The paper found that none of the 78 NLLFS adolescents reports having ever been physically or sexually abused by a parent or other caregiver. This contrasts with 26 percent of American adolescents who report parent or caregiver physical abuse and 8.3 percent who report sexual abuse.

lgbtpride:

These idiots believe that people choose to be gay, and that homosexuality can be changed.

I find it particularly interesting that they say the following:

“No researcher has found provable biological or genitic differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals that weren’t caused by their behavior”

First of all, I really love how they misspelled the word “genetic.” Secondly, keep in mind that this is on a website called “Bible Believers.” No researcher has proven the existence of God. Therefore, if they are going to claim something must be a learned behavior simply because scientists have not found evidence to the contrary… then, why do they believe God exists, when scientists have not found any evidence that He has?

(Note: I am not bashing Christianity in any way. In fact, I’m Christian. However, I obviously do not believe being gay is a sin, nor do I try to push my religious beliefs on anyone else.)

Let me also cite a poll they included on their website:

Reasons For Preferring:

homosexuality (1940s and 1970)

• early homosexual experience(s) with adults and/or peers - 22%
• homosexual friends/ around homosexuals a lot - 16%
• poor relationship with mother - 15%
• unusual development (was a sissy, artistic, couldn’t get along with own sex, tom-boy, et cetera) - 15%
• poor relationship with father - 14%
• heterosexual partners unavailable - 12%
• social ineptitude - 9%
• born that way - 9%

heterosexuality (1983)

• I was around heterosexuals a lot - 39%
• society teaches heterosexuality and I responded - 34%
• born that way - 22%
• my parents, marriage was so good I wanted to have what they had - 21%
• I tried it and liked it - 12%
• childhood heterosexual experiences with peers it was the ”in thing” in my crowd - 9%
• I was seduced by a heterosexual adult - 5%

OH MY GOD!!! IT’S CATCHING!!! That’s right, folks; if you’re friends with a gay person, you’ll be gay, too! Also, notice how they say being artistic (“unusual development”) may be a possible cause of being gay. So, if that cute straight girl over there takes up painting, she might become attracted to me? Seriously? Cool! Haha, kidding.

Oh, you’ll love this one:

“There is evidence that homosexuality, like drug use is “handed down” from older individuals.”

Number one: did they seriously just compare being gay to using drugs? Number two: so you’re saying the LGBT community is full of pedos? Really? I’m so disgusted, I can’t even think of a response.

“In the 1980s, scholars (12) examined the early Kinsey data to determine whether or not childhood sexual experiences predicted adult behavior. The results were significant: Homosexual experience in the early year, particularly if it was one’s first sexual experience - was a strong predictor of adult homosexual behavior, both for males and females. A similar pattern appeared in the 1970 Kinsey Institute (4) study: there was a strong relationship between those whose first experience was homosexual and those who practiced homosexuality in later life. In the FRI study (5) two-thirds of the boys whose first experience was homosexual engaged in homosexual behavior as adults; 95% of those whose first experience was heterosexual were likewise heterosexual in their adult behavior. A similarly progressive pattern of sexual behavior was reported for females.”

My first sexual encounter was with a boy. Am I straight? I know quite a few girls who can confirm that I am not. I know plenty of people whose first experience was heterosexual in nature, and then either a) realized they were gay or b) knew they were gay from the start, and only tried that as an attempt to prove to themselves they were straight. They say 95% of people whose first experience is with a member of the opposite sex turn out to be heterosexual… without mentioning that only 5-10% of the population is gay. So, that’s kind of to be expected.

As for those boys who engaged in sexual activities with other boys? Their experience is not the reason they are gay. More likely, they already knew they were gay, then they had the experience.

So, homosexuality is not caused by having a homosexual experience.

“Kinsey reported “less homosexual activity among devout groups whether they be Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish, and more homosexual activity among religiously less active groups.” (2) The 1983 FRI study found those raised in irreligious homes to be over 4 times more likely to become homosexual than those from devout homes. These studies suggest that when people believe strongly that homosexual behavior is immoral, they are significantly less apt to be involved in such activity.”

“Were homosexual impulses truly inherited, we should be unable to find differences in homosexual practice due to religious upbringing or racial sub-culture.”

No. There are homosexual people who are extremely devout in religions which say their fondness for the same gender is sinful. They are simply too afraid to express it.

At one point, they also say unusual sexual experience in childhood, such as group sex or sex with animals, may lead to homosexuality. So… bestiality leads to homosexuality? No. Just… no.

Can homosexuality be changed?

Certainly. As noted above, many people have turned away from homosexuality - almost as many people call themselves “gay.”

Clearly the easier problem to eliminate is homosexual behavior. Just as many heterosexuals control their desires to engage in premarital or extramarital sex, so some with homosexual desires discipline themselves to abstain from homosexual contact.

One thing seems to stand out: Associations are all-important. Anyone who wants to abstain from homosexual behavior should avoid the company of practicing homosexuals. There are organizations including “ex-gay ministries, ” (18) designed to help those who wish to reform their conduct. Psychotherapy claims about a 30% cure rate, and religious commitment seems to be the most helpful factor in avoiding homosexual habits.

Yep. Once again, they’re saying that you should stay away from gay people if you don’t want to be gay. How ridiculous is that? It’s as though they think it’s some sort of communicable disease.

I hate people like this.

They disgust me.

Psychotherapy claims a 30% success rate in ex-gay ministries? UHM. CITATION NEEDED MUCH? I have the real citations for you here. Moreover, the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the National Association of Social Workers have all stated that homosexuality should not be treated as a mental disorder and that they oppose attempts at reparative or conversion therapy. And that sexual orientation is not a choice, and cannot be changed.

EDIT: Here’s the author’s wikipedia page. Mostly just criticisms.

queerwatch:

It’s always a bit annoying when scientific results come out stating something that seems obvious. “People are more likely to have healthy weights if they live in places where walking and cycling are more common,” for example. Here’s another: “Children of same-sex couples appear to have no inherent developmental disadvantage.”

The latter comes from Stanford University sociologist Michael Rosenfeld, who explains his findings in the latest issue of Demographics. (Thanks to Nan Hunter for the link.) While the results may be blindingly apparent to many of us (especially if we’ve read any of the other recent studies on children of same-sex parents), there are several reasons we should pay attention to this one.

Rosenfeld notes that many of the earlier studies have been criticized for using small samples. He therefore went for the biggest sample he could find: the U.S. Census, “the only nationally representative data set with a large enough sample of children raised by same-sex couples to allow for statistically powerful comparisons with children of other family types.”

He then looked at the children’s progress through primary school as a measure of child development. While he found that children of opposite-sex couples showed a slightly smaller chance of being held back a grade, it was because, “Heterosexual married couples are the most economically prosperous, the most likely to be white, and the most legally advantaged type of parents.” Once he factored in parental socioeconomic status, he concluded, “the disadvantage of children of same-sex couples (when compared with children of the most advantaged family group) is too small to be statistically significant.”

The biggest predictor of the rate of school progress, however, was whether a child had been in a group home. The odds of a child making normal progress through school were more than twice as high when he or she lives with a cohabitating couple — same- or opposite-sex — than in a group home. Rosenfeld stated:

Children not living in group quarters, including children in households headed by same-sex couples, are dramatically more likely to make normal progress through school than students living in group quarters. Any policy that would deny gay and lesbian parents the right to adopt or foster children would force some children to remain in group quarters. A longer stay in group quarters would seem to be contrary to the best interest of the children.

What gets children out of group homes, of course? Couples willing to foster and/or adopt. Yet one state, Florida, still bans adoption by all gay men and lesbians. Mississippi bans same-sex couples from adopting, and Arkansas, Michigan, and Utah ban unmarried couples (by definition, all same-sex couples). Nebraska, Utah, and Arkansas also ban unmarried cohabiting couples from fostering, and Nebraska bans single gay and lesbian people.

Rather than dismiss Rosenfeld’s study as jejune, therefore, we should make sure that every politician in the above states gets a copy.

queerwatch:

shaneinspace:

“In a piece by J.A.T.G.A.B. about asexuality, there are a plethora of flaws and misinformation. This is not a post seeking to rail on a fellow queer blogger, but it would be wrong if we did not seek to correct him on this subject of which he is sadly ill informed.

The sum of the article is about the author being offended at the notion that asexuality can be compared with homosexuality, the article goes on to insist that asexuality is a disability. The post suggests that LGBT activists who have incorporated the “A” into the acronym LGBT are immature, and foolish.

“As far as I’m concerned, this isn’t an orientation — it’s a disability.”

“Disability” is about lack of ableness, asexuals are fully able, equipped, and biologically capable to engage in sexual activity. It is not a disability, it is an orientation with little to no desire for sexuality. By same token many homosexuals are able to engage in heterosexual sex, it is a lack of desire to do so, this does not render homosexuality a disability. They are both examples of variants of human sexuality.

“I find it deeply offensive to have these “asexuals” comparing themselves to gay people.”

Why should it matter? The asexual movement is not comparing itself to gay or transgender people, it is distinct yet offers parallels. Asexuals do not face harassment, or violence for their orientation, they do however struggle as gays do with a coming out process, and a lack of information/resources about their identity.

“It doesn’t mean that many people who classify themselves as such don’t need counseling and sex therapy.”

If someone was sexually active and has lost their libido, had some sort of trauma than they should seek counseling. Asexuality is an orientation, they are completely content with the way they were made, they don’t feel the need to undergo “treatment” anymore than gay people should seek to go into “ex-gay” programs which don’t work.

To clear up some other statements in the article.

The Asexual Visibility Education Network (AVEN) has had 17,106 members sign up, it would be hard to gauge the number of active forum members. As far as the orientation, scientific studies suggest about 1% the population identifies as asexual.

As far as the man who got divorced and now lives happily in a sexless gay relationship, this does not mean he is repressed. Asexuals can have a romantic attraction, and can also be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. Homoromantic asexuals can choose to have a romantic relationship with someone of the same-sex and forego the option to have sex.

Queers United proudly stands by the asexual community and looks forward to continued dialogue, and education about all sexual and gender minorities.”

(from Queersunited.blogspot)

Asexuality is fluid like any sexuality. Sure, there’s common ground in a lack of desire or drive for sexual interaction, but there is a huge spectrum of asexuals who still fall in love, still desire romantic relationships (with varied levels of physical affection). Asexuals aren’t all straight. They’re heteroromatic, homoromantic, and anywhere inbetween. So of course they’re a part of the queer movement, since you can be queer and nonsexual. When I realised this (as someone who isn’t asexual), everything fell into place. Suddenly I understood “the asexual thing”. They’re fighting for the same rights we are. They need the same rights we do.