My final interview from synod:
David: During synod, you heard that a motion to add an amendment to include ex-gays – as it was put – in the continuing study on sexuality was defeated. The person who spoke against that amendment referred to “so-called ex-gays”. Reaction?
Daryle: The “so-called” seeks to deliberately minimise the life, witness and testimony of those who have experienced same-sex attraction and chosen to reject that same-sex attraction in light of a personal conviction that church teaching is correct, that Biblical authority is correct. The other thing I picked up was the comment that there is only “a handful of ex-gays” and there are many thousands of gays. That’s the opinion of one person voiced on the floor of the synod – the speaker has no idea of the number and impact of people who identify as same-sex attracted yet believe it is not something for them. Those numbers are unknown to many within synod and it’s been the voice of the Zacchaeus fellowship to bring that to light.
Rev. Dawn: There are people who are struggling silently in their own pews with unwanted same-sex attraction and they are lost to the synod – I grieve for that because not everyone with same-sex attraction wants it affirmed.
David: Do you have any idea of how many people experience same-sex attractions in the Anglican Church?
Rev. Dawn: The best studies say about 6.6% for men and 4.4% for women in the general population. I would think it’s probably no different in the Church.
David: Specifically in the Church, do we know how many people there are struggling against, rather than giving in to it.
Rev. Dawn: I can’t tell you what the numbers are. From personal experience, though, every time I have shared my story or teaching. Someone will come up and say I am struggling with it, too. And not just conservatives: I know liberals who are not willing to gay-identify, so, although we don’t know the numbers, we do know that there are a lot.
Daryle: From our experience of working with people in redemptive programs, some people are willing to come forward, but there are others that have not come forward. That is my own testimony: I needed to be ready to come forward, and that was a work of years. I needed to be ready to have my sexuality properly adjusted in my life and that was the work of some more years.
[For further clarification, I’ve added something that Dawn provided later:
According to the results of the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS) conducted in the United States in 1992 by Edward Laumann and his colleagues - still the most widely accepted study conducted on sexuality - 6.6 % of men and 4.4 % of women reported having experienced same-sex attractions. However, only 2.8% of men and 1.4% of women actually have self- identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. This means, there are many individuals who experience same-sex attractions and don't even move onto self-identifying as gay or bisexual.
I am thinking that the Church should basically have about the same number of individuals who do not gay-identify as the general public - that is they suffer with unwanted same-sex attractions. So if we do the math, maybe somewhere closer to 3.8% of men and 3% of women in the church may be experiencing unwanted same-sex attractions. Of course, there are many questions that still need to be addressed: for example, in today's climate of "if you experience same-sex attractions you must be gay", many are likely to label themselves even before they know what hit them. But the point is, there are likely more individuals with unwanted same-sex attractions than those who gay-identify and want to live the lifestyle in the Church.]
David: I have a perception – and it may be entirely inaccurate – that the Anglican Church has a higher percentage of gay clergy than one would expect from the general population percentage.
Rev. Dawn: I think you’re right.
David: Why?
Rev. Dawn: They just like to dress up. There is a theory about that.
Daryle: We’re a church that worships with robes and vestments and we are also a church that lacks discipline and has moved away from Biblical authority, so error has grown. Other denominations, too, have problems with sexual infidelity among the clergy and they get splashed all over the media. From an Anglican perspective, it’s there and almost accepted as an undercurrent. But it’s still contrary to our tradition and Scripture.
David: I don’t think it’s confined to Canada: I think the Church of England has a similar situation – it’s just not spoken about.
Rev. Dawn: Yes, but having said that, I’m aware of some ex-gay priests and bishops, too, although not all are open about their past.
David: One of the claims made by those seeking to justify acting on same-sex attraction is that science has proved that a person is born that way; God has made them that way, it is a gift from God and, therefore, holy.
Rev. Dawn: I think there is a lot of false science – it’s called gay science – and a lot of the researchers are gay themselves and trying to prove something so that they can live out their identity more comfortably. I don’t believe that science has proved anything; none of the scientific research that these folks quote has been duplicated – in fact if you take a good look at the scientific “proofs” you’ll find that they are not scientific at all.
Daryle: It’s piggy-backed onto the emotionalism of the whole issue of discussing same-sex attraction. I want to talk about the human genome project: no gay gene was identified as was hoped for by some. There is no proof that a gay gene exists, so I agree with Dawn – I have seen no scientific proof. If you’ve seen some, bring the references.
David: No, I haven’t seen any. What I do see is a repeated reference to “science has now demonstrated….”
Daryle: There is no science. There is an enormous drive to send a message: it’s a message born of hype and a hope that something will be declared normative when, in fact, it’s not. Biblically, it’s the exchange of truth for a lie. As someone said, if you repeat the same lie often enough, people will believe it is true. That might be something that has got its hold on the synod of the Anglican Church of Canada.
David: One of the points which is made by the Anglican Church is that it wants to promote a monogamous lifestyle for gays and that blessing same-sex unions for those who are faithful to one another will help do this. I read in your testimony, Dawn, that even people who supposedly are in a relationship with one person still tend to be promiscuous. So is the argument the church is making a good one?
Rev. Dawn: As a minister, I look at it as a matter of sin, whether it’s sin with one person alone or many. It’s still a sin. To promote something that Scripture clearly says is sinful is wrong. I suppose medically speaking it might be better but monogamy is pretty rare in that lifestyle. But I can’t speak for every gay and lesbian couple that are in a relationship.
Daryle: Let me add that our culture is more and more into serial monogamy – that’s heterosexually and those sins are not addressed by the church – they are accepted. Likewise, serial monogamy in same-sex unions is still contrary to the way God wants us to live. God has made it very clear on how he wants us to live, but the church has become more and more inept at providing the culture with a godly message.
David: When a person who is opposed to your position comes to you and disagrees with what you have to say – how do they do that, since you have had the experience of reversing same-sex attraction and it’s difficult to argue with a person’s experience. You can say “this has happened to me” and they can’t deny that.
Rev. Dawn: They do.
Daryle: Constantly.
Rev. Dawn: I am told I still am same-sex attracted or I never was.
Daryle: That’s an easier way to cope with that kind of a message than to just accept that it’s not God’s intention for a person to live with same-sex attraction – that is so much harder to hear, especially if you want to promote the lifestyle.
David: Why now. Why is this all happening now?
Daryle: Or why is it happening still. The Anglican Church of Canada has been talking about this for 30 or 40 years.
David: I’m thinking of a longer term. The issue of homosexuality seemed to be prevalent in the early church when Paul addressed it and it is now 2000 years later, but not so much in between.
Rev. Dawn: God’s heart is that we be in a relationship with him and that we be obedient – that’s why he planted the tree in the Garden of Eden. There’s always been something forbidden in our lives and Satan’s first temptation to man was “did God really say….” And that same temptation continues today. To desecrate the Church is to desecrate the bride of Christ and I think Satan is desperately trying to do that. I believe we are living in the end times and to desecrate the Church – the bride – is Satan’s intent. God intends for us to be obedient, to offer ourselves as holy living sacrifices. Paul says that sleeping with a prostitute is to defile the temple of the Holy Spirit – to defile us sexually would be like sleeping with a person who is getting married the next day or raping the bride to be so that the bridegroom wouldn’t get to enjoy her. Satan is out to get the Church. And this is a good way to attack the family, too. Family is at the centre of Christian values and so it attacks the family, the church and our process of sanctification.
Daryle: From the perspective of synod, it is taking a further step towards alienating the Anglican Church of Canada from God. God is eternal; his views don’t change – we’re the fickle ones and we are the ones who are going to be held responsible for what we are teaching our churchgoers and the next generation.
Rev. Dawn: And this is not new. For example, in Malachi Chapter 2, God is angry with the priests.
David: For synod the discussion on this issue seems to be just about over. By implication, dioceses have been given the go-ahead to proceed with the local option without there being an official motion stating that. Do you agree?
Daryle: Yes, this interpretation started occurring when dioceses such as Niagara and Montreal started same-sex blessings prior to general synod in direct violation to the moratoria as laid out by the Primates. So that was a way of saying to general synod in advance, “it’s already happening, so your decision has become easier.” But it is a movement based on rebellion, arrogance and pride and general synod hopped on to the rebellion of these dioceses. I believe it doesn’t bode well for the Anglican Church of Canada.
David: Do you have something to say to anyone who might be experiencing unwanted same-sex attraction?
Rev. Dawn: We’re here for you.
Daryle: We continue to be here for you!
Rev. Dawn: You don’t have to fight it alone; there are others like you.
Daryle: Do take a look at our website at http://www.zacchaeus.ca. Our testimonies are in there. One of the parts of my own testimony is being one of those silent sufferers in the pew. If you feel that same-sex attraction goes against your constitution as a person, then pray about it, find the Zacchaeus fellowship, find a pastor or priest who understands – some do not – be wise, this is your own spiritual health that is at stake. Persevere; pray that God will have people cross your path – as people crossed mine. And we say, “God bless you as you choose to follow the Lord.”
It is my opinion that the rejection of the “ex-gay” group at the recent synod in Halifax was an act of evil. I am also disturbed that some leaders who are real Christians seem to believe that there is a moral eqivalency between homosexual acts and heterosexual acts which take place outside of marriage. I would argue that the heterosexual act is in accordance with natural law and although sinful is redeemable as are the children who result from those unions, the other side of that equation is not; even though, the individuals involved are, which is demonstrated to us by the Zacchaeus Fellowship.
Is this Daryle the same Daryle who comments here occasionally?
#1 Sin is sin. It is all abhorrent to God. Otherwise we wouldn’t need a saviour.
#2 Yes Kate, same Daryle.
I am getting around to commenting here more frequently.
Great article, thank for doing this David. This is a message that the ACoC has closed its ears to.
Thanks for this interview David. I was at the General Synod and the speaker who rudely brushed aside that ex-gay amendment was Rev. Paul Jennings, and I mention his name because he was one of the authors of the St. Michael’s report, along with a rather liberal, experienced based theology of same-sex blessings in his commentary paper for the Primate’s Theological Commission titled, “The Grace of Eros.” I believe that Mr. Jennings would say that any person experiencing same-sex attraction would be gay. This in itself is a definition, but one that does not justify the conclusions of his experiential theology, because experiential theology is just another form of feel good theology, or as I like to call it, ‘theo- sentimentology. The study of good feelings about God. If it feels good to me then it must be ok with God, too.
Nevertheless, Mr. Jennings, like most of us has failed to realize the enormous extent of our ‘lostness’ which has lead to an identity crisis. This was reflected in the Youth drama, Roots among the Rocks.” The youth illustrated their individual personal identity crisis resulting from various experiences. The solution for their crisis was to be ‘accepted” by the Church. This is the same crisis of those wanting the church to accept their gay/lesbian identities. Rather than join the church with all of us sinners in the transformational journey towards Christ-identities, they, along with countless other misplacing identity strugglers are missing the purpose of the Church, Marriage, Chastity, Love, and Grace., etc. in the quest to be more like Christ. I was so blessed to have met Daryle and Dawn in Halifax, and I share far more in their struggle towards Christ-identity than I could have ever realized. To exclude their voices and others (even straight (?) people struggling with opposite-sex attactedness) diminishes us all in the transformational journey to be made in the image and likeness of God, like Jesus.
Brian Candow
Brian,
Thank you for your comments and your information – a timely reminder of the St Michael’s Report and its authorship. It makes the rejection of those who experience unwanted same sex attraction that much more poignant and disturbing. And it is ironic that an experiential theology would argue that one experience is more valid than another experience, which is the very reason for excluding the voice of Zacchaeus Fellowship. You make an excellent point when you say that those who struggle with SSA are just one part of the human family struggling toward “Christ-identity” as you put it, just like everyone else. This group just happens to be the one in the uncomfortable spotlight of this theological struggle.
Same ol’ same ol’ on the science. The Zacchaeus position misrepresents peer-reviewed studies showing a sibling tendency in the 20 percent for siblings raised apart as “there’s no science”.
To quote many posters here, you cannot support the truth with a lie.
Not even a technical quibble like the ones above. “No gene” and “no genetic component” are very different.
Henry,
Which study are you referring to? Who did the study? And has it been replicated?
Think about it… If genetic, the concordance rate of twins should be 100%. It is not. There was one study that suggesed it was 100%, but it was never replicated.
You are right about one thing. Truth will not be surpressed. Afte a decade of study on this stuff personally, I am convinced that the fortress of lies are about to come tumbling down. Too many notable scietists and researchers are finding sexul orientation is actaully more fluid than portrayed. I will welcom personal dialogue with you on this.
Dawn, Daryle, and David; Courage in the Christian context is but faith utilized. I thank God for you and the clarity of this interview.
Henry #9 If I read you correctly, you agree there is no gene component but in fact there is a genetic one. If this is so than the possibility that you might be correct exists. But to the best of my knowledge the reference may only be applicable in scripture, of which I provide for your consideration below.
Exodus 20:4-6 (King James Version)
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Perhaps, Henry, you might focus on behaviour rather than genetic material. But then that would place responsibility with the person and not on a fabled condition. The most generous researchers that I have read cite a complex breakdown in primary relationships, and the intense and sometimes underlying need to restore such relationships, even symbolically into adulthood, as the drive that can lead some to develop a same-sex attraction.
Living memory begins for many of us at about 4-6 years of age. Since we are not in touch with our earliest memories, we cannot assert that we were ‘born gay’ “because I always felt this way” (fable #2). I will suggest that we do not become sexually aware until our thoughts and emotions become more sexualized at the onset of puberty. This is a very fragile and formative part of our development. We may then ‘read-back’ a perceived same-sex drive (if present, as many forms of disordered sexuality trouble us into adulthood) into our distant past, and have an “Ah-Ha!” moment, concluding that “I must be gay”.
I have often stated that human sexuality is a fluid thing, and not fixed. Psychiatric and psychological literature is clear on this point. It has been demonstrated in my own life, and in the lives of many people that I have worked with over 20 years, that a disordered sexuality (not only the same-sex attracted), can be restored to God’s own intention for each one of us.
This is the base of support for those who desire a change in any form of sinful behaviour:
- The lordship of Jesus Christ is paramount within the mind and heart of the believer.
- A biblically orthodox community that will love and support the one seeking change.
- A willingness to surrender all sinfulness to out Lord, and to receive grace.
- Counsel (pastoral, professional) and rigorous accountability for one’s own behaviors, to trusted others.
- A willingness to grow as the Lord leads – seeking no overt cure –
but commitment to ongoing Christ-likeness.
- Receiving the Word of God, and sacramental agents, to mature in all aspects of life.
- The practice of discipline and accepting responsibility for one’s own actions,
as one is transformed by God; the heart of stone, to a heart of flesh.
The very first google hit for “gay twin study” gets you an excellent Wikipedia page with this citation
Hershberger, Scott L. 2001. Biological Factors in the Development of Sexual Orientation. Pp. 27-51 in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identities and Youth: Psychological Perspectives, edited by Anthony R. D’Augelli and Charlotte J. Patterson. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
And the summary in Wikipedia is pretty well written:
For example, a recent meta-study by Hershberger (2001)[5] compares the results of eight different twin studies: among those, all but two showed MZ twins having much higher concordance of sexual orientation than DZ twins, suggesting a non-negligible genetic component. Two additional examples: Bailey and Pillard (1991) in a study of gay twins found that 52% of monozygotic (MZ) brothers and 22% of the dizygotic (DZ) twins were concordant for homosexuality.[6] Also, Bailey, Dunne and Martin (2000) used the Australian twin registry to obtain a sample of 4,901 twins.[7] Self reported zygosity, sexual attraction, fantasy and behaviours were assessed by questionnaire and zygosity was serologically checked when in doubt. MZ twin concordance for homosexuality was found to be 30%.
(Let me add that the 6% number above would predict a much lower concordance if the incidence is independent, around 0.4% – 4 in a thousand of twins would be both gay.)
Daryle, you are very right when you say that behaviour is what it’s all about. But when you quote “breakdown in primary relationships” I hear the echo of years of nonsense blaming the mother for male homosexuality (I don’t recall the matching nonsense for female homosexuality.)
Equally, and this should be in the mind of every person who undertakes pastoral care, nearly all sexual attractions are to be resisted. Regardless of orientation, married people need to resist sexual attractions to anyone other than their spouse.
So, back to “fabled condition” – I know people who claim to be at each extreme of the infamous (but hard to replace) Kinsey scale. I’m not sure I believe them; and it doesn’t sound like you do either. That fluidity is a two-edged sword. For example, Julie Cypher, who was in a very famous same-sex relationship with Melissa Etheridge from 1990-2000, was married to men before and after, and has been quoted to claim “I was never gay.” (In Melissa’s autobiography The Truth Is….)
But is everyone’s sexuality fluid to the same degree? That would be surprising – basically every measurable attribute displays a distribution curve; usually the normal distribution (which is why it is called “normal”.) So the question becomes one of mean and standard distribution.
Let’s go back to the 6.6% of men. Let us hypothesize that number to be those whose fluidity is insufficent to allow them to conform to a hetero-normative society. Even today, we have a heavily hetero-normative society. Then we’d expect pretty much what we see that in societies even more hetero-normative, the percentage of openly identified homosexual men would be smaller – both history and geography confirm this.
But the other thing that both history and geography confirm is that no degree of oppressive hetero-normativity is sufficent to entirely repress same-sex sexual activity. It may push it into the dark corners (and bushes), but it’s always there.
It seems to me that what you are saying is that Zacchaeus is essentially a 12-step program (or equivalent) for people who don’t want to have same-sex attraction.
And I think that the sticking point is at the first step “I have a problem” – there are people whose politics don’t let them admit that some other people believe that they do have a problem because they experience an attraction “against [their] constitution as a person.”
So, what’s Zaccheus’ position on those who believe that their same-sex attraction is in accord with their constitution as a person?
Henry,
You are welcome to contact me through the website zacchaeus.ca – just go to contact us and press on the email.. and we will continue this discussion.
Blessings!
Dawn
Dawn, I wish you would continue it here. These are issues that need a public airing.
Hi Kate,
I just thought it would be rude to hijack the blog comments… But fair enough. I have a meeting to attend in a few minutes, but I will reply to Henry here within a day or two.
Part of the reason I said off line is that there is so much that needs to be addressed in what Henry says. This is installment number one.
For instance, the study by Bailey and Pillard is a very problematic study.
John M. Bailey and Richard C. Pillard published in December of 1991. (J. Michael Bailey & Richard C. Pillard, (1991). A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation, Archives of General Psychiatry 48. p. 1081-96.) Bailey and Pillard studied identical twins who share the exact same genes; fraternal twins who share the same basic degree of genetic similarities as any two siblings born to same parents; and adoptive brothers whose genes are no more similar to each other than the general public. They reported a “probandwise concordance” of 52 percent of the identical twins who were both homosexuals, 22 percent of the fraternal twins who were both homosexuals, and 11 percent of adoptive brothers who were both same-sex oriented.
Bailey and Pillard reported that it was more likely for identical twins to be both homosexuals than fraternal brothers and adoptive brothers. They saw a correlation in the concordance rate and the degree of similarity in genes and concluded from these observations that there is a genetic cause for homosexuality.
HOWEVER…. the study had a couple of major problems. It’s major problem being that of sample bias. The study was not based on a random sample at all. The twin brothers in their study were volunteers obtained through advertising in gay magazines and gay newspapers. This is likely to have resulted in the over sampling of homosexuals with homosexual twins who were likely to have volunteered for the study because of vested interests in proving that there was biological causality.
The second problem is in the way the results were reported. Bailey and Pillard reported a “probandwise concordance rate” of 52%. This is often misinterpreted to mean that 52% of identical twins were found to share same-sex orientations with their co-twins. However, this was not the case. Probandwise concordance does not mean that at all. Rather, probandwise concordance is calculated by counting every matching twin twice!
Hence, the 52% (or 29/56) which is often quoted does not mean 29 pairs of twins out of 56 as is typically assumed. Instead, a closer look at the numbers show that there were only 13 twin pairs concordant with 1 triplet pair, with 27 nonconcordant twin pairs totaling 41 twin pairs. (Stanton L Jones & Mark Yarhouse , (2000), p. 77.) The probandwise formula is expressed as 2(C)/ [2C + D] x 100% where C is the number of concordant pairs, and D is the number of non-concordant pairs. With 13 twin pairs and 1 triplet pairs, Bailey’s formula can be shown as 2(13)+3(1): [2(13)+ 3(1) + 27] x 100% = 52%. Notice, the nonconcordant pairs are not counted twice. According to these numbers, the twins with matching co-twin in Bailey’s study in pairwise concordance (percentage we normally understand it) is 14/41×100% = 34%! Obviously, the use of probandwise concordance yields a more “genetically-biased” result.
In a more recent 2000 study with volunteers recruited from the Australian Twin Registry, Bailey and his colleagues Dunne and Martin reported a probandwise concordance rate of 20% for male identical twins who share homosexual orientation. That is 3 twin pairs out of 27 pairs and translates to a pairwise concordance rate of about 11% for males. For women, there were 3 twin pairs out of 22 pairs translating to a concordance rate of about 14%. The same test also reported 0 out of 16 pairs for fraternal twins. Not only do these results from Bailey’s second study seem to suggest that the sample in his original study of 1991 was skewed and biased but the new findings also calls into question whether there is truly a significant genetic influence in the causation for same-sex orientation. In fact, and please take note…. Bailey and his colleagues commented that their study “did not provide statistically significant support for the importance of genetic factor” (Stanton L Jones & Mark Yarhouse , (2000), p. 78) in the causation of same-sex orientation.
It appears, then, that the “gay gene” that “makes a person gay” is elusive and a myth. In a sense, the very fact that the twin studies cannot prove genetic factors to be significant causality is conversely proof in itself that environment plays a significant role.
In fact, as Dean Hamer stated, genes are “only part of the answer… environment also played a role.” Hence, we must think of the data collected in the Twin Studies in terms of heritability where environmental factors are also factored in. Heritability by definition is “the proportion of observed variation in a particular trait (as height) that can be attributed to inherited genetic factors in contrast to environmental ones.” (Heritability in Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved on December 22, 2008, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heritability.)
Note, even the gay activists know this fact. Take for instance, the book “After the Ball” known as the manual for In a manual for the gay rights movement. In it, Kirk and Madsen wrote, “We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay – even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predisposition and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence.” See Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, After the Ball, (1989), p. 184.
It seems to me, the truth is that same-sex attractions are more likely a product of nature (inclination) and nurture. We must not also recognize the fact that siblings are also brought up in similar family dynamics. If a certain type of neglect, abuse, trauma is found in one family, it is possible that siblings can be affected in similar ways.
Have to go to the meeting.. installment number two will follow.
Dawn
Dawn-you’ve clearly read the science and understand the methods. Why did you say as quoted above “they are not scientific at all”?
You may have well-founded disagreements with whether the number is one percentage or another, but you are now admitting that there is
Science goiing on here and that the indications of a genetic component
are in fact sound in basic methodology and approach.
Don’t make me trot out the link to “50 answers & questions about the atomic bomb”-I’m getting tired oif linking that and the nizkor list of fallacies to every fourth thread!
Here is my second installment..
Henry, Wikkipedia is an academic nightmare. My questions always start with who wrote the article? Do you know anything about the author, and what of his/her biases? If your research is only at the level of internet google, Wikkipedia and the media (media, the puppets of the pop culture), then it is of no wonder that you take the position you do.
You writes, “(Let me add that the 6% number above would predict a much lower concordance if the incidence is independent, around 0.4% – 4 in a thousand of twins would be both gay.)”
Can’t follow your math, really. But as I said, the stats were really referring to a probandwise concordance rate. Again, only 13 twin pairs concordant with 1 triplet pair, with 27 nonconcordant twin pairs totaling 41 twin pairs. 13 pairs out of 41 pairs would really be something like pairwise concordance rate (which is the percentile that most people can understand) of 31.7%.
Maybe you didn’t understand that 6.6% are those who experienced same-sex attractions at one time or another. It does not even mean they are all currently experiencing same-sex attractions. And again, it was only 2.8% of men and 1.4% of women who actually self- identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual.
I believe in the Australia study, Dunne and Martin reported a probandwise concordance rate of 20% for male identical twins who share homosexual orientation. That is 3 twin pairs out of 27 pairs and translates to a pairwise concordance rate of about 11% for males.
To say that such a low percentile is indicative of genetic factors is questionable. How can any thinking person jump to that conclusion? That would be totally ignorant.. If gene determine sexual preferences, then what of paedophilia, beastiality? AS I poined out in installment number one, the same family dynamics exist for twins, presumably, raised in same families.. You would need to study twins raised seperately, really..
As for your calling some theories concerning parening “nonsense”. I wonder why you call it that. Based on what observations and studies do you say so? Have you any proof that such factors do not contribute towards same-sex attrations? Then bring it to this forum.
I do know, however, that there seem to be as many reasons for people developing same-sex attractions as there are same-sex attracted individuals. I do not believe anybody develops same-sex attractions for one single cause, or for that matter, for same reasons. But I do know that a huge number of those individuals with same-sex attractions I have spoken to, seem to identify relational difficulties with same-sex parents and/or opposite-sex parents.
As for the difficulty with fathers, I don’t know if it is the chicken or the egg thing in some cases, where a boy who is too effeminate is rejected by a father, or perceived to be rejected. In my own case, my father had rejected my biological sex.. but there were also many other factors. Go ahead… go read my story at zacchaeus.ca. For some, it may just be the perception of how his/her primary relationship was. (For example, one can perceive that one’s fathr dos not love him, when the father is ill and unable to pay attention..)
Some commonly found factors in a same-sex attracted person’s lives that I have come across in my research, studies, and personal counselling sessions seem to include things like: Childhood traumas, traumas as an adult, early sexual debut, sexual abuse (at any age), physical abuse (at any age), spiritual abuse (at any age), same-sex wounds (wounds inflicted by same-sex parents or peers), opposite-sex wounds (wounds inflicted by opposite-sex parents or peers), parental influences, gender nonconformity, gender dysphoria (intense dislike of one’s gender), physical predisposition, inferiority complex, parental inability to show love, and sensitive nature prone to self-pity.
Brokenness begets brokenness.. and many factors can contribute to the development of same-sex attractions. I can say more, but you should really do some readings with an open mind. Why don’t you go and read some stories on the Zacchaeus site. .. and other ex-gay sites?
Some in the Zacchaeus Fellowship, myself included, have experienced miraclous healing, and our lives are witness to the healings we have received from the Lord. For Christians, that should not be surprising because our Lord is a Lord of miracles.
Furthermore, some in the Fellowship have experienced reduction in their same-sex attractions through intensive self-analysis and work. Several have even gained opposite-sex attractions and moved into heterosexual marriages. Although their stories vary, addressing the issues arising from such factors, (including factors attributed to primary relationships) with the Lord’s help, seems to have resulted for them in diminished same-sex feelings and thoughts. Others walk chaste lives, while a small group still struggle to bring their lives into alignment with their valuative framework; but the important fact is, they are working at being faithful. Their struggle to remain faithful is a daily choice, chosen because the individuals value the Lord’s will for their lives.
You are right that pastoral care providers need to keep in mind that “nearly all sexual attractions are to be resisted. Regardless of orientation, married people need to resist sexual attractions to anyone other than their spouse.” We don’t start fire just anywhere we want in our houses.. we start them only in fireplaces. Equally, sex is not something that we can enjoy with just anyone and anywhere. Sex was created by God, and He gave us some directives concerning how we are to enjoy sex – which is only within the heterosexual marital relationship.
Well, it seems I must get to other business calling me. Henry, I will tackle the fluidity and your question in my next instalment.
Heny 17.
I say no science because no science has proved same-sex attractions are genetic. Poor sampling, for one makes the science a suspect. In fact, with poor sampling, I can prove just about anything.
I don’t mind continuing this discussion after I finish replying to your initial stuff.. And I will debate anything you want concerning science. But let it be something that you bring from your own research and reading, and not sonmething you are parroting. And definitely not something retrieved from google or Wikkipedia. I too am tired of the cultural hogwash.
Installment number three
Henry, you might be right that 6.6% included individuals those whose fluidity is insufficient to allow them to conform to a hetero-normative society. As I said in installment number two, the 6.6. % number represent those who identified as having experienced same-sex attractions at one time or another. The number may also include those who experienced same-sex attraction, but it simply disappeared.
You say that “the percentage of openly identified homosexual men would be smaller – both history and geography confirm this.” Well, I am not sure where you get this.. again, source, please… In fact, gay-identity is a relatively new western concept. So I don’t think men would have self-identified as gay men, say, even 100 years ago..or 75 years ago for that matter.. So it is surprising to me that you can make such a statement that history and geography “confirms this”. What does it confirm? That sexual-identity including gay-identity is a new phenomena? Sounds to me like you are parroting someone.. the media, maybe? Like David who said, he keeps hearing “science has proven..” Maybe you can think of something more unique to say?
Ok. Let’s say that what you are trying to say is that even if there were such constructs such as gay-identity over history, that in a predominantly heterosexual society where heterosexuality is the norm (for good reason, ‘cuz God created us that way..) that people would not openly gay-identify readily.
BTW. I cannot resist mentioning Sambia. Anthorpologist Gilbert Herdt chronicled a right of passage of men in the tribe of Sambia living in Paupa New Guinea where homosexual behavior is a rite of passage.. Boys between the age of 6 and 10 are taken from their others to live in a longhouse for adolescent males, and there, they are taught to fear women and live in exclusively homosexual relations for 10 or more years. But even then, once they reach maturity, they marry women and have children, engaging exclusively in heterosexual sex. You’d think that in such a culture, there would be less resistance to homosexual activity amongst grown men, won’t you? But even in such a culture, the natural order seems to direct people into heterosexual relationships.
You say that “the other thing that both history and geography confirm is that no degree of oppressive hetero-normativity is sufficent [sic] to entirely repress same-sex sexual activity. It may push it into the dark corners (and bushes), but it’s always there.” On this matter, yes, you are right. Humanity in its fallen condition is capable of anything. And there are many things that would not entirely go away.. like incest, and rape, adultery and fornication… should same-sex activities be any different?
You also said “It seems to me that what you are saying is that Zacchaeus is essentially a 12-step program (or equivalent) for people who don’t want to have same-sex attraction.” Henry, where did you get the idea that Zacchaeus is a 12-step program? As I said in installation number two, we are a fellowship of individuals with different stories, anddifferent paths of obedience. All of us, however, are walking in obedience to Christ. In fact, it may surprise you that heterosexuality is not our goal, bu obedience is…
Don’t get me wrong.. the 12-step program is a fantastic template for discipleship. And maybe what you are seeing in us is that we too are committed to discipleship. We take our discipleship seriously, and we are trying to live out the passage, Romans 12:1-2 in our own lives by offering ourselves up as living sacrifices to Christ.
Now, Henry, we are coming to your last statement….and end of this..
“And I think that the sticking point is at the first step “I have a problem” – there are people whose politics don’t let them admit that some other people believe that they do have a problem because they experience an attraction “against [their] constitution as a person.”
I don’t have a problem. Firstly, I am free of same-sex attractions. And no, unlike Julie Cypher, I know where I have been.. what my orientation was, and what it is today..God has given me a new orientation. What I do have is a Christian understanding of what sin is. – That which has been passed down throughout the centuries… And Scripture, in spite of attempts by a handful of theologians and biblical scholars starting mostly in the 1980s with personal agenda to discredit it, still says homosexual activity is sin. The problem I have is that Scripture is being trampled on and being disrespected. And yet another problem I have is that I know God wants to free us. And what freedom there is in obedience.
So, to finally answer your question.. “ So, what’s Zaccheus’ position on those who believe that their same-sex attraction is in accord with their constitution as a person?”
This might sound simplistic, but it really isn’t our position that matters. What really matters is God’s position on homosexual activity. And that, my brother, has not changed, no matter how we try to justify such activities… What I think, or feel about what is right or wrong for me is ultimately insufficient… What matters is what is God’s expectation of us? This life is not about pursuing my rights, and my wants, and asserting my rights, for that matter. The example of perfect humanity we see in Jesus is that of obedience, humility, and submission to the Father.
Our position is, and will always be summed up in Romans 12:1-2.
Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God – this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is – his good, pleasing and perfect will. Romans 12:1–2
Henry, I will gladly take on anything you bring.. and I would do so gladly if I thought you were in this with an open mind. But again, I ask that what you bring would be something original… coming from you.. and not just the same old cliché thing to say
Dawn, in #19, once again, you jump from “has a genetic component” to “is genetic” (in a context implying genetic determinism.) That’s known as a “strawman argument”; it is precisely like refuting the statement “beer is alcoholic” by trotting out the properties of pure ethanol and demonstrating that beer has none of them.
I also regard your #9 in retrospect as disingenuous. Given that you are in fact acquainted with the studies, it was a faux-naive posting. And it has the same strawman.
You can claim one accomplishment: you’ve changed my opinion of the Zaccheus fellowship. Unfortuately, you’ve changed it from “I don’t agree with everything they say, but I don’t see why GS wanted to exclude them”, to something rather less sympathetic.
What strawman? She’s said that “there’s no science” because the studies are flawed, and shown how they are flawed.
As for why synod wanted to exclude them, that seems to me to be pretty obvious. They are a group of people who have struggled, or are struggling, with same sex attraction and do Not self identify as gay; they self identify as Christians who want to live godly lives. They are the “so called” people who the gay marriage proponents prentend don’t exist.
She was asking you what studies you were talking about. She didn’t imply she wasn’t aquainted with them; you inferred that.
Not up to Dawn’s challenge Henry? How about bringing forward your position, rather than starting name-calling. I’d like to hear a good argument from you why you discredit an intelligent, researched position, now that you know what it is. If you’ve read those studies perhaps you can explain your charge of “straw-man.” That’s people’s favourite charge in debate these days when they’ve nothing positive to say on their own behalf. I’d like to see this debate continue. We could all learn something.
Please tell me why Dawn’s researched ex-gay position now confirms you in thinking her exclusion from a “dialogue” about human sexuality by GS vote was correct. Hardly seems based on anything more than your bias.
I wish to withdraw that allegation that Dawn made a strawman argument. I’ve reviewed both our discussion, and several of the available studies and papers. Therefore, I must also apologize for and retract all my general remarks about Zaccheus foundation. In particular, I was wrong about the quality of the science to which I alluded in #8 as if it were very much more solid than it actually is.
I probably have a smaller disagreement (despite a longer debate) with Dawn, who said “I don’t believe that science has proved anything; none of the scientific research that these folks quote has been duplicated” than I do with Daryle’s “There is no science.” I think she perhaps hangs more weight on the lack of statistical significance of any of the several studies than I would, but perhaps her statistical background is better than mine (one full-year course in second-year engineering.) I accept that science has not proved anything about the biological basis of homosexuality. I am of the opinion that there are very strong indications, but indications are not proof.
Interestingly enough, Scott L Hershberger’s main field appears to be multi-variate statistics; he used to work for American Express.) His meta-study is found by Google Books:
http://books.google.com/books?id=AQ_5Us0tbpEC&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=Hershberger,+Scott+L.+2001+%22Biological+Factors+in+the+Development+of+Sexual+Orientation%22&source=bl&ots=nR5E4UPs_c&sig=OHMCjdp-h993iwwFpr2MUxCBWJ4&hl=en&ei=xBEyTMKFE4S8lQfiwam_Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
And his conclusion is indeed interesting:
“Three primary limitations of this meta-analysis can be cited.”
1 “…most of the significant effects there based on essentially conflicting results across studies.” (*)
2 “…having to use test standarization date for heterosexual males when a study consisted only of gay males.”
3 “…relative paucity of information for women.”
Nonetheless, the bibliography runs over six pages, which again hardly qualifies as “no science”.
Properly speaking, the statistical and biological arguments have little to do with the topic of the role and applicability of Zaccheus fellowship anyway. Does the Zaccheus fellowship represent an experience that should be listened to by General Synod? Yes, it does.
Again, I apologize to Dawn and the people I have likely offended.
(*) Hershberger means that factors positively correlated in one study may go the other way in another study. This is not good news for the selection of factors.
(I apologize for errors of spelling or code in this – with neither spellcheck nor preview, it’s hard to review a long posting here.)
http://www.godtube.com/featured/video/adam-hood-rewind
To all on this blog – in case you haven’t seen this! it is worth a look
Praise God!
Thank you for your gracious traction, Henry. You are refreshingly respectful, and I applaud you for that.
The more serious one is, and the more open about what one may find, one is more likely to conclude along with most researchers and scholars that there are no single causal factor that one can point to that applies to all, but that it really is the combination of predisposition and environmental factors.
And yes, there are some strong evidence to suggest that environmental factors are also at play, although the problem is that there aren’t too many solid research on the psychological factors either. Science at best, creates more questions than it seeks to answer.
However, predisposition does not mean one is determined to be. Most basketball players are tall, but not all tall individuals are basketball players. Some characteristics may contribute toward the development of same-sex attraction – mine was that I was a sensitive child who took my father’s rejection of my gender to heart. But the fact that one has the predisposition or characteristic does not mean he/she must live a gay-life, or self-identify as one. Neither does the presence of same-sex attractions need to determine one’s sexual-identity. Sexual-identity is composed of many different aspects such as, one’s gender, gender-identity, gender-role, one’s beliefs and values concerning sex, sexual attractions, sexual orientation, and what one intends to do with his/her sexuality. Same-sex attraction is only one component of many different factors that contribute towards one’s sexual-identity. And it may interest you to know that each person who experiences same-sex attractions would experience the various aspects of their sexual-identity differently.
For instance, had the fact that I was biologically a female mattered to me more, and had I embraced my female body, I probably would not have lived my life thinking that I was trapped in the wrong body. And it would have likely influenced how I lived out my younger day.
Henry, do be very careful in making assumptions from sheer volume of bibliography. What one can conclude for sure is that six pages of bibliography suggests the author read a lot… . That is all. The question remains if the material he/she read were balanced and of good quality. And another question is just how has the author used what he/she read. I mean, I can quote a researcher, but if I quote the researcher out of context, I can make him say a lot of things that he never really said. So I would not jump to a conclusion such as you make too eagerly. Don’t believe everything you read either. Because, where there is an agenda, it is far too easy to dismiss what one does not agree with and only focus on things that one wants to see.
My basic principle is this. If science for some reason comes up with an irrefutable proof tomorrow that homosexuality is inborn, my position will still be the same. What does God demand of me? The path of obedience. Nothing less. It’s been a great exchange. And as I said, please feel free to contact me anytime with genuine questions you may have.
And you are right, Henry.. no spell checker, and hard to read long entries. My keyboard sticks.. in #20, the sentence “Boys between the age of 6 and 10 are taken from their others” should read, ““Boys between the age of 6 and 10 are taken from their mothers”. Forgive me for the typos as well.
yup.. that should have read “gracious retraction”
Thank you Henry and Dawn. This has been a refreshingly informative discussion.