusations of “queer”, “sissy” and “homo” can cause a child to wrongly assume that he must be gay since everyone says he is. Effeminate boys also attract adult male sexual predators. They are their prime targets, because they are already half-way “there” by everyone already telling them they are gay.

    An adult sexual abuser of children usually makes sure to bring his victim to orgasm so that he can say “see? You liked it!” in order to create shame, silence, and continued cooperation. For male on male abuse, “you liked it” means “therefore you must be gay.”

    Not every child who is sexually abused becomes a homosexual adult, but over half (maybe more) of all homosxual adults were sexually abused as children. The correlation is just too high not to have any causation, but its just not talked about in the media or in polite society.

    I’m not that familiar with lesbianism, but my understanding is that inborn SSA is also rare with them. Over 50% of lesbians were sexually or otherwise violently abused as children. (That’s the overlap of why obesity has a high prevalence among lesbians: sexual abuse tends to lead to over-eating/obesity among girls.)

    You are also mistaken that the most common adult homosexual (gay or lesbian) lifestyles are in any way fulfilling or beneficial. Gays who settle down monogamously are in the minority. Even among gays who marry, monogamy is rare. Most gay marriages are open marriages, or “open when out of town.” All statistics show that the “gay lifestyle” is one of ULTRA promiscuity (hundreds of partners in a lifetime), high incidence of STDs due to promiscuity, high rates of violence, and early death (even discounting AIDS).

    If you love someone, you do not want them involved in any way with a homosexual lifestyle or milleu.

    You wrote: “They can, by a simple choice to follow the gay lifestyle (no addiction to overcome, like over-eating or alcohol, no disease to cure, etc.), experience the benefits of some of the most basic human needs and yearnings (companionship, support, love, romance, touch, intimacy, sharing joys, sorrows and challenges with someone you love, etc.) that they would otherwise forfeit.”

    I’m afraid you’ve fallen for the politically correct “Will and Grace” fairy tale of homosexual relationships. Of course there are exceptions, and a rare few do settle down into such an idyllic lifestyle, but not the vast majority. I think Jim Nabors settled down with his partner in Hawaii.

    And don’t forget the ancient Greeks and even (modern day) prison sex, both of which also illustrate/prove that sexual attraction and sexual behavior can be fluid, and can be influenced by immediate social surroundings, and even that homosexual sex between otherwise heterosexually oriented men can be addictive.

    “Prison sex after prison” has had a devastating effect in African American communities, in terms of destroying mariages and families and transmitting HIV. Google “on the down low after prison.” That is a real and serious and widespread problem that you dont see/hear about in mainstream media. I thought the TV show Law and Order just made it up until one of my clients told me it was a thing, and that he (several times) was hit on by men who were ex-cons.

  19. I read most of the study. I am inclined to think somewhat like KarlS in terms of what the study says in it’s entirety vs the “teasers” / summary. I find the study(s) very interesting and that it opens the eyes of some who only have the limited view of popular headlines and anecdotes (if they indeed bother to read it).
    The study seemed to say to me, as well, that even one isn’t “born that way”, it certainly didn’t seem to suggest that the majority chose that attraction preference (or at least didn’t choose it consciously) and that there were biological forces at work in the sexual preference. But, it is, interesting that they found that sexual preference could often be fluid- especially in the young. I imagine this gives some credence the idea that exposing young people to the idea that they may be homosexual could lead them to more seriously consider the possibility that they are, instead of treating those thoughts or feelings as just passing.
    So, there is a real danger in making young people feel shame for having same sex attraction, but does this study also indicate that there may be danger in embracing too much, these feelings, which could lead a young person, whose sexuality may be more fluid, to more easily choose homosexuality? (Not saying that it is always a choice, just trying to see the implications of the results of the studies)
    I am pleased right now that the church has been so open in saying that the attraction is in no way a sin. While growing up, I am not sure if I would have seen that coming.
    I’m not sure this study really supports the church’s stance as much as some might indicate. However, it also does not appear to directly oppose the church’s stance, as most pop culture does at this time.
    Interesting read and commentary.

  20. Bookslinger, Thanks for taking the time to respond. I’m all about considering additional perspectives. I have studied much scientific literature on the subject over the last few years and haven’t seen any definitive conclusions like you state, “15% of homosexual men are true homosexuals who are hard coded from birth with SSA.” Do you have a reference I could read up on? An interesting piece of information is that in a survey (described below) of 1612 LDS or former LDS gay and lesbians, 29% were currently active LDS and of those, 73% reported that they felt biology was at least part of the cause of their SSA and 37% felt that sexual abuse as a child contributed.

    The research from other studies that correlate child sex abuse to later homosexuality are not necessarily definitive, since most of the studies didn’t confirm if the person was already feeling some SSA prior to the first abuse incident. Nonetheless, the correlation is still pretty strong. Of course APA downplays any SSA causation from abuse.

    Your statement that few “adult homosexual lifestyles are in any way fulfilling or beneficial” is counter to what I have seen personally with family and friends and with large studies on the subject. Using the term “in any way” seems a little extreme. Granted, studies also show the higher incidence of mental and emotional health challenges and some physical conditions among gays, as the current Mayer/McHugh study indicates. However, other large scale studies have shown that religious persons with SSA who remain celibate reported lower psycho-social quality of life than those who actively embraced homosexuality, though the studies did not address the individual who feels their orthodox devotion to God and participating with the religious community are more important than some of their social and sexual desires.

    I am not advocating that the gay lifestyle is superior to a straight one or that celibacy for a religious gay or lesbian is not the best path for them. What I was trying to say in the previous post was that a gay person can readily get some of the basic fundamental human needs met if they embrace open homosexuality which they otherwise will have to forfeit and that is why such decisions are so difficult for them and our empathy toward them should be active.

    Lastly, in all the homosexuality discussions it is apparent to me that many parties are somewhat if not highly biased. That includes primary researchers, distillers of others’ research, reporters and interpreters of the data. As I’ve tried to read all I could relevant to etiology (causes of SSA), mutability (can it be changed), etc. I’ve become less sure on many points since the researchers and distillers of others’ research on whom I depend for data all seem to be sincere, honest, qualified individuals and yet they come up with such disparate conclusions. For example, Dean Byrd vs. William Bradshaw, both active LDS highly qualified professionals in the field related to therapy and/or biology, etc., come up with very different conclusions on etiology and mutability—and they aren’t tentative about their positions. NARTH, Nicolosi, APA, Beckstead, Cummings, Jones & Yarhouse, LeVay, Dehlin, Columbia Law School, etc. and now Mayer & McHugh are others that offer conflicting findings. And, there is the raw data that was very helpful at Voices of Hope where LDS gays trying to remain celibate each tell their story. It’s hard to make sense of it all.

  21. Jared,
    When I speak of Christ’s inborn inclinations, I’m just talking about His becoming man. I think His declaration, “not my will, but thine,” has all the more power because His plea to let the cup pass from Him, the inclination to avoid the suffering of the atonement and the crucifixion, is just an ordinary human inclination. He connects with all of humanity, who struggle to submit their wills to God’s. It’s very powerful.

    Re: Homosexuality, from my perspective, self-stimulation is also a form of homosexuality, though of a lower magnitude. Certainly it’s part of a near universal struggle. The problem is not the struggle. The problem is the pride and entitlement, which makes the struggle so much harder for those who are in vulnerable situations, fighting against what they rightly see as destructive inclinations.
    It’s not about being judgmental, it’s about helping people understand that a basic element of a healthy relationship with God (and His universe) lies in recognizing our reliance on Him to produce ANY good results ever, and in our submission to His better wisdom.
    It astonishes me how many people will judge proponents of traditional sexual morality as unchristian, as though Christianity simply means cheerful non-resistance. What is conveniently forgotten is that it is God we must not resist, often directly contradicting the appeasement of men, which is not exactly comfortable. It would be far easier to just get along with people and stay out of conflict.
    I guess I can understand why non-Christians see being a Christian as functionally equivalent to being a coward (Hitler complained about the meekness and flabbiness of Christianity), but I don’t really understand how a Christian could make the same mistake of thinking Christians must automatically be ‘nice’ by surrendering their basic principles.
    Pahoran shows gratitude to Captain Moroni for his strong chastisement in a letter, and it gives him courage to make the necessary decisions. My guess is that there are plenty of people struggling who have never even been given the chance to have a personal friend make the spirited case against bad decisions.

  22. ” I have studied much scientific literature on the subject over the last few years and haven’t seen any definitive conclusions like you state, “15% of homosexual men are true homosexuals who are hard coded from birth with SSA.” Do you have a reference I could read up on?”

    You have to go back to pre1972 publications, which have likely never made it online, or else have been filtered out/ purged; or talk to psychs and priests who are over 65/70 years old.

  23. “…is counter to what I have seen personally with family and friends and with large studies on the subject. ”

    Of course published studies are going to lie on the subject. There’s an agenda. Medical studies relating to politically charged topics have been corrupt for a few decades. Have you read Dr Bruce Charlton’s publications on integrity in medical studies?

    i would suspect that your family and your friends are upper-middle class, which is somewhat more immune to social ills than the vast majority in middle and lower socio-economic classes. Also, people living upper-middle class lives usually don,t advertise their dysfunctions. I would have assumed the same as you among my social circles if I hadn’t been crass enough to outright ask people.

    I also seem to have been blessed/cursed with a form of synesthesia that is sensitive to certain things in other people, childhood trauma specifically. Perhaps that comes from my childhood trauma, an injury and then traumatic hospital treatment at age 3. Plus long term emotional (non physical) abuse from both parents.

    The net of this is that I’ve come to believe the figures sometimes put forth by the likes of OPrah Winfrey about 25% of women being sexually abused as minors, and maybe 12% of men. That is an overall, or pehaps a “caucasian only” figure. The figures for AA women are estimated at 66%, and 25% for men.

    I’ve actually privately asked men and women in my social circles whenever my “radar” indicates an abuse survivor, this radar has been close to 100% accurate. And it leads me to agree with at least the 25%/66% reports.

    Those studies that show out of closet active gays being happier than celibate religious gays are pure poppycock. Being an active non-monogamous gay or lesbian is practically synonymous with concommitant psych problems. Academic psychs seem to be livng in a different world than actual practicng professionals.

  24. One of my comments was mercifully moderated for being too graphic, so I’ll need to regroup my train of thought, and reword/restate a few points I was ineptly trying to make.

    karlS mentioned a lot of studies, and I’d like to respond to that with “who do you trust?”

    The people who gave, or are giving, us SSM are the same socio-political faction that gave us the sexual revolution of the 60’s onward. How did that turn out?

    Weren’t there a lot of negative unforeseen outcomes? What effects did all those out-of-wedlock births with kids growing up without fathers, have? What were the social, criminal, and economic outcomes?

    And for those who did get married, were the marriages and families helped or hurt by premarital promiscuity?

    By “destigmatizing” casual sex, teenage sex, premarital sex, no-fault divorce, and OOW births in the name of “free love” and in the name of compassion for unwed mothers, what happened? We got the “creeping margin” effect, and ended up with MORE of all of that.

    Once you realize that sexual behavior does not have to follow sexual orientation, take that destigmatization model of the past, and apply it to this new paradigm.

    So I’m saying: don’t trust those who are giving us the new phase or extension of the past sexual revolution. It is another step in what Dr Charlton calls the “inversion of good”. In the 60’s/70’s, they said hetero couples don’t have to get married in order to live together and/or have children, and they don’t have to stay together either, that a marriage certificate was just a piece of paper. Taking what should have been a marriage/family and undoing it, or preventing it in the first place.

    Now, the same people/faction say that homosexual couples MUST have the option to get married, another inversion. Taking what is not a marriage and calling it a marriage. What will be the “unintended”, or rather unstated, consequences?

Comments are closed.