What most doctors say about homosexuality: A collection of policy statements by the major professional associations

...that counters the information above? I think not.

Isn't it interesting that the "lie" (as you suggest) is the only position that actually has the support of relevant credibile professional associations?

As for the speed of my response, that simple comes from being better informed that one's opponents. I can say with some certainty that I have already encountered every single argument that you can even imagine relating to this issue, have already done the research, and have the necessary information to discredit any psuedo-science you might offer readily at hand.

percivale

-------------------------

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp July 30, 1816

I started to say "your sources aren't credible," but on closer inspection I realized that all of the links you provided led back to the same original source, which is of course the Family Research Council, founded by James Dobson. You can look above to see why Mr. Dobson and his organization is not a credible source. But, just to put the icing on the cake, let's take a look at some of the deceptions that are going on in the "studies" that you cite.

The first link you provide leads to the following...

NEGATIVE HEALTH EFFECTS OF HOMOSEXUALITY
From a paper by Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D

Now, this is a pretty typical anti-gay hack piece. Right off the bat, they try to give the "paper" some credence by noting that it was written by a "Ph.D." What they don't tell you is that "Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D" is not a medical doctor at all. His doctorate is in theology not medicine or science of any kind. It is a clear attempt to misrepresent the credibility of his position, and to make it seem as if the "paper" he wrote was an independent study. "Dr." Dailey is also a paid member of the FRC staff, which of course further damages any claim to non-bias.

It is also interesting to note that (similar to criticisms of the mis-represeented researches listed above), that "Dr." Dailey has faced similar accusations from researchers due to his misrepresentatio of his "work." The most noteable example came in the case where "Dr." Dailey wrote a "paper" entitled "Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse" (again for the FRC) following the outbreak of the Catholic sex abuse scandal. In that "paper," "Dr." Dailey misrepresented the work of a real doctor, A. Nicholas Groth, PhD (in clinical psychology). Dr. Groth wrote a public letter to "Dr." Dailey in 2002 which stated...

"Since your report, in my view, misrepresents the facts of what we know about this matter from scientific investigation, and does not indicate that my studies on this topic reach conclusions diametrically opposed to yours, I would appreciate your removing any reference to my work in your paper lest it appear to the reader that my research supports your views."

http://www.hrc.org/Content/ContentGroups/News_Releases/20021/Researcher_...

Mr. Dobson and his various organizations (which includes the FRC) have a long and well-doccumented history of questionable ethics and credibility. When you turn to sources like this, you only reveal your own ignorance and bigotry.

The rest of your source's comments are similarly fraudulent in there interpretation. In all of the specific cases you cite, the science is at best mispresented, and the conclusions worthy of great skepticism. In any case, it is important to note that your sources make a blatant and common (amont anti-gay pundits, anyway) mistake when discussing homosexuality, which is that they confuse behavior with sexuality.

Take for example the comments on "gay bowel syndrome." First of all, there is not medical diagnosis for "gay bowel syndrome." The phrase is a catchall that appears from time to time in various non-credible sources to describe a range of conditions and infections which allegedly can effect any individual that engages in a lot of anal sex. Well, here's a newsflash for you. Being gay doesn't mean that someone will ever have anal sex. Lots of people have anal sex, and that includes a great many heterosexual couples.

When you try to equate sexuality to certain behaviors, you are engaging in theories that have been discredited quite literally for decades. But, when you goal is merely to attack someone that you don't like, well, I suppose you have to grasp at whatever straws you can reach. Revenge is such a powerless emotion.

http://www.progressiveu.org/025701-dont-change-for-the-government

percivale

-------------------------

"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.

The "facts" posted about compulsive behaviour among lesbians might hold some water in only one way. All homosexuals are forced to live in a society where they are continually de-valued, ridiculed and demeaned. Having to go through life with the fear of persecution, both legally and societal, is enough to make anyone turn inward for comfort. (ie positive emotion and chemicals released from compulsive behaviours being acted upon).
Basically people like you can cause someone to have lifelong issues that shorten their lives, their ability to belong, have fun and freedom and to have any power in society. Oh wait! those are the five basic human needs for survival (William Glasser, among other notable psychologists) Good for you, you play a large role in ruining peoples lives, just the way gawd wants you to.

"Reduced Life Span
A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexuals concluded that they have a significantly reduced life expectancy. In a major Canadian center, life expectancy at age twenty for gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men... Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban center are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871."

Jazz,
You need to heed what Percivale explained about going to credible sources instead of anti-gay religious groups that twist the "studies."

The people who wrote the study published a subsequent letter saying that your group is misrepresenting its findings. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1499
I would add that I have read their study. I consider their methods very poorly done, and could easily explain why if you needed the details. But more important, the paper was written during from the perspective that "IF" pattern X continued for many years and "IF" factors Y and Z were in place, "THEN" the life expectancy of gay men in Vancouver would become such-and-such.
The factors in their hypothetical scenario did NOT take place over the following decade. They were making a hypothetical prediction based on whether certain conditions would took place. They took the peak of AIDS deaths from the worst year of the epidemic and made predictions on "IF the same numbers continued..." The same numbers did not continue but, rather, were cut into a tiny fraction of the numbers from the peak.
That didn't stop anti-gay religious groups from relying on the original (failed) hypothesis and ignoring the fact that the researchers have acknowledged that fact and have asked these people to stop misrepresenting them.

...because they draw unscientific conclusions on data that is questionably cited. The deception with the whole "Ph.D" business should be enough to demonstrate to you that just maybe, the people you're turning to for information might not be giving you the whole (or even the accurate) story.

The use of the term "gay bowel syndrome" was a good example of the bias that pervades your source. Notice that the first two of your follow up sources...

CDC Proctitis
WebMD Bowel Syndromes

...make absoutely no mention of the sexual orientation of patients that suffer from the disorders they describe. When your sources try to attach an illness to a group that if finds socially unfavorable, it is making an unscientific leap, which isn't surprising since that source is religiously, rather than scientifically motivated. Thus, these two sources only damage, rather than uphold, your position.

Your third source, however, is inaccurately cited. Your link doesn't lead to the American Journal of Public Health, but rather to N.A.R.T.H., an organization which like the Family Research Council, has no credibility in the mainstream scientific community.

Let's take a look at this article in particular, to see how you consider to rely on sources that are playing fast and loose with the information that they cite.

This article cites the "catastrophic HIV epidemic among MSM in the 1980s" (you do know that its 2007, right?), and asks the question "are we set to backslide a mere 20 years later?" but, the citation fails to note the context in which these comments are made. For example, the actual editorial also states...

His lead editorial, "When Plagues Don’t End," focuses attention on the resurgent epidemic of HIV/AIDS among men who have sex with men (MSM) in the United States, notwithstanding impressive reductions in HIV incidence rates over the past 2 decades in the "mainstream" gay community. Indeed, young MSM of color have devastating rates of HIV transmission, yet intervention approaches for this population are not informed by rigorous testing.
. . .
Having struggled to come to terms with the catastrophic HIV epidemic among MSM in the 1980s by addressing the pointed issues of sexuality and heterosexism, are we set to backslide a mere 20 years later as HIV incidence rates move steadily upward, especially among MSM? How much more difficult is it to prevent HIV infection among young MSM of color when we barely know how to address the health of men, and know even less about dealing effectively with the racism and sexual prejudice that contribute to substandard health care and shortened lives for MSM of color?

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/93/6/860

Your source attempts to paint all gay men with a statistical prediction that was issued in regards to a single sub-population, and which is noteable due to its abberance from the generally applicable trends. The editorial then continues by proposing that racism and prejudice (such as the kind you are exhibiting now) play a role in this disparity, which is another rather significant fact that your article leaves out. This is extrordinarily dishonest, don't you think?

This kind of misquotation is a form of shell-game that relies on the fact that most of the people who read articles like the one from N.A.R.T.H. are unlikely to actually follow up and check the quoted material against the orginal articles. Fortunately, the tendency for scientific journals to make their archives available on the internet has made the job of debunking this sort of deception easier than ever before.

There is a reason that groups the the FRC and N.A.R.T.H. lack credibility, and if you want to be taken seriously, you're going to have to build your arguments without relying on religious nutters and quacks. If you would like to read something a bit more real and credible, then might I suggest that you start with the following...

Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality
http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html

I think that you will find the American Psychological Association to be far more accurate and credible than your current reading material.

percivale

-------------------------

"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.

Both the link to the CDC and the link about the bowel syndrome make no mention, as far as I can see about homosexuality.

The last link is not a link to the American Journal of Public health it is a link to something called NARTH which is the "National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuals". This may seem innocent, but one brief look at the mission statement makes it plainly obvious that the site has a bias against homosexuality and insists on the rediculous view that homosexuality is a choice or caused by some sort of psycological distress. It also subtly advocates the insane theory that homosexual males are more likely to be pedophiles.
As for the articles that they mention, I looked through some of them. I also read some other articles by some of the writers. It is clear that much of what they quote is out of contest. One of them even wrote an article that talks about what you call "Gay Bowel Syndrome" being more common in heterosexual couples.

I believe your source, Timothy J. Dailey, PhD, had his credibility questioned more so for misrepresenting the views of others. I doubt that it is intentional but so do you.

Your nurse-practioner mother cannot back up anything the article claims unless she has some facts to support it. Anecdotes are not facts.

Your reference to the CDC Proctitis concerns treatment guidelines for proctitis, proctocolitis, and enteritis. It does not specifically mention homosexuality at all. A perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw from reading that particular article is that anal intercourse is risky with respect to those diseases. But all isexual ntercourse, anal, oral, or vaginal is risky with respect to disease. No one is advocating eliminating sexual intercourse altogether. Thus, like sexual intercourse of any type, if one is going to engage in anal intercourse one must be careful.

Your reference to WebMD Bowel Syndromes concerns primarily Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn's Disease. These diseases are to my knowledge NOT linked to homosexual behaviors at all.

You reference to American Journal of Public Health is NOT to the American Journal of Public Health. It is to what appears to me to be a sleezy organization called NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality). I had never heard of this organization before. The reason I call them "sleezy" is because of the techniques the webpage you lnk to uses to make its argument. The very first sentence presents a misleading picture.

"The prestigious Journal of the American Public Health Association has devoted a substantial portion of its latest edition (June 2003, Vol.93, No. 6) to the risks associated with homosexual practices."

I have access to full-text online journal articles through a major medical school's online library. I tried to look up this article but the "Journal of the American Public Health Association" is not indexed there. If a major medical school (which includes a school of Public Health) does not subscribe to the journal then it is not likely that the term "prestigious" is an appropriate adjective for the journal.

Furthermore the website you link to quotes an article by J. Michael Bailey in the Archives of General Psychaitry, a journal that the medical school DOES subscribe to.

Here is what your source quotes from Dr. Bailey:

"These studies contain arguably the best published data on the association between homosexuality and psychopathology, and both converge on the same unhappy conclusion: homosexual people are at a substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression and anxiety disorder."

and,

"...it would be a shame if sociopolitical concerns prevented researchers from conscientious consideration of any reasonable hypothesis"

(1) These quotes are NOT from original research. Dr. Bailey was commenting on the paper:

Fergusson DM, Horwood J, & Beautrais AL (1999). Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Archives of General Psychaitry 56:876-880.

This is very poor scholarship. Bailey's comments on another's work is not necessarily important at all.

(2) The quotes present a misleading picture of what Bailey thought of the study.

Here is a quote from Bailey that gives a more reasonable picture of what he thought:

"Several reactions to the new studies are predictable. First, some mental health professionals who opposed the successful 1973 referendum to remove homosexuality from DSM-III5 will feel vindicated. Second, some social conservatives will attribute the findings to the inevitable consequences of the choice of a homosexual lifestyle. Third, and in stark contrast to the other 2 positions, many people will conclude that widespread prejudice against homosexual people causes them to be unhappy or worse, mentally ill. Commitment to any of these positions would be premature, however, and should be discouraged. In fact, a number of potential interpretations of the findings need to be considered, and progress toward scientific understanding will be achieved only by eliminating competing explanations. "

So what Bailey is saying is that while the studies are interesting, it is WAY TOO PREMATURE to come to any conclusion about cause and effect.

Your source does allude to another study published in 2001 in the Archives of Psychiatry which supposedly eliminates the societal prejudice being the ultimate cause of the problem. But interestingly, your source never does give the full reference to it. I tried to look it up, but it seems as though the Archives of Psychiatry is another of those "prestigious" journals major medical schools don't subscribe to.

These are techniques of argumentation that I am well aware of from discussions with creationists. They amount to lying. If you have to lie to support your argument then perhaps your argument is not worth making.

Cheers,

Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France

As usual, what we have here is a disingenous attempt to misrepresent the findings of legitimate researchers. This is a fairly common practice among anti-gay pundits, though it is one that can be easily dispelled by simply turning to the original sources of their shell-game citations.

For example, even the authors of the study which good old Fitz cites agree that the work in not definitive.

**********
The authors of the new study, "The Social Organization of Sexuality" (University of Chicago Press), are the first to say that theirs is not the last word.

"To fetishize 2.8 as if this is solid to that level of precision is a mistake," said Stuart Michaels, a researcher at the University of Chicago who is an author of the new report and the project manager of the survey. "And it is to miss the point."

"To quantify or count something requires unambiguous definition," Mr. Michaels and his co-authors wrote. "And we lack this in speaking of homosexuality."

Moreover, they said, estimates in the survey were likely to be lower than actual numbers, since many homosexuals were probably reluctant to report certain behaviors or feelings to the interviewers.

(LINK)
**********

When Fitz tells us that "one of the major points of the Laumann study, which the authors themselves did not expect, is that “homosexuality" as a fixed trait scarcely even seems to exist," what he fails to mention is that this comment is specifically in regards to the difficulty of distinguising between homosexual and bi-sexual people due to an "overlap" of the respective populations, nor does he mention the fact that the observed ambiguity of "'homesxuality' as a fixed trait" is actually a specific comment about how the subject see themselves and self-identify. Fitz attempts to spin the comment stating that “the most common natural course for a young person who develops a 'homosexual identity' is for it to spontaneously disappear unless that process is discouraged or interfered with by extraneous factors" into a general comment about to imply that sexual orientation is not a fixed trait, but the researchers in the study noted specifically that sexuality was not just about the way people self-identify, and that desire and behavior often seemed disconnected from the way that people self-identify.

**********
The US study included 3 characteristics measuring homosexuality and bisexuality: desire, identity, and behavior. The authors stressed that these characteristics overlap, making it impossible to ascertain the exact number of homosexual or bisexual people. The study estimated that 2.4% of the men and 1.3% of the women "define themselves as homosexual or bisexual, have same-gender partners, and express homosexual desires." [17] (pp300-301) On the other hand, 10.1% of the men and 8.6% of the women demonstrated at least 1 of the 3 components of homosexuality.

(LINK)
**********

Here is a more in-dept review of the study that Fitz attempts to misrepresent to us...

Review: The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States and Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles.

Also, here is a collection of a wider sampling of studies addressing these topics, that demonstrate the range in which these numbers appear, rather than focusing just on the one study that when selectively viewed presents the lowest possible figures which Fitz hopes will assist him in mounting an anti-gay assault.

Prevalence of Homosexuality: Brief Summary of U.S. Studies (Compiled 6/99)

One of the main things that this cross-section of studies shows is that the way the percentages break down has a lot to do with the way that the question is asked.

percivale

-------------------------

"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.

> I think it is you who are trying to spin
> – as compared to myself, You want to
> say that the Laumann study found
> homosexuality to be a fixed trait. That
> fact of the matter is that the Laumann
> study find that homosexuality is not a
> fixed trait. I note this by quoting the
> study itself, not providing any spin.

And yet, you continue to ignore a number or relevant facts. One thing that you ignore, for example, is that the Laumann study was not a scientific study into the biological nature of homosexuality. In fact, the study does not even attempt to answer this question. You are the one guilty of "spin" in this case, because you are attempting to equate a survey of sexual identity into a statement on the fundamental nature of the biology of sexual orientation. The Laumann study was based on a questionaire, and did not explore the biological question at all. Questionaires are useful in measureing the way people self-identify (though as I noted even the authors commented that they feld the results were skewed due to the unwillingness of respondants to answer the questions asked truthfully), but they do not provide insight into questions of a biological nature.

> Once again I will add to the information
> you provide by quoting the study itself
>
> “[E]stimating a single number for the
> prevalence of homosexuality is a futile exercise,”

And I will remind you that the authors clearly stated that this was specifically in regards to the way that people self-identify, and not their acutal sexual orientations, and that the primary difficulty was in arriving at a defintion that could adequately distinguish between homosexual and bisexual respondants.

> Laumann declares in the first paragraph
> of an entire chapter devoted to the subject.
> That finding a solid number for homosexuality
> is futile not because of bias, underreporting,
> methodological difficulties, or complexities of
> behavior, but “because it presupposes
> assumptions that are patently false: that
> homosexuality is a uniform attribute across
> individuals, that it is stable over time, and
> that it can be easily measured.”

Well, since you continue to assert this extrordinarily out of context quotation, you have forced me to dig up the actual book online, so that all can see for themselves the actual context of this statement.

*************************

The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States
Chapter 8
Homosexuality

Given the highly charged political atmosphere in which all sides adduced wildly contradictor statistics in support of their claims, we want to be especially careful that our data and interpretations are put forward in as responsible and straightforward a manner as possible. Of course, we have no way of controlling or even anticipating the ways in which our findings will be used, but we do want to avoid obvious misinterpretations wherever possible. In short, neither pedantry nor extreme scientific cautiousness leads us to assert that estimating a single number for the prevalence of homoseuxlaity is a futile exercise because it presupposes assumptions that are patently false: that homoseuality is a uniform attribute across individuals, that it is stable over time, and that it can be easily measured...The social stigma attached to homosexuality creates an added challenge for us. Homosexuality in Western societies has historically been viewed as a sin, a disease or an aberration. These notions are still extremely widespread...The findings of our research need to be understood in this context. The widespread, strongly negative view of homosexuality shapes both behaviours and our attempts to measure them. While we have attempted to be non-judgemental in our inquiries, many respondents are likely have been reluctant to report behaviors and feelings that they think might reflect badly on them in the eyes of the interviewers of the researchrs. The estimates derived from survey data on socially stigmatized sexual behaviors and feelings, whether they be masturbation, homosexual relations, anal sex, or extramarital affairs, are no doubt lower-bound estimates...Independent of question of valuation and judgement, recent writing and thinking about homosexuality can be divided into two major camps. These two basic views of homosexuality (and many minor variants of them) can be found both in popular thought and in more theoretical and scientific debates. These two persoectionves have dome to be called essentialism and social constructivism...Essentialism is various forms is probably the most widespread view, especially in popular thinking, although it also has many proponents among scholarlrs and researchers. An essentialist view of homosexuality is closely related to perspectives that view sexuality through an individualistic, biological or psychological lens...Social constructionism, on the other hand, almost always involves a description and creitique of essentialism...Constructionism examines the implicit assumptions of our thinking about sexual preferences and orientations and questions their universality. It emphasizes the historical and culturally variability of such sexual categories as homosexuality and heterosexualtiy, stressing how conceptions of sexual orientation and practices have changed over time and vary across societies. In raises question about how the categories emerge, are maintained, and change...We cannot adjudicate the conceptual and theoreticall differences between these two opposing positions and their many variants. The data from a cross-sectional survey concluded in a single country at a given moment are simply inappropriate to resolve these issues. While our general theoretical framework is highly compatible with the social constructionist approach, the data themselves can certainly be treated from various points of view.

-------------------

The basic division that well be described is quite independent of the valuation of homsexuality. People who accept one basic viewpoint or the toher can hold either pro- or anti-gay beliefs. Socical constructionism was mainly develeoped by pro-gay intellectuals. However, in denying the innateness of homosexuality, some of their arguments have beent aken up by the right-wing, anti-gay forces, who believe that homosexuality is a sin and want to argue that homosexuality is a choice. Views of homosexuality as a pathological condition or disease have traditionally sought its "cause," an essentialist notion, usually to cure or eradicate it. Ironically today, many gay people are strong believers in some version of essentialism.

*************************

It seems to me that these authors had you (or rather, the "right-wing, anti-gay forces" that you represent) well in mind when they cautioned their readers about the possible political misuse that this data could enable. The rest of your baseless tirade against same-sex marriage is completely off topic for this blog, though it does serve to demonstrate that in fact your attempt to misrepresent this research was in fact motivated as I suggested by your inability to carry your arguments against same-sex marriage in our previous exchanges.

To that point, I will say one thing here: Whether or not homosexuality is biologically determined or a choice, and whether or not there are millions of gay people or even just ONE in the general population, does not in any way, shape or form assist you in your opposition to full marriage equality for gay people for one simple reason. The fundamental rights enumerated in the Constitution of this country belong to the citizenry as individuals. If even ONE citizen wishes to exercise their fundamental freedom to marry in this manner (or TWO if you prefer, since logically you need someone to say "yes" when you ask them to marry you), he or she has a fundamental right to do so.

I also have to point out a few things in the original Mother Jones article that you cite (or actually, that youdon't cite...tsk, tsk). For example, the article doesn't really paint a very convincing picture of Aaron's "change"...

He's dated women, had sex with them even, although "I was pretty awkward," he says. "It just didn't work." Aaron has a theory about this: "I never used my body in a sexual way. I think the men who actually act it out have a greater success in terms of being sexual with women than the men who didn't act it out." Not surprisingly, he's never had a long-term relationship, and he's pessimistic about his prospects. "I can't make that jump from having this attraction to doing something about it." But, he adds, it's wrong to think "if you don't make it with women, then you haven't changed." The important thing is that "now I like myself. I'm not emotionally shut down. I'm comfortable in my own body. I don't have to be drawn to men anymore. I'm content at this point to lead an asexual life, which is what I've done for most of my life anyway." He adds, "I'm a very detached person."

Adopting a celibate lifestyle doesn't sound to me like "Aaron" is actually changing his sexual orientation. He is just repressing his orientation in order to reconcile his obvious (and truly sad) self-loathing. It certainly doesn't sound like he's shifted into a heathy sexuality of any sort, and in fact, the story of "former homosexual man Aaron" is a perfect example of the sort of identity shift that the Laumann study acutally talks about.

The bogus and anecdotal evidence of the ex-gay movement does not have any actual credibility, since scientific studies do not consider anecdotal claims as valid evidence. If you want for this sort of anecdote to have any real meat behind it, however, you would need to show us where "Aaron" has participated in an scientifically credible, longitudinal study that objectively tracked the claim that his underlying sexuality, and not merely his self-identification and/or behavior had actually changed. Without variation, the claims of reparative therapy groups crumble when they are exposed to rigorous scientific review.

percivale

-------------------------

"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.

...is the interesting manner that ex-gay pundits avoid any long term study of their subjects who claim to have had their sexuality changed. You can produce these kinds of stories all day long, but without some longitudinal evidence to back them up, they really just aren't all that believable. Michael Glatze "came out" as an "ex-gay" earlier this year (in July of 2007, I think), after undergoing a religious conversion. The ex-gay movement is FULL of stories about people who have a "religious experience" and then (temporarily) renounce their sexual orientation. But, those conversions don't seem to last, really, and if Michael Glatze follows the typical pattern that has been tracked in the extant studies, within five years he will be back on the gay bandwagon, and sorry that he ever fell prey to the charalatans of the ex-gay movement.

percivale

-------------------------

"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.

> The longitudinal evidence that backs
> them up is the very Luaman Study you
> cite as authoritative.

A longitudinal study is a correlational research study that involves repeated observations of the same items over long periods of time, often many decades. Longitudinal studies are often used in psychology to study developmental trends across the life span. The reason for this is that unlike cross-sectional studies, longitudinal studies track the same people, and therefore the differences observed in those people are less likely to be the result of cultural differences across generations.

Cross-sectional studies (also known as Cross-sectional analysis) form a class of research methods that involve observation of some subset of a population of items all at the same time, in which, groups can be compared at different ages with respect of independent variables, such as IQ and memory. The fundamental difference between cross-sectional and longitudinal studies is that cross-sectional studies take place at a single point in time and that a longitudinal study involves a series of measurements taking over a period of time.

As the very material that I quoted above directly from the Laumann report notes, that was a cross-sectional study, not a longitudinal study.

> In your desire to spin such evidence
> you have been forced to say that
> essentially that anyone who is ex-gay
> was never “really” gay to begin with.

Not at all. I am saying that in exactly the manner that the Laumann study notes, the way that people self-identity may change, but that identity really can have very little to do with what their actual desires and attractions really are.

> Yet the “really” gay is precisely what
> the Luaman study calls into question.

Factually incorrect. You obviously didn't read the extensive material that I cited from the study. The Lauman study only showed that the way that people self-identify changes. It did not speak in any way to address the question of biologically determined sexual orientation.

> Now its not important to my worldview
> that everyone is “really” heterosexual.
> Yet it seems imperative for you to prove
> that everyone who ever identified as
> homosexual really is.

Not at all. People who exhibit the ability to "shift" back and forth with their attractions are by definition bisexual, which again is something that the Laumann study mentions explicitly in the context that I have suggested.

percivale

-------------------------

"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.

``If homosexuality is not a choice and nothing can change it, how do you justify someone who is gay in April and three months later, straight?``

Not being able to talk to him, its hard to say for sure, but I think if I were there to ask him some other questions, he would likely fall into one of the categories that covers every such incident I`ve ever encountered. These include
a } He doesn`t understand the words as they are used in the social sciences. I`ve met straight guys who didn`t think they were heterosexual (they thought that meant you have both kinds of genitalia} until I took out a dictionary and showed them what it means. They were just learning the terms and learning how to label themselves. Just because they started using the words correctly didn`t mean they had ``changed.``

b } He has been pressured into redefining terms (this often is the result of an anti gay religious organization`s influence} to mean something different from the accepted definitions or to label himself differently, though his natural attractions and orientation have not changed. Some anti gay groups tell their gay followers to start calling themselves ``Straight`` or even ``Same Sex Attracted`` instead of gay, even though nothing has changed.

c } He is bisexual and is not using the terms as they are normally used in the social sciences. He may not understand that not everyone is attracted to both sexes, and he may be labeling himself on one side or the other according to his current choice of partner. I know a guy who is attracted to men and women equally. He uses the label ``straight`` when asked just because his wife likes the sound of it better.

d } Often in these cases, I`ve found that the ``change`` is the perception of rumors even though if I ask the guy himself he says, ``Everyone`s wrong. I haven`t changed. I`ve always been bi.`` or ``I`ve always been straight.`` I can`t say that`s the case here IF you`ve actually asked HIM.

There are many other possibilities, but these are some of the most common.

``Then again, how do you justify someone who is so naturally attracted to the opposite gender that she gets pregnant, and later tells me that "that is why she is lesbian now".

Her statement as you`ve stated it here doesn`t even make any sense, so it`s hard to comment. She was ``so attracted to men`` that she`s a lesbian???` If so, maybe she doesn`t understand what the word means.... Or she`s pregnant and that`s why she`s a lesbian? Could she have been joking and you didn`t get the joke? I can only guess because it doesn`t make any sense at all. I think you would have to ask some other questions to understand what she meant.