Study: Homosexuality Linked with Childhood Trauma

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | July 27, 2010 | By James Tillman

[netmilsmom]

>>Your take on these two mounting behaviors? <<

That animals are so stupid they will hump anything.

[netmilsmom]

>>One would have to be an animal to know for sure (or at least be inside their heads).<<

If one humanizes animals, one can conclude that they have emotions and the ability to chose a sexual partner.

I’m above the animals.

And the reference is back in my Psych book from the seventies.
When I find it, I’ll put it up.

[Ol' Sparky]

since we can’t prove that people are not born that way, then I say, maybe, maybe not.

We can't prove that murderers weren't born to murder, either. Should we consider the actions of a murderer to be genetically-caused?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Purplereporter -- Please reference or link to research findings of 10% homosexual.

I am aware that the 10 percent claim goes back to Alfred Kinsey’s 1948 book Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, in which it is stated that "10 percent of the males are more or less exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55." On the same page, however, Kinsey states that "4 percent of the white males are exclusively homosexual throughout their lives after adolescence." For political reasons, gay rights activists prefer to quote the 10 percent over the 4 percent statistic.

Kinsey's numbers are, moreover, certainly inflated because many of his respondants were recruited from the incarcerated propulation or were oteherwise self-selected, not randomized. (E.g. they overrepresented people in prison, where situational homosexual behavior is much more common than in the average community, and overrepresented the types of people who like talking about sex.)

A more recent 1990 survey of more than 10,000 persons by the National Center for Health Statistics indicates that homosexuals and bisexuals combined amount to about 1.5 percent of the population. (Link)

[GourmetDan]

"Add in an inattentive father, the two I know had both."

I knew a man who had come out of the homosexual lifestyle and counseled those wanting to leave (both male and female). He said his own experience and the universal condition of those whom he counseled was a broken relationship with their father.

Lots of different reasons, not always the father's fault, sometimes broken only on the offspring's side. But, according to him, a broken relationship with the father was always there and always needed healing.

[GSWarrior]

I think you are full of it.

[GSWarrior]

You are full of crap.

[GSWarrior]

Sorry for the duplicate post.

[Mrs. Don-o]

The summary posted hear doesn't say they "started off with" homosexuals, or that they asked them only one, possibly tendentious, question ("Were you abused?")

It says they started off with about 13,000 people surveyed between 2003 and 2006. 98% of the participants in the study identified themselves as heterosexual. It also doesn't mention having any "results in mind before the study was started." It would surprise me if they were not asked a whole lot of survey questions, and these particular correlations were found to be statistically significant.

But possibly you have read the study itself, and not just this very brief press report? I'm interested. Do you have a link?

[Ben Mugged]

The title of the published paper says a lot. "Multiple Aspects of Sexual Orientation: Prevalence and Sociodemographic Correlates in a New Zealand National Survey ". The key phrase being "Sociodemographic Correlates in a New Zealand National Survey". The author of the paper took a New Zealand study of sexuality and extrapolated conclusions. May sound bigoted but I have seen enough of these studies over the last 45 years to suspect they have an ulterior motive and that they sometimes "shop around" for datum that correlate their desired result. I simply don't trust them anymore. Kinsey was the first I read and look at how screwed up his results were.

My criticism of the conclusions were in comparison to my real-world experiences which significantly differ with their extrapolated results. I am not pro-homosexual or anti-homosexual. I don't have a dog in the fight until my rights are tread upon.

[SonOfDarkSkies]

If one humanizes animals, one can conclude that they have emotions and the ability to chose a sexual partner.

Much too general a statement to bear significance (some animals mate for life--swans, for example). And animals most certain choose sexual partners...just think of all the odd mating rituals males of many species go through to win a sexual partner.

Whether animals have "emotions" (depending on how the term "emotion" is defined) is completely independent of how human may or may not think of animals.

And as to emotions, your 1970's psych book has been profoundly outdated by more recent work that relates emotional sensation and thought to brain chemistry and electrical activity which is measurable by MRI and PET scans.

And BTW I know some humans (many actually) who are definitely NOT above animals. Funny thing that...they are all Liberals.

[Titus-Maximus]

That’s NUTS!

[Titus-Maximus]

There was stress as well throughout history so that argument is not persuasive.

The interesting fact that suggests nurturing is that the children of openly homosexual parents are 7 times more likely to become homosexual themselves. Adopted children, not linked by blood, mimic their parents. It is therefore chosen behavior but children don’t have the ability to make a choice - they are forced into it.

[Ben Mugged]

The interesting fact that suggests nurturing is that the children of openly homosexual parents are 7 times more likely to become homosexual themselves. Adopted children, not linked by blood, mimic their parents. It is therefore chosen behavior but children don’t have the ability to make a choice - they are forced into it.

"Children of openly homosexual parents" is a 20th century artifact. How do you explain the other 8000 years?

[Titus-Maximus]

Because the children are 7 times more likely to be homosexual than the contemporary population - that is the evidence. We have no data on 8000 years, but we have data now and I know it is difficult to accept but the proof is crystal clear.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Have you any factual foundation for your supposition that Wells cherry-picked data or illegitimately extrapolated conclusions?

Kinsey's methods were scientifically disgraceful and have been thoroughly debunked. I'm sure you've seen Judith Reisman's takedown of his methodology.

From what's in this article, Wells is just noting statistically significant correlations from a survey of 13,000 people whose participation was not influenced by suggestion, recruitment, reward, or pressure on Wells' part. Absent evidence that this researcher, Elisabeth Wells, is a Kinseyesque fraud, your conclusion lacks much persuasive force.

[kanawa]

That animals are so stupid they will hump anything.

ROFL Yep!

People, on the other hand, are more intelligent
and should be able to recognize appropriate behavior for their sex... and species.

[Ben Mugged]

Abstract Sexual orientation consists of multiple components. This study investigated both sexual identity and same-sex sexual behavior. Data came from the New Zealand Mental Health Survey, a nationally representative community sample of New Zealanders aged 16 years or older, interviewed face-to-face (N = 12,992, 48% male). The response rate was 73.3%. Self-reported sexual identity was 98.0% heterosexual, 0.6% bisexual, 0.8% homosexual, 0.3% “Something else,” and 0.1% “Not sure.” Same-sex sexual behavior with a partner was more common: 3.2% reported same-sex sexual experience only and 1.9% reported both experience and a relationship. For analysis of childhood and lifecourse, five sexuality groups were investigated: homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual divided into those with no same-sex sexual experience, experience only, and experience and relationship. The non-exclusively heterosexual groups were more likely to have experienced adverse events in childhood. Educational achievement and current equivalized household income did not differ systematically across the sexuality groups. Only 9.4% of the exclusively heterosexual lived alone, compared with 16.7% of bisexuals and 19.0% of homosexuals. Heterosexuals were more likely than bisexuals or homosexuals to have ever married or had biological children, with differences more marked for males than for females. Heterosexuals with no same-sex sexual experience were more likely to be currently married than the other two heterosexual groups. Restricting comparisons to heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual identification ignores the diversity within heterosexuals. Differences between the bisexual and homosexual groups were small compared with the differences between these groups and the exclusively heterosexual group, except for sex (80.8% of bisexuals were female).

There are a lot of generalizations in this abstract. I started to do the analysis for you but I have better things to do. Remember I don't have a dog in this fight and I win nothing by convincing even one person. Even if that person is me.

[Mrs. Don-o]

OK. That’s all right. I just thought you might have some info. If you have some in the future, please ping me, I’d appreciate it.

[netmilsmom]

>>People, on the other hand, are more intelligent
and should be able to recognize appropriate behavior for their sex... and species. <<

I fully agree with you!