Cliff LyonMessing with God’s Perfect Creation
Asking the opinion of the executive director of Evergreen International if there is scientific basis for homosexuality is akin to asking a chicken farmer for proof eggs are bad for you.
The beguiling nature of the entire article is betrayed in the first sentence ‘the simple “born gay’ theory has faded from the science scene.†You’d have to have just arrived from another planet to have not heard about the just released study known as the “older brother effectâ€. It was a feature story on Sixty-Minutes and published in about a million papers and broadcast news.
Evergreen is essentially a boot camp founded by the LDS church to convert homosexual people to heterosexuality also known as “re-orientation therapy.†Someone should do a scientific study on how effective THAT is.
So it should come as little surprise that The author and Evergreen’s Executive Director’s real thesis can be found in this statement, “The simplistic biological theory has been dismissed by all of the researchers whose studies have been cited to support the notion that homosexuality is so deeply compelled by biology that it cannot change. “
I had to read it several times to get the gist. I think it is saying that no scientist will claim that sexual orientation cannot be changed. So there ya go. If you wanna meddle with God’s perfect creation, Evergreen is for you!
One need not read too far into the article to find the predictable hallmark argument of the anti-gay crowd and most duplicitous manipulation of the uninformed. The Director disguised his ruse like a pro, “Let’s examine the words of just one of those (researchers) often incorrectly cited as providing evidence for a “gay gene.”
To date, NO human behavior, let alone sexual behavior, has been connected to genetic markers and it is unlikely that there ever will. Many diverse sources of data have shown that any two individuals are more than 99.9% identical in sequence, which means that all the differences among individuals in our species that might be attributed to genes fall in a mere 0.1% of the sequence.
The Director’s shameless distortion through the use of omission and semantics does not stop there. Citing a recent genetic study by a University of Illinois team, which unsurprisingly found “no [sic] one gay gene.†he selectively summarizes that “the lead researcher Dr. Brian Mustanski noted that environmental factors were also likely to be involved,†but conveniently leaves out this comment by the same man, “Our study helps to establish that genes play an important role in determining whether a man is gay or heterosexual.â€
Be also careful of the use of the phrase “environmental factors†by the snake oil salesmen trying to book rooms at Evergreen. It doesn’t always mean mommy was a monster in jackboots, “environmental factors” include hormonal conditions in the womb.
Lastly, I want to point out the cunning in the sentence, “If the innate-immutable theory of homosexuality has no basis in science†blah blah blah. That’s the same Rovian technique the neo-cons use to ignore global warming. If you need innate-immutable proof before you can accept anything, what are you doing in church?
At least 450 species exhibit homosexual behavior. Interestingly, our closest ancestral species exhibit quite a bit of it. I love this article.
But the best evidence that homosexuality is not a choice is that there is a homosexual near you (You may have even created one), and if you can gain their trust, they will convince you they didn’t choose it.
July 9th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
You forgot to mention re-orientation therapy works. To quote, “His study of 200 gay men and lesbian women who had undergone re-orientation therapy concluded: 44 percent of the women and 66 percent of the men had arrived at what he called “good heterosexual functioning” and 89 percent of the men and 95 percent of the women reported that they were bothered slightly or not at all by unwanted homosexual feelings.”
Why would people do re-orientation if they felt being gay was normal?
And just because animals do it don’t mean anything. We are not animals.
July 10th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
I’m rather suspicious of most evidence supporting the success of “conversion” programs for homosexuals. I’ve read a number of studies showing that the longevity of such changes tend to be rather short. In effect, the individual can tell themselves for a few weeks, months, perhaps even a few years, that they are heterosexual. But ultimately they realize that they are living a lie.
I haven’t studied the issue enough to trust one group of studies over the other. But I suspect it would be wise to be skeptical rather than merely accepting the studies which tell you what you want to believe.
The fact that so many homosexuals seek out re-orientation seems to me evidence that being gay IS normal. EVERY SINGLE homosexual with whom I’ve ever spoken yearned to be heterosexual. Most have plead with God to take away this “affliction” from them. Each went to sleep each night for years hoping that they might wake up “normal.” They spent years in religious or professional counselling to help themselves stop being something which was subject to ridicule, abuse, and condemned to Hell. Eventually they would give in and accept themselves simply because they simply didn’t have the emotional strength to continue their self-loathing anymore.
That is hardly the pattern of a warped people eager to shock the world with their depravity. If after all that determined effort to be something else, how can their homosexuality be anything BUT normal for them?
July 10th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
Somebody tell me how you can do a scientific study of people who voluntarily go through re-orientation out of socially imposed self-loathing? You certainly can’t have a control group, and I would think the reliability factor of their answers would rank somewhere around those of people who’ve been tortured.
Their answers wouldn’t pass simple rules of evidence.
The whole thing is sick. Kinda of like operating on a healthy patient.
What we need is re-orientation for bigots!
July 11th, 2006 at 7:03 am
I should clarify my previous comment. The homosexuals to whom I am referring all yearned to be heterosexual in the past. They had previously felt self-loathing because everything they had ever been taught told them that people who had desires like they did were evil. And they wanted to do/be what was right. But their inability to not be homosexual–to not feel those urges–eventually led them to accept who they were. They no longer feel that self-loathing, but that shouldn’t diminish what they went through to get to this place emotionally.
I’ll grant that my experience with homosexuals is more limited than some. And most of them are from the previous generation. It may well be that “Generation Y” homosexuals don’t as often go through the personal Hell that homosexuals even twenty years went through. But that again shouldn’t discount the very sincere and real angst that the previous generations went through before coming to grips with their true nature.
July 11th, 2006 at 7:30 am
Homopatrol, when I was younger my daddy used to work these types of sentences: IMNNML (I am an animal). See if you get this one. URNNML2. Good. Now here’s the thing, when NMLs are crowded into smaller and smaller spaces, one way for them to cope is to go gay. nothin wrong with that. Others experience ‘Denial’. When in denial, a UMBN buries its head in the sand and fails to realize that “there’s too many off us”. Then he, she or they goes forth in denial to propagate. Best of luck to ya.
July 11th, 2006 at 10:19 pm
alan, your theory that people are gay because of being crowded in small spaces doesn’t really wash with historical evidence.
Scientific research has shown that homosexuality is present among all cutlures, in all periods of history… even among small groups in isolated areas, in big cities, in small towns. Why would there be so many gay cowboys in Wyoming? There are hardly any people in Wyoming.
July 12th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
Just a few comments.
I agree that Pruden’s article is awash in semantic parlor tricks. No argument from me there, but I’m a bit taken-aback by the slipshod reporting about Evergreen International.
You said that “Evergreen is essentially a boot camp founded by the LDS church to convert homosexual people to heterosexuality…”, but that’s not entirely true, and your use of colorful imagery only makes the error more eggregious.
Evergreen was founded by a group of people who believed that re-orientation was possible, and that re-orientation was a preferred path for Latter-day Saints (Mormons). I assume the founders are/were LDS, but I have no idea. Evergreen International has since quietly partnered with the Church — but they’re no more or less an organ of the Church than Boy Scouts of America is.
A point of interest: while the rhetoric from the top of Evergreen Internation is pretty strident, its support groups are self-governed and feature a wide array of opinions and approaches to the delicate walk that is being gay and Mormon. FWIW.
By way of disclosure: I’m an active convert Mormon ( my family isn’t LDS ), who’s also gay. I attended Evergreen International meetings in Provo for 3 years back around 1999, and found them useful in helping me to live a celibate life. Which was just what I was looking for. I didn’t “change”, and I don’t know anyone who attended my group who would have felt comfortable using that language.
So there you go.
Oh, and homopatrol: the numbers on change aren’t from a peer-reviewed scientific article, and when asked once about its success rate (at a BYU-hosted meeting of campus church leaders ), Pruden’s reported response was “we don’t track that”.
So take that with a grain of salt.
July 12th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
Stenar, good points. I stand corrected.
July 21st, 2006 at 9:00 am
As someone who has had very limited involvement with this group, but has dealt with unwanted homosexual attractions, I find your smart-alec, dismissive article to be evidence of your ignorance and bias about this subject.
Not wanting such thoughts and destructive behavior to control your life is a valid choice that you deny and play the bigot when you insist people don’t change. They do. I’ve experienced it and seen it. You likely know someone who has. People who don’t want to live the gay lifestyle and do something about it typically move on and don’t want to shout out their history from the rooftops. Because you don’t read about it in the paper doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. You should know that. To deny people this option or to mock it is bigotry at its worst.
As for the comments about self-loathing, this is a typical response from the “self-esteem” crowd. There’s nary a self-loathing bone in my body. I probably like myself too much sometimes. I just didn’t like the way I felt about some things and the way I acted when I followed that muse. I’m even happier now that I don’t.
Alan, please keep in mind the truism that an open mind needs to work both ways.
Mark
July 21st, 2006 at 11:25 am
Mark: I’m interested in your claim of change…
While it’s _possible_ you’d make that up, I have more faith in humanity to assume that.
So how do you classify your change?
Where were you before, and where are you now?
Are you in a hetero relationship? Do you ever have homosexual thoughts?
None of my business, of course, but you laid it out there…
July 21st, 2006 at 10:37 pm
Mark,
I appreciate and value your thoughtfulness and honesty.
I am struck by your comment “Not wanting such thoughts and destructive behavior to control your life is a valid choice”.
When you say “destructive behavior,†are you talking about having a relationship with another man in a healthy “out” relationship in a non-judgmental community and family that accepts homosexuality as normal and healthy, or are you talking about having a relationship with another man in a moment of uncontrollable lust under a should of secrecy, and shame?
I’m guessing you’ve not yet gotten permission to come out. I’m sorry about that,
I don’t know. I’m not gay. But when my gay friends talk about their relationships, they sound just like me and my non-gay friends talking about lover’s quarrels, hurt feelings, control issues, jealousy, frustration, insecurity and all the usual, and unfortunately predictable problems in every relationship.
I know some gay couples whose relationships stand out as “good one’sâ€, in the realm of “rare†in fact, within the status quo.
Turns out, love is love. Allowed to flourish, it is a powerful good for everyone in its wake. I guess that’s why Jesus spoke so much about love and nothing but passing notice of “gaiety.â€
Happily, the gay advocacy groups have really begun to create a space for straight allies as if catching up to the fact of the majority-and-always-growing gay-OK world. Something like 90% of Americans under the age of 29 are cool with homosexuality. Virtually everyone I know LDS and not, are fine with their gay co-workers, family, and friends.
If you are still living in a world where the gay lifestyle is considered destructive, you must leave, come out, and go back. If they love you now, they will still love you.
July 21st, 2006 at 10:45 pm
[...] But mostly for Mark to spoke to us here. [...]