Box Turtle Bulletin

Almost Getting It

This commentary is the opinion of the author and is not necessarily the opinion of other authors at this site.

Timothy Kincaid

April 17th, 2008

I can’t report every homophobic rant that comes out of Jamaica. We’d hardly have time and space for anything else.

However, one letter to the editor illustrates not only the mindset of this island nation but also the thinking process of a great many anti-gay Christians in the United States as well.

I am replying to a letter by one Patrick Harding in which it was stated that one did not choose to be gay. I cannot conceive how a loving God would create someone with a gay gene and then have it stated in the Bible that it is an abomination.

I once came to the same question as Elaine McDonald wrote to the Jamaica Gleaner. But my questioning came to a different conclusion.

Elaine, like so very many Christians, believes that her religious beliefs define the world around her. If “God said it”, or more realistically, if her prejudices are confirmed by her interpretation of Scripture, then it really doesn’t much matter what is factual; she’s already knows what is “true”.

But this statement of hers has three assumptions: 1) God is loving, 2) homosexuality is stated in the Bible to be an abomination, and 3) a loving God would not create someone only to declare them abominable. From this she concludes that God didn’t create someone gay.

McDonald, in her unwillingness to look at all of the variables of her logic, comes to the wrong conclusion. But at least she sees the inconsistency.

I agree with her point 3 as a matter of definition. Although some religious folk believe that God predestines some to eternal torture, I cannot fathom that such a deity could be described as “loving”. Such a god, though an object to fear, would not be worthy of adoration or praise.

Thus either God is not loving, gay people become so of their own volition, or the condition of being homosexual is not an abomination.*

I knew, unquestionably, that neither I nor other gay people made a conscious decision to be same-sex attracted. God had, whether by means of genetics, environment, or some other method, created us irrevocably gay.

So I then had to determine whether or not He condemned me for the way he created me, thus earning my eternal derision and scorn. As I began to study, it became clear to me that being homosexual is not in any place condemned in scripture.

This is where I think much anti-gay and ex-gay theology falls apart. There is an insistence that recognizing or accepting one’s attractions is sinful. But the rather simple-thinking Elaine McDonald has put her finger on the logical inconsistencies of their argument. In order for a “homosexual identity” (which is, of course, nothing more than a recognition of the direction of ones own attractions) to be “a sinful lifestyle”, then one must believe that God is capricious and cruel.

And sadly, reorientation is not the answer. In almost no instances do same-sex attractions change, leaving those who continue to struggle with little hope of redemption. All that the anti-gays and ex-gays can do is to play semantics games about “identity” and “change”.

As for whether specific sexual acts are universally condemned, that is a matter of great debate between various theologies. And I do respect those who, for religious reasons, live celebately and yet dismiss both the games and the condemnation as contrary to gospel.

Personally, I believe that it’s rather unlikely that the correct interpretation of Scripture is one that condemns a specific subset of the population to a life without love. This seems rather odd from a God that places little importance in the distinctions of race, sex, personal situation or political power.

But, as McDonald clearly illustrates, there is no practical distinction in society or the church between those who are same-sex attracted and those who express such an attraction with a partner of the same sex. Rampant anti-gay discrimination and homophobia do not distinguish between the two.

So the next time you hear someone insisting that “there is no gay gene”, just realize that they are acting out of their understanding of the nature of God. And as the preponderance of evidence as to the biological basis of orientation becomes more evident, their internal dissonance will become stronger.

And although some may then argue their newfound distinction between orientation and behavior, they all know that this is a losing argument so most will either become ever more shrill or will quietly go away.

So although the ‘no gay gene’ers may seem the most hateful, it’s probably because they really almost get it. And it’s tearing them apart.

* The atheists among us could argue that another alternative is that God does not exist. I concede that logic but this does not add much to the point of my commentary and is not a subject of this thread.

Health Rubs

Jim Burroway

April 17th, 2008

Did you know that masturbation can prevent prostate cancer? It appears so, according to this new study:

Frequent sexual intercourse and masturbation protects men against a common form of cancer, suggests the largest study of the issue to date yet.

The US study, which followed nearly 30,000 men over eight years, showed that those that ejaculated most frequently were significantly less likely to get prostate cancer. The results back the findings of a smaller Australian study revealed by New Scientist in July 2003 that asserted that masturbation was good for men.

In the US study, the group with the highest lifetime average of ejaculation - 21 times per month - were a third less likely to develop the cancer than the reference group, who ejaculated four to seven times a month.

I wonder if John Smid has heard about this? He’s the outgoing Executive Director of the Memphis-based Love In Action ex-gay residential program who gave an entire workshop on the evils of masturbation at the 2007 Exodus conference last summer. It was definitely the single most bizarre talk have I ever attended in my lifetime. Especially when he bragged, “My wife’s vagina is enough… God created her for my fit” to a room full of struggling celibate ex-gays.

The “good part” is at the 2:18 mark.

Smid also told his audience that he heard from a Brazilian physician that masturbating actually harmed the immune system. This is how Smid described that conversation:

He said, men actually, when they live in sexual self-control and restraint, actually those hormones and those secretions are reabsorbed into the body, which stimulates the immune system of the male. This is a physician. He said that’s something that’s not often taught because the physician world is built up of a lot of men that don’t want to teach things like that because they don’t want to let people know that they can’t, you know, it’s really kind of a secret. He said we really don’t let that out as physicians.

… And I thought okay, now, think about, who are probably the most unhealthy people? Sexually addicted people. Physically unhealthy. You know, because first of all we’re not taking care of ourselves, we don’t feel good about ourselves. But we’re also possibly eliminating a source of our own immune system boosters. I mean it was very interesting when he said that.

I think we’ve met the very definition of “junk science” here.

Meanwhile, back in the world where real science takes place, Dr. Michael Leitzmann at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda found that spankin’ it about every other day ought to do the trick:

More than 12 ejaculations per month would start conferring the benefit - on average every second day or so,” he says.

However, whilst the findings are statistically significant, Leitzmann remains cautious. “I don’t believe at this point our research would warrant suggesting men should alter their sexual behaviour in order to modify their risk.”

But on the other hand, it couldn’t hurt.

Born What Way?

Jim Burroway

April 16th, 2008

Social conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage often point to personality differences between men and women — the complementarity of the sexes, they call it — and consider these differences to be innate in men and women. Men are more aggressive and women are nurturing; it’s “in their genes.” But when we see evidence that the personalities of gay men and women have more in common with their heterosexual opposite-sex counterparts, then somehow the environment is blamed. Now a series of studies calls those assumptions into question.

Researcher Richard A. Lippa wrote an article for American Sexuality magazine in which he describes the studies he’s been performing over the past ten years. In these studies, he measured five human personality traits: extroversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism (negative emotionality) and openness to new experiences. To that, he added two more measures: instrumentality (independence, assertiveness, and leadership ability) and expressiveness (warmth, nurturance, and tenderness). And then he just asked two more questions point blank: Are you more interested in masculine things or feminine things? And do you consider yourself masculine or feminine?

Over the past decade, he asked all this of 2,724 heterosexual men, 799 gay men, 5,053 heterosexual women, and 697 lesbian women. This way he could make direct heterosexual male-female comparison, and compare those with differences between heterosexual men and gay men, and heterosexual women and lesbians. The results are shown in the table below. Personality Differences are given in terms of “effect sizes,” a common statistical measurement for experiments. In psychology, effect sizes 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 are considered to be “small,” “medium,” and “large,” respectively. A positive number simply means the first group is higher than the second; a negative number means the second group is higher than the first.

Personality Trait	Hetero Male -Female Differences	Hetero Male -Gay Male Differences	Hetero Female -Lesbian Differences
Extroversion	-.19	-.08	.04
Agreeableness	-.21	-.22	-.01
Conscientiousness	-.17	-.30	.05
Neuroticism	-.48	-.20	.30
Openness	.20	-.42	-.47
Instrumentality	.22	.04	-.27
Expressiveness	-.49	-.37	.04
Masculinity-Femininity of Interests	2.65	1.28	-1.46
Self-Ascribed Masculinity-Femininity	2.83	.60	-1.28

Dr. Lippa noted:

Gay men were somewhat higher than straight men on agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness, and expressiveness. Except for openness to experience, gay-straight male differences mirrored male-female differences—that is, traits that gay men scored higher on than straight men were also traits that women scored higher on than men, and vice versa. The really big gay-straight male difference was for M-F of interests. Gay men had much more feminine occupational and hobby preferences than heterosexual men did. To give you a sense of the magnitude of this difference, the effect size listed in Table 1 implies that 90% of gay men have interests that are more feminine than the average straight man’s. Interestingly, the gay-straight male difference in self-ascribed M-F was more modest, and I suspect this is due to the fact that many gay men (like many straight men) don’t like to openly rate themselves as being “feminine.”

What were the corresponding results for women? Lesbian women were somewhat higher on openness and instrumentality than straight women were, and they were somewhat lower on neuroticism. As was true for the corresponding results for men, lesbian-straight female differences mirrored male-female differences—that is, traits that lesbians scored higher on than straight women were also traits that men scored higher on than women, and vice versa. The really big lesbian-straight female differences were for M-F of interests and self-ascribed M-F. Lesbian women had much more masculine occupational and hobby preferences than heterosexual women did. The effect size for this difference implies that 93% of lesbian women had interests that were more masculine than the average straight woman’s. Furthermore, lesbians rated themselves to be considerably more masculine and less feminine than straight women did. Thus, lesbians seemed to openly acknowledge and embrace their masculinity more than gay men acknowledged and embraced their femininity.

Does this mean that gays and lesbians are “born that way”? Dr. Lippa thinks this may lend credence to that position, although this study doesn’t prove it one way or another. But this does raise an interesting point. If straight men are more open to new experiences and straight women are more expressive because “they’re born that way,” then why do social conservatives blame opposite-gender traits in gay men and women on bad parenting?

Same-sex marriage opponents and ex-gay advocates have a pretty fundamental contradiction in their logic. Somehow I doubt we’ll see them addressing this anytime soon.

Hat tip: BTB reader Steve M.

Video: Inside “Love Won Out”

In this multi-part series of videos Box Turtle Bulletin editor Jim Burroway discusses attending Love Won Out.

Daniel Gonzales

March 16th, 2008

Today’s videos aren’t exactly related to each other except for all being about Love Won Out. The first video looks at the language used by LWO speakers which attempts to separate a gay person from their sexuality. Jim finds it comical the term “people who are struggling with their homosexuality” is used to describe him given that he has no struggle with his sexuality. Our second video today looks at the financial cost of attending both Love Won Out and the ex-gay ministries promoted there. And our third video today examines how scientific studies such as the Spitzer Study are quoted at Love Won Out.

Separating The Person From The Sexuality

How Much Do Ex-Gay Programs Cost?

Quoting Scientific Studies

MRSA Update: UCSF Creates Task Force To Study Overhyped Scare

Jim Burroway

February 7th, 2008

If you remember from last month, we saw the mainstream media and anti-gay extremists hype a study by scientists from the University of California, San Francisco by reporting that a “flesh-eating superbug” was sweeping the gay community and threatening to spread into the”general population.” This drug-resistant staph infection, known as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), has actually been spreading among straights for decades (especially among professional athletes and military personnel). But that didn’t stop the usual band of anti-gay extremists, who are never ones to be sticklers for truth or accuracy, to exploit the misery of others to blame gays for once again being a threat to the “general population” — all with their cynical brand of “love,” of course.

The hype eventually retreated somewhat — some members of the mainstream media took a deep breath and sought out some second opinions as UCSF offered a half-hearted apology. But that did little to clarify the situation, and the hype of the “flesh-eating superbug” has continued to take on a life of its own.

That’s why three local San Francisco activists, Michael Petrelis, Clinton Fein, and Hank Wilson, sought a meeting with UCSF to discussion the events of last month. That meeting took place on Tuesday, and Petrelis and Fein have reported the results. Here are some highlights:

The following people were present at the meeting: Barbara French, Associate Vice Chancellor, University Relations; Kieran Flaherty, Director of State Government Relations; Shane Showdon, Director of LGBT Resources; Aimee Levine, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Public Affairs, Beth Mooney, assistant to Barbara French and Dr. Chip Chambers, a scientist and professor involved in the MRSA study. …

…

The core problem presented by the press release was a misapplication of epidemiological terminology that implied that gay men were about to unleash a MRSA strain on the “general population” instead of acknowledging that the strain already exists in the “general population,” despite findings that it seems to have a higher preponderance among men who have sex with men.

This misconception was fueled by comments by one of the lead authors of the study, a postdoctoral scientist, Binh Diep, who expressed grave concern about “a potential spread of this strain into the general population.”

…UCSF was quick to acknowledge the boundaries breached by Binh Diep. As a postdoctoral scientist, while excited about communicating the findings of his study, and whilst genuinely hoping to communicate the information in the interests of promoting health, he was unequipped to recognize the extent to which his comments could be misconstrued….

…Ms. French acknowledged that an internal task force had been created in the wake of the MRSA fallout, to streamline and coordinate efforts between and among various departments relating to the dissemination of news and public communications. This is an important and significant development.

It looks like Peter LaBarbera’s the one who could use some fact-checking.

What Is Abstinence?

Jim Burroway

January 22nd, 2008

An April 2007 report (PDF: 704KB/64 pages) for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services showed that abstinence-only education had no impact on the number of sexual partners and sexual activities among students who were in abstinence-only programs versus students in other types of sex-ed program. New research to be published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior suggests that it may also fail from an STD-prevention standpoint as well.

Canadian researchers E. Sandra Byers, Joel Henderson and Kristina M. Hobson asked 298 heterosexual Canadian college students about how they defined “abstinence” and “having sex.” Students were pretty consistent about a few things: Nobody really thought having intercourse was “abstinence”, and most students didn’t include non-genital contact as “having sex.” But there areas where the distinction between “abstinence” and “having sex” weren’t so clear:

Students were quite mixed in whether activities involving unidirectional genital stimulation (e.g., oral sex, genital fondling) constituted abstinence, having sex, or neither abstinence nor having sex. However, they were more likely to see these behaviors as abstinent than as having sex. Students were more likely to rate a behavior as abstinence if orgasm did not occur… The results indicated that male participants who were more involved with their religion and sexually conservative, less sexually experienced, and who had not received sexual health education at home were more likely to define bidirectional genital stimulation and less likely to define no genital stimulation and unidirectional sexual stimulation as sexual abstinence.

In other words, many students believe they can engage in oral sex and still be “abstinent,” and religious students in this particular sample are more likely to believe so. Since STD’s can be transmitted through oral sex, this finding represents a significant potential failure in abstinence-only education.