NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label homosexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homosexuality. Show all posts

02 November 2013

Homophobes Likely To Be Closet Gays, Study Finds 9APR12

A very interesting article, the study shows the same results I remember learning about in my Human Sexuality class in college in 1977....


http://www.esquire.com/the-side/opinion/gayanimals030707-3


Negative attitude towards homosexuality is likely to be more pronounced among individuals who harbor unacknowledged attraction towards the same sex, and who grew up in conservative authoritarian households which forbade such desires, a series of psychology studies have found.

The study, which analyzed four separate experiments conducted in the US and Germany, provides empirical evidence to suggest that in some individuals homophobia is the external manifestation of repressed sexual desires they feel towards their own gender.

Individuals who identify as straight but in psychological tests show a strong attraction to the same sex may be threatened by gays and lesbians because homosexuals remind them of similar tendencies within themselves, Netta Weinstein, a lecturer at the University of Essex and the study's lead author, explained.

In many cases these are people who are at war with themselves and they are turning this internal conflict outward, added co-author Richard Ryan, professor of psychology at the University of Rochester who was involved in the study, in which about 650 college students participated.

The researchers said it may not be just a coincidence that several vehemently homophobic public figures are often caught engaging in homosexual acts. They cited examples of Ted Haggard, the evangelical preacher who opposed gay marriage but was exposed in a gay sex scandal in 2006 and Glenn Murphy, Jr., the former chairman of the Young Republican National Federation and vocal opponent of gay marriage, who was accused of sexually assaulting a 22-year-old man in 2007.

We laugh at or make fun of such blatant hypocrisy, but in a real way, these people may often themselves be victims of repression and experience exaggerated feelings of threat, Ryan said. Homophobia is not a laughing matter. It can sometimes have tragic consequences, he said, pointing to cases such as the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard or the 2011 shooting of Larry King.

The implicit and explicit sexual orientations of participants were measured by how they reacted to words, and images with sexual associations, during a split-second timed task.

Students were shown connotative words, and pictures of straight and gay couples, while the computer tracked precisely the time they took to respond. They were also asked to agree or disagree on statements like, I felt controlled and pressured in certain ways, and I felt free to be who I am, to measure how democratic or authoritarian their parents were. For studying the level of homophobia in a household, participants responded statements like, It would be upsetting for my mom to find out she was alone with a lesbian or My dad avoids gay men whenever possible.

Subjects, who said they were heterosexual, but reported homosexual tendencies during tasks, were more likely to be hostile to gays, the study found.

In an earlier study, conducted by the Department of Psychology, University of Georgia in 1996, it was found that homophobia is associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

The findings of the study conducted by a team from the University of Rochester, the University of Essex, England, and the University of California in Santa Barbara, will be published in the April issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.


# # #


  http://www.ibtimes.com/homophobes-likely-be-closet-gays-study-finds-434958

14 July 2011

Tim Pawlenty says scientists are “in dispute” over whether being gay is a choice 13JUL11

tim pawlenty is wrong to use semantics to pander to social conservatives just to further his political ambitions. What is wrong with speaking the truth? From PolitiFact......

Says scientists are "in dispute" over whether being gay is a choice.

Tim Pawlenty on Sunday, July 10th, 2011 in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press"

Tim Pawlenty says scientists are “in dispute” over whether being gay is a choice

During a July 10, 2011, appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press, host David Gregory asked Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty about the origins of homosexuality. Here’s their exchange:

Gregory: "Let me ask you about social policy. You've notably said that you're a big fan of Lady Gaga and even the song Born This Way. There's a lot of debate about a gay marriage pledge in Iowa. And related to that, I wonder, do you agree with some of those who are behind that, that being gay is a choice?"

Pawlenty: "Well, I have two teenage daughters who listen to Lady Gaga, so I'm subjected to it. And it has some good qualities to it. But as to, as to gay marriage, I'm in support of traditional marriage as between a man and a woman. I have not supported the issues of allowing gay couples to have the same benefits … as traditional couples. And so this is an issue in Iowa and across the whole country. But I've stood in favor of traditional marriage and traditional relationships in that regard.

Gregory: "Is being gay a choice?"

Pawlenty: "Well, the science in that regard is in dispute. I mean, the scientists work on that and try to figure out if it's behavioral..."

Gregory: "Right."

Pawlenty: "...or if it's partly genetic."

Gregory:"What do you think?"

Pawlenty: "Well, I defer to the scientists in that regard."

Gregory: "So you, you think it's not a choice."

Pawlenty: "Well, there is no...."

Gregory: "That you are, as Lady Gaga says, you're ‘born that way.’"

Pawlenty: "There's no scientific conclusion that it's genetic. We don't know that. So we don't know to what extent, you know, it's behavioral, and that's something that's been debated by scientists for a long time. But as I understand the science, there's no current conclusion that it's genetic."

We decided to rate two of Pawlenty’s statements separately. In another item, we’ll look at his claim that "there's no scientific conclusion that it's genetic." In this item, we’ll look at the first part of the exchange. We're not fact checking whether being gay is a choice, but whether scientists are "in dispute" over whether it is or is not.

We’ll start out by noting an important difference -- the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior.

Scientists don’t doubt that it’s possible for someone who’s gay to choose, through sheer willpower, to ignore their impulses and abstain from homosexual activity. Both gay and straight people have been going celibate by choice since time immemorial. But scientists add that for such people, sexual impulses don’t go away.

So, scientists argue, even if sexual behavior is a choice, sexual orientation -- the state of being gay, and the impulses one feels -- is not a choice.

"We only choose to act, and our actions are influenced by desires," said Michael Bailey, a Northwestern University psychologist who specializes in the origins of homosexuality. "So I think that in an ordinary understanding of ‘choice,’ sexual orientation -- i.e., increased sexual desire for one type of person -- is not chosen, but sexual behavior is."

Both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association -- the two leading organizations for their professions -- reject the idea that the driving factor in determining one’s sexual orientation is personal choice.

A spokeswoman for the American Psychiatric Association -- which has about 36,000 members out of roughly 48,000 psychiatrists nationwide --  didn’t recall any significant internal dissension in recent years over the question of whether sexual orientation is a choice. Meanwhile, the American Psychological Association, which has 150,000 members, also considers it a "settled question" that homosexuality isn’t a choice, said Clinton W. Anderson, the associate executive director of the American Psychological Association and the director of its lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender concerns office.

Interestingly, we found less division than we’d expected between gay-rights advocates and social conservatives.

Michael Cole-Schwartz -- a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, a leading gay advocacy group -- said that "there is significant agreement that one does not choose one’s sexual orientation."

Meanwhile, Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council -- a leading think tank for social conservatives -- agreed with the distinction between orientation and behavior. He suggested that fuzzy definitions of "sexual orientation" explain why the two camps sometimes talk past each other.

"Part of the problem is that the term ‘sexual orientation’ is somewhat ambiguous," Sprigg said. He suggests that it is sometimes used to cover three separate elements -- attractions, behaviors and self-identification.

"What I generally say is that I don‘t believe that same-sex attractions are a choice, but behaviors and self-identification are," he said. "If Pawlenty had wanted to be more subtle, he could have asked Gregory what he meant" by being gay.

In fact, Sprigg articulated his somewhat nuanced view on the Family Research Council website in 2010, in a document titled "The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality." In it, he reviewed some of the studies on this topic and concluded that "if it was not clear in the 1990’s, it certainly is now—no one is ‘born gay.’" Yet he went on to write that "homosexual attractions are clearly not a ‘choice’ in the vast majority of cases."

In an interview, Sprigg said he didn’t see the two statements as contradictory.

"When I say it’s clear that no one is born gay, I don’t think any of those three factors" -- attractions, behaviors and self-identification -- "are fixed and determined at birth. Just because it’s not a choice doesn’t mean it’s present at birth. It could be the result of developmental factors in childhood. Sometime between the time you’re born and the time you begin to experience sexual attraction, things can happen that can affect your development."

He even pointed to an American Psychological Association statement that "although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation – heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality -- is determined by any particular factor or factors."

The scientists we spoke to freely acknowledged that much is unknown about what determines sexual orientation. (More on that in our accompanying item.) But what scientists do know pretty much rules out the idea that homosexuality is simply a choice.

At this point, we need to note an important caveat: What we’ve been discussing here applies primarily to gay men. There is actually no solid scientific consensus about the causes of female homosexuality, because the research on that question has been much less extensive.

We struggled with the question of how we should factor in what one might call the lesbian exception to the scientific consensus on homosexuality. Neither Pawlenty nor Gregory specifically referred to either gay men or gay women in their comments. Ultimately, we concluded that the science of what causes women to be gay was too unformed to draw any solid conclusions, so we set it aside as a factor in our ratings.

So where does this leave us?

Pawlenty said that scientists are "in dispute" about whether being gay is a choice or not. We think most people would interpret that to mean sexual orientation -- that is, attractions and impulses -- rather than sexual behavior. And on that question, it seems that the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the Human Rights Campaign and even the Family Research Council are in agreement. So we rate Pawlenty’s statement False.
About this statement:
Published: Wednesday, July 13th, 2011 at 12:23 p.m.
Subjects: Gays and Lesbians, Science
Sources:
Tim Pawlenty, interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, July 10, 2011

J. Michael Bailey, Michael P. Dunne and Nicholas G. Martin, "Genetic and Environmental Influences on Sexual Orientation and Its Correlates in an Australian Twin Sample," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, March 2000

Susan J. Bradley, Gillian D. Oliver, Avinoam B. Chernick, and Kenneth J. Zucker, "Experiment of Nurture: Ablatio Penis at 2 Months, Sex Reassignment at 7 Months, and a Psychosexual Follow-up in Young Adulthood," Pediatrics, July 1998

William G. Reiner and John P. Gearhart, "Discordant Sexual Identity in Some Genetic Males with Cloacal Exstrophy Assigned to Female Sex at Birth," New England Journal of Medicine, January 22, 2004

American Psychological Association, amicus brief for gay marriage, Sept. 26, 2007

Family Research Council, "The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality," 2010

Chandler Burr, "Homosexuality and Biology" (The Atlantic), March 1993

E-mail interview with Michael Bailey, Northwestern University psychologist, July 12, 2011

Interview with Clinton W. Anderson, associate executive director of the American Psychological Association, July 12, 2011

Interview with Jack Drescher, distinguished fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, July 12, 2011

E-mail interview with Michael Cole-Schwartz, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, July 12, 2011

Interview with Peter Sprigg, senior fellow at the Family Research Council, July 12, 2011
Written by: Louis Jacobson
Researched by: Louis Jacobson
Edited by: Martha Hamilton

15 October 2010

Tell the Washington Post: Stop mainstreaming anti-gay bigotry 15OKT10

THERE is a civilized way to discuss and disagree about homosexuality, unfortunately Paul Cameron and The Family Research Council choose to ignore the teachings of Christianity, spewing hate and hypocrisy. They should be ashamed and the Washington Post deserves condemnation for providing a forum for them. Cameron and the FRC have the right to their views and opinions and a right to publicize them, the Washington Post doesn't need to be an enabler. Click the header to sign the petition from Credo.
 
The Family Research Council is a far-right organization that endorses the work of Paul Cameron — a man who leads a known hate group and once said "the extermination of homosexuals" might be necessary and who called AIDS a "godsend."1
Yet earlier this week, Washington Post editors Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn legitimized an anti-gay screed of Tony Perkins, the President of the Family Research Council, by giving it space on the editorial pages of one the nation's leading newspapers.
Shockingly, they thought Perkins would be an acceptable commentator on the recent, tragic spate of teen suicides caused by anti-gay bullying.
Cameron's reports, which are cited by the Family Research Council in justifying its anti-gay positions, rely upon a kind of so-called "science" that the Southern Poverty Law Center said "echoed Nazi Germany." That is why SPLC has labeled the Family Research Institute (the organization Cameron runs) a hate group, which is a designation the Family Research Institute shares with the Ku Klux Klan.2
Tony Perkins may claim he does not agree with all the disgusting positions Cameron has taken, but when Perkins and his Family Research Council use the worthless "studies" of bigots like Cameron as a rationale for their anti-gay positions, they are endorsing the fruits of that bigotry.
No matter the facade, Perkins simply cannot ground his argument in irrational hate without lending legitimacy to that hate. And when the Washington Post allows its pages to be used for the repackaging of hate in this way, it becomes an accomplice to it.
One of the unwritten rules of mainstream political discourse is that naked bigotry — unrepentant and irrational hate for whole classes of people based on characteristics that they cannot change — is indecent and unacceptable.
So how can the Washington Post justify giving a platform to such viciousness?
This is not an academic exercise — it matters which voices are given legitimacy by mainstream publications and what kind of national discourse they give rise to.
When anti-gay bigotry is mainstreamed and tolerated, the consequences can literally be deadly.
The recent spate of tragic teen suicides by young people bullied because of their sexual orientation did not happen in a vacuum. It happened in a toxic environment in which gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are subject to irrational scorn, ridicule and discrimination because of who they are.
So it is appalling that Washington Post gave space to Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council to comment on these teen suicides when he is in part responsible for their deaths because his organization foments the very toxic environment that encourages anti-gay bullying.
Editors Jon Meacham, Sally Quinn and the Washington Post should apologize and pledge to stop offering legitimacy to those who base their arguments in the bigotry of recognized hate groups.
Thank you for holding the Washington Post accountable for irresponsibly giving mainstream cover to anti-gay hatred.
Becky Bond, Political Director
CREDO Action from Working Assets