The Nehor Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 55 minutes ago, kllindley said: Studies suggest that this percentage would be somewhat smaller, but yes, the majority would be able to develop same-sex sexual and romantic attraction if they were committed to it. Nice, anyone available? Preferably wealthy....
rockpond Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 His language analogy is interesting but I'm not quite sure it holds up. If the idea is that sexual orientation is strictly something that is learned, than why would there be so many families with just one gay child. If I look at the gay people who I know and count siblings within a family I get numbers like: 1 of 6, 1 of 9, 1 of 5, 1 of 2, 2 of 4. For those families, their circumstances stayed the same throughout the lives of all the children (with one exception that I am aware of). Why don't we see a higher percentage of gay children being raised by the same family in the same circumstances?
trim Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 From what I remember, Jeff Robinson gave 5 explanations for same sex attraction: 1. Nurture - environment shapes us 2. Nature - born that way 3. Choice 4. It doesn't matter 5. It is something one learns how to do (this is the one he preferred) I struggled with his explanation because #5 sounds a lot like #1. It seemed like his perspective may be helpful in a therapy setting, but I couldn't distinguish them fundamentally. He also stated that he did not believe that heterosexuality was hard wired and that all sexuality was learned.
mfbukowski Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, kllindley said: Studies suggest that this percentage would be somewhat smaller, but yes, the majority would be able to develop same-sex sexual and romantic attraction if they were committed to it. I can't imagine how this statement could be justified. I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just saying that I don't understand the methodology. How does anyone know what the majority could do if they we're committed to do it in this context? Did they ask the question "could you become a homosexual if you were committed to do so", and the majority said yes? How do we know that they were correct at what they thought they could do? Edited August 9, 2018 by mfbukowski
USU78 Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 1 minute ago, mfbukowski said: I can't imagine how this statement could be justified. I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just saying that I don't understand the methodology. How does anyone know what the majority could do if they we're committed to do it in this context? Did they ask the question "could you become a homosexual if you were committed to do so", and the majority said yes? I guess we'll have to wait and see what's in the transcript. 1
Calm Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, trim said: From what I remember, Jeff Robinson gave 5 explanations for same sex attraction: 1. Nurture - environment shapes us 2. Nature - born that way 3. Choice 4. It doesn't matter 5. It is something one learns how to do (this is the one he preferred) I struggled with his explanation because #5 sounds a lot like #1. It seemed like his perspective may be helpful in a therapy setting, but I couldn't distinguish them fundamentally. He also stated that he did not believe that heterosexuality was hard wired and that all sexuality was learned. He didn't say these were actual explanations, but rather what people used to explain it. (Just want to be sure that point is clear as your summary is somewhat ambiguous, imo.) The science has not demonstrated causes yet (iirc there was one twin study referred to that showed 80% of twins of gays were themselves straight, the experience of gays demonstrates it is not a choice, nurture points I am spacing on) The first three are answers to the question of what causes same sex attraction, but there are solid reasons that demonstrate they are not accurate and Jeff spent significant time showing why they were problematic. The fourth is a social/political response to the question of what causes SSA. It is unsatisfactory for obvious reasons (my words, I don't remember his discussion on this that well). The fifth, the paradigm he suggests, is most useful. And it isn't "it is what I have learned", but rather "it is what I know". There is a significant difference. Think of it like talking about language. One knows how to do English. This answer does not discuss why one knows, but is about the what. It avoids unproved cause explanations, but acknowledges the importance of the discussion. It provides an accurate view that allows a person to evaluate their own behaviour and make choices. Quote He also stated that he did not believe that heterosexuality was hard wired and that all sexuality was learned. I don't think this expresses his view very well, too simplified and leaves out important references to data. This is one of the reasons why I think in discussing it, it would be better to wait for the text. Edited August 9, 2018 by Calm
Scott Lloyd Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 1 hour ago, rockpond said: His language analogy is interesting but I'm not quite sure it holds up. If the idea is that sexual orientation is strictly something that is learned, than why would there be so many families with just one gay child. If I look at the gay people who I know and count siblings within a family I get numbers like: 1 of 6, 1 of 9, 1 of 5, 1 of 2, 2 of 4. For those families, their circumstances stayed the same throughout the lives of all the children (with one exception that I am aware of). Why don't we see a higher percentage of gay children being raised by the same family in the same circumstances? That question occurred to me as well. But the family dynamic might not be the thing, or might not be the only thing that causes a person to learn to have same-sex attraction. Or the family dynamic might not be identical for each sibling. Birth order might play a part, or changing circumstances over time in the household. And of course, external stimuli, whatever they might be, might not be controlled or controllable. It's a good question; I'd like to see Robinson address it. 1
Calm Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, rockpond said: His language analogy is interesting but I'm not quite sure it holds up. If the idea is that sexual orientation is strictly something that is learned, than why would there be so many families with just one gay child. If I look at the gay people who I know and count siblings within a family I get numbers like: 1 of 6, 1 of 9, 1 of 5, 1 of 2, 2 of 4. For those families, their circumstances stayed the same throughout the lives of all the children (with one exception that I am aware of). Why don't we see a higher percentage of gay children being raised by the same family in the same circumstances? I think the issue here is thinking of "gay" as binary. If you define it instead that the children are on a continuum of sexual fluidity, where several would experience some amount of same sex attraction, it makes more sense. Remember that for those with same sex attraction, only a small percentage have exclusively same sex attraction. Most have some SSA, but mostly OSA. Smaller percentages have 50/50 and mostly SSA with some OSA. But all with SSA may define themselves as gay (or may not). See Lisa Diamond's work on sexual fluidity. The language analogy would be the family is exposed to multiple languages. Some of the children are bilingual, some are not. Very few children would actually be only able to think in the less dominant language in their environment. A bilingual child may appear to be monolingual or call themselves such because they only see themselves as speaking the one language (they speak English because they go to an English speaking school and all their friends and adult acquaintances speak it, but at home surrounded by Spanish speakers and listening to Spanish TV and radio they have that ability as well) but if asked and they think about it, they come to realize they also know to some extent another language (Spanish) and even may use it. If for some reason, at sometime in their life they start seeing themselves as Spanishspeaking, they may begin to express themselves using Spanish more and appear to others as monolingual unless they are asked if they have any ability to think, read, or speak English. Edited August 9, 2018 by Calm 1
kllindley Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 2 hours ago, rockpond said: His language analogy is interesting but I'm not quite sure it holds up. If the idea is that sexual orientation is strictly something that is learned, than why would there be so many families with just one gay child. If I look at the gay people who I know and count siblings within a family I get numbers like: 1 of 6, 1 of 9, 1 of 5, 1 of 2, 2 of 4. For those families, their circumstances stayed the same throughout the lives of all the children (with one exception that I am aware of). Why don't we see a higher percentage of gay children being raised by the same family in the same circumstances? I don't think the language analogy is meant to suggest exact correspondence. For example, I am the only member of my family who speaks Finnish. One of the distinctions I would note is that the language analogy is not the same as a nurture/environment explanation. I think he actually answers your question by saying that the dilemma you describe generally disproves the "nurture/environment" explanation. If it were true that sexual orientation is the result of family dynamics then it doesn't make sense to see so many children from a family be heterosexual and only 1 homosexual. He is suggesting that this explanation doesn't really work. Another point is that in the language acquisition process environment matter greatly. If the only language modeled in environment is English, it would be inevitable that a child would learn English, assuming there is not a language disability. But if the family speaks Spanish at home, while living in America, it would be natural to see a variety of different levels of fluency between siblings. One sibling may have more English speaking friends, or simply have an easier time learning a second language, while another sibling is more reserved and doesn't spend as much time learning and practicing English. This would be true even though the family dynamics at home stayed the same. 1
Calm Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 11 minutes ago, kllindley said: I don't think the language analogy is meant to suggest exact correspondence. For example, I am the only member of my family who speaks Finnish. One of the distinctions I would note is that the language analogy is not the same as a nurture/environment explanation. I think he actually answers your question by saying that the dilemma you describe generally disproves the "nurture/environment" explanation. If it were true that sexual orientation is the result of family dynamics then it doesn't make sense to see so many children from a family be heterosexual and only 1 homosexual. He is suggesting that this explanation doesn't really work. Another point is that in the language acquisition process environment matter greatly. If the only language modeled in environment is English, it would be inevitable that a child would learn English, assuming there is not a language disability. But if the family speaks Spanish at home, while living in America, it would be natural to see a variety of different levels of fluency between siblings. One sibling may have more English speaking friends, or simply have an easier time learning a second language, while another sibling is more reserved and doesn't spend as much time learning and practicing English. This would be true even though the family dynamics at home stayed the same. Much better phrased than my attempt.
kllindley Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: I can't imagine how this statement could be justified. I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just saying that I don't understand the methodology. How does anyone know what the majority could do if they we're committed to do it in this context? Did they ask the question "could you become a homosexual if you were committed to do so", and the majority said yes? How do we know that they were correct at what they thought they could do? You're exactly right. That is why I said earlier that we cannot get a clear percentage. That would require a pretty radical human subjects experimental model. I think the main methodology is to look at the discrepancies and congruence between self-reported sexual orientation/identity and the individual's history of sexual attraction and/or behavior. One key finding here is that most people who identify as gay/lesbian also report having sexual/romantic attractions to or relationships with the opposite gender. At the same time, especially in youth, up to 48% of individuals who identify as heterosexual also report some degree of sexual or romantic attraction to the same gender. Another emerging methodology is to track individual's self-reported sexual orientation/identity and behaviors/attractions longitudinally. What they find when doing this is that it is very common to see that change from year to year. What they find is that even people who initially report as straight with 0 same-sex attraction are likely to change over time. They may still identify as straight, but report that they developed a crush on a friend. I do want to be clear that there are still individuals who do not experience any elasticity or fluidity. And I'm not suggesting that sexual orientation can always be changed. If sexual orientation is defined as a "lasting pattern of romantic/sexual attraction," many of these situations are don't reflect any change in orientation. 2
Popular Post Robert F. Smith Posted August 10, 2018 Popular Post Posted August 10, 2018 On 8/8/2018 at 6:26 PM, churchistrue said: I haven't seen anything on this here and nothing in the blogosphere that I've noticed. I think if/when it hits the rounds, it could have the potential to explode. But I'm not sure. He seemed to be making an intellectual case based on scientific studies and his extensive clinical experience that gay LDS should reform and marry heterosexually. This seems to be an opinion that hasn't been voiced much for at least a decade. I thought even the church had moved past this. But maybe I misunderstood him. Honestly, his presentation was reasonably compelling to me. He's extremely experienced and seems to have an open mind to things. Based on what I read and understand, I tend to be on the progressive side of this issue and am anticipating change/revelation in the future, but it's not my field of expertise. It is possible that you misunderstood him. Jeff Robinson, "Thinking Differently About Same-Sex Attraction," Aug 3, 2018, FairMormon Conference. In his 25 years of experience as a therapist, Robinson has never discussed changing their sexual orientation with any of his patients. He has only tried to help people think differently about it. For example, Robinson finds it far more practical to think of SSA as something such a person "knows how to do." That is the best and "most helpful" view, according to him. This does not explain what causes SSA, but Robinson says that is not as important as their response to their own condition, as well as our response to SSA in those we know. In 25 years of therapy. he has never encountered a family which has rejected or thrown an SSA offspring out of their house. The split has always come only when the child gave the parents an ultimatum, such as -- I want to have my gay lover live with me here. Robinson does not believe that SSA is pre-programmed or hard-wired in people at birth, but he does say that there is sometimes a propensity to acquire it as one's body matures. He says that science simply has not established that people are born that way. For example, 80% of gays with a twin, will have a twin who is not gay, yet they have the same DNA. He says SSA is more like being a Democrat or Republican, since one is not born that way. In any case, most SSA people are also attracted to the opposite sex -- perhaps they simply have an "expanded repertoire," he said. This suggests sexual fluidity in some cases. Re suicide: lies and myths can cause suicide, and being told that SSA is hardwired can take away choice, thus prompting hysteria -- which is what we really need to avoid. He told a story about a community which thought that putting up nets on a bridge would prevent suicide (the opposite of another community), and it turned out the people did not just find another way to commit suicide. The bridge actually invited suicide. The suicide rate fell when the bridge was no longer available. In therapy, Robinson has had a good success rate with people who are dedicated to the Gospel, and who do not have compulsive sexual behaviors. As in Buddhism, Robinson recommends a middle path which does not violate agency. SSA need not be an anomaly. His key quote is that "SSA is simply something you know how to do." 7
rockpond Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: It is possible that you misunderstood him. Jeff Robinson, "Thinking Differently About Same-Sex Attraction," Aug 3, 2018, FairMormon Conference. In his 25 years of experience as a therapist, Robinson has never discussed changing their sexual orientation with any of his patients. He has only tried to help people think differently about it. For example, Robinson finds it far more practical to think of SSA as something such a person "knows how to do." That is the best and "most helpful" view, according to him. This does not explain what causes SSA, but Robinson says that is not as important as their response to their own condition, as well as our response to SSA in those we know. In 25 years of therapy. he has never encountered a family which has rejected or thrown an SSA offspring out of their house. The split has always come only when the child gave the parents an ultimatum, such as -- I want to have my gay lover live with me here. Robinson does not believe that SSA is pre-programmed or hard-wired in people at birth, but he does say that there is sometimes a propensity to acquire it as one's body matures. He says that science simply has not established that people are born that way. For example, 80% of gays with a twin, will have a twin who is not gay, yet they have the same DNA. He says SSA is more like being a Democrat or Republican, since one is not born that way. In any case, most SSA people are also attracted to the opposite sex -- perhaps they simply have an "expanded repertoire," he said. This suggests sexual fluidity in some cases. Re suicide: lies and myths can cause suicide, and being told that SSA is hardwired can take away choice, thus prompting hysteria -- which is what we really need to avoid. He told a story about a community which thought that putting up nets on a bridge would prevent suicide (the opposite of another community), and it turned out the people did not just find another way to commit suicide. The bridge actually invited suicide. The suicide rate fell when the bridge was no longer available. In therapy, Robinson has had a good success rate with people who are dedicated to the Gospel, and who do not have compulsive sexual behaviors. As in Buddhism, Robinson recommends a middle path which does not violate agency. SSA need not be an anomaly. His key quote is that "SSA is simply something you know how to do." Yeah, it’s understandable that Robinson would see it that way given his field. Whereas when we look at fellow Mormons like Bradshaw and Prince, approaching it from their scientific research backgrounds, they conclude that epigenetics is the cause. Edited August 10, 2018 by rockpond
Popular Post kllindley Posted August 10, 2018 Popular Post Posted August 10, 2018 9 minutes ago, rockpond said: Yeah, it’s understandable that Robinson would see it that way given his field. Whereas when we look at fellow Mormons like Bradshaw and Prince, approaching it from their scientific research backgrounds, they conclude that epigenetics is the cause. What makes me laugh so much about this post is how much epigenetics is identified as a primary component of language aquisition and language development. In other words, the analogy to language IS an appeal to epigenetics. 5
Hamba Tuhan Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 10 hours ago, trim said: He also stated that he did not believe that heterosexuality was hard wired and that all sexuality was learned. Which is precisely what we see in the historical record and is the dominant position amongst all historians, including queer ones. 3
Calm Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, rockpond said: Yeah, it’s understandable that Robinson would see it that way given his field. Whereas when we look at fellow Mormons like Bradshaw and Prince, approaching it from their scientific research backgrounds, they conclude that epigenetics is the cause. What is Prince's scientific background? Never mind, I found it...pathology and infectious disease. Medical model. Edited August 10, 2018 by Calm 1
Robert F. Smith Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 1 hour ago, rockpond said: Yeah, it’s understandable that Robinson would see it that way given his field. Whereas when we look at fellow Mormons like Bradshaw and Prince, approaching it from their scientific research backgrounds, they conclude that epigenetics is the cause. I agree, but the scientific evidence is not final, according to Robinson, and he cites a 2015 article in the Journal of Homosexuality. It will be specified in the published version. Would be nice to hear an opinion on that from Dr Ugo Perego, who actually knows genetics. 1
california boy Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 To be upfront, from what I have read here, I find most of his conclusions to be very questionable. Putting all of that aside, for the purpose of discussion let's say that his point of view has some truth to it. The real question is what difference does any of this make? What does anyone think the implications are? Perhaps that is what the discussion should center on, since I think the theory will always be questioned or believed based more on your personal perspective or agenda. To be fair, this question could be asked of any of these soups du jour.
Popular Post Kevin Christensen Posted August 10, 2018 Popular Post Posted August 10, 2018 What difference does this make? There are choices about how we treat one another, and choices we make about ourselves. If "this is just the way I am" is non-negotiable, regardless of personal and social and spiritual costs, then that affects every other decision and every relationship. There is a huge difference between sexuality as being a non-negotiable need, and sexuality as a desire that can be modified to a sufficient degree that choices are available, and negotiation possible. I can do without all sorts of things I desire, if I know the difference between desire and need. Take away oxygen, food, and water, and I soon will be gone from any conversation. Those I truly need. Desire, however... http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleChristensenRashomon.html I've met many people who discovered that sexuality does not have to be the first and great commandment. If addiction boils down to increased desire and impeded judgement, and recovery addresses both, then people who choose recovery have options that people who conclude "this is just the way I am" do not. If a person does not know the options, just how free to choose are they? FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsbug, PA 7
Popular Post Hamba Tuhan Posted August 10, 2018 Popular Post Posted August 10, 2018 4 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said: If a person does not know the options, just how free to choose are they? This! 5
california boy Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 30 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said: What difference does this make? There are choices about how we treat one another, and choices we make about ourselves. What are you saying here? You think some latest theory about what it is to be gay should determine how you treat someone? 30 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said: If "this is just the way I am" is non-negotiable, regardless of personal and social and spiritual costs, then that affects every other decision and every relationship. There is a huge difference between sexuality as being a non-negotiable need, and sexuality as a desire that can be modified to a sufficient degree that choices are available, and negotiation possible. I can do without all sorts of things I desire, if I know the difference between desire and need. Take away oxygen, food, and water, and I soon will be gone from any conversation. Those I truly need. Desire, however... What person, gay or straight thinks they will die if they don't have sex? And how is someone who is gay look at sex any differently than someone who is straight? 30 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said: http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleChristensenRashomon.html Read your theory. Unlike the woodcutter, you personally did not observe anything independly. You are just projecting your own guesses on what is going on with people you have no intimate connection with. I don't get how this should become some kind of explanation for anything other than you writing a blog filtering other peoples lives through your own view. 30 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said: I've met many people who discovered that sexuality does not have to be the first and great commandment. If addiction boils down to increased desire and impeded judgement, and recovery addresses both, then people who choose recovery have options that people who conclude "this is just the way I am" do not. If a person does not know the options, just how free to choose are they? FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsbug, PA When considering options, what different options does a gay person have that is any different than a straight person? 1. marry someone of the opposite sex 2. be celibate 3. marry someone of the same sex 4. never marry, Have casual sex as often as possible I am still scratching my head. I ask again, What difference does any theory have on anyone, gay or straight? It is like suggesting to you that a scientist determines that men are hard wired to have multiple partners and are not suppose to be monogramus. Would that somehow change how you view your life? Would it give you more options to consider? 1
Walden Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 19 hours ago, trim said: From what I remember, Jeff Robinson gave 5 explanations for same sex attraction: 1. Nurture - environment shapes us 2. Nature - born that way 3. Choice 4. It doesn't matter 5. It is something one learns how to do (this is the one he preferred) I struggled with his explanation because #5 sounds a lot like #1. It seemed like his perspective may be helpful in a therapy setting, but I couldn't distinguish them fundamentally. He also stated that he did not believe that heterosexuality was hard wired and that all sexuality was learned. Personally, I have a hard time with the nurture or learned behavior argument, as every gay person I know (which is only about a half-dozen friends or family) comes from a family in which all their siblings identify as heterosexual. If nurture/environment was such a factor, I would expect to see more siblings both identifying as homosexual. 2
Rock_N_Roll Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: In 25 years of therapy. he has never encountered a family which has rejected or thrown an SSA offspring out of their house. The split has always come only when the child gave the parents an ultimatum, such as -- I want to have my gay lover live with me here. Well, I don't have 25 years of therapy experience, but I can show him a case I know of today, if he likes.
rockpond Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 57 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said: What difference does this make? There are choices about how we treat one another, and choices we make about ourselves. If "this is just the way I am" is non-negotiable, regardless of personal and social and spiritual costs, then that affects every other decision and every relationship. There is a huge difference between sexuality as being a non-negotiable need, and sexuality as a desire that can be modified to a sufficient degree that choices are available, and negotiation possible. I can do without all sorts of things I desire, if I know the difference between desire and need. Take away oxygen, food, and water, and I soon will be gone from any conversation. Those I truly need. Desire, however... http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleChristensenRashomon.html I've met many people who discovered that sexuality does not have to be the first and great commandment. If addiction boils down to increased desire and impeded judgement, and recovery addresses both, then people who choose recovery have options that people who conclude "this is just the way I am" do not. If a person does not know the options, just how free to choose are they? FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsbug, PA I'm wondering if I am reading/interpreting you wrong: I don't believe that there are "choices about how we treat one another". Christ taught one way to treat one another. For me it is simple -- For the vast majority of gay people their sexual orientation is "a non-negotiable need" (immutable). And, since my understanding of God's plan for His children is that he wants us in loving familial relationships (not celibacy) in THIS life, I support marriage for our LGBT brothers and sisters to the person they attracted to. All else makes for interesting discussion but is not relevant to the core issue.
california boy Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 49 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: This! Quote 53 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said: If a person does not know the options, just how free to choose are they? Are men hard-wired to be less monogamous than women? Quote According to Edward Fox the answer is clear. "In relationships, men wander naturally, and we cheat because we're totally different creatures," he is quoted as saying today. "Men need to play the field and spread their seed, whereas women don't have that same biological urge — it's not natural." "If a person does not know the options, just how free to choose are they?" Psychiatrist's come up with all kinds of studies. This guy has all the degrees, all the data, all the studies to back up his claim. Does this now give you more options?
Recommended Posts