Fathers, sons and homosexuality

The causes of homosexuality continue to both fascinate and divide people. Recently, in London, a conservative group of Anglicans, called the Anglican Mainstream hosted a conference to discuss the causes of homosexuality and promote change from gay to straight. Featured at the conference was American psychologist, Joseph Nicolosi. Dr. Nicolosi stirred much controversy when he said, without research support, that most of his clients show some degree of change in their sexual orientation.

Nicolosi's views regarding causes of homosexuality are also controversial. In response to a question about the existence of a gay gene, Nicolosi said:

In other words, that fact remains that if you traumatize a child in a particular way you will create a homosexual condition. If you do not traumatize a child, he will be heterosexual. If you do not traumatize a child in a particular way, he will be heterosexual. The nature of that trauma is an early attachment break during the bonding phase with the father.

In a popular book written with his wife, A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality, Nicolosi pegs the "crucial period" for bonding between father and son at "between one and a half to three years." Elsewhere, Nicolosi argues that fathers of homosexual sons are unavailable, detached and/or hostile. To fathers in London, he advised, "If you don't hug your sons, some other man will," suggesting that male homosexual attraction is a search for a father's love.

The father-deficit theory is considered outdated by mainstream sexuality researchers, but is popular among conservative Christians. This evangelical acceptance has always puzzled me because Nicolosi's statements regarding the origins of homosexuality can be discounted not only by research but by common experience. His theory is contradicted in at least two ways. The first way should be quite obvious to Nicolosi's audiences: there are many men who experienced poor fathering not only during the first six years of life but throughout childhood and are nonetheless, exclusively heterosexual.

Since many in Nicolosi's audiences are either unhappy with their homosexual attractions or do not know many secure gay people, the second problem might not be so clear. In contrast to Nicolosi's depictions of the typical family of gay males, many such men experienced loving, close relationships with their fathers throughout childhood with no break in attachment. Listen to one such father who spoke to me recently about his gay son.

When my son was 18 months to 3 years old (and on into childhood), we enjoyed a wonderfully close relationship. We explored the world behind the YMCA and called it travelling, looking for creatures in nooks and crannies. When it would snow, we bundled up and follow the same path. We hunted for snakes together in the creek, built a swamp world for various amphibians and generally loved each others' company. Wherever I was, there was my son; as my wife would say, we were like "Peel and Stick."

As he got older our relationship changed, but in a way that it should change. It matured into a friendship as father and son. After our son came out to us, our relationship did not change.

Does this sound like an uninvolved, detached father? This man's son concurs with his dad's assessment of the relationship. They were and are close, with no breaks during the period Nicolosi theorizes should cause homosexuality.

Devout Christians, the family attended conferences put on by conservative Christians who believed parental deficits were responsible for homosexuality. The answers they heard were very much like what Dr. Nicolosi promotes. These parents also took their son to a reparative therapist (i.e., counselor who holds to Nicolosi's theory) who evaluated the potential for sexual orientation change. The father reported that it wasn't helpful.

Not understanding the nature of his condition, we did take our son to a counselor. After several weeks of "therapy," our counselor told our son that he didn't know what to do. None of the stereotypes fit. Our son told his counselor that he had a wonderful and close relationship with his father and mom.

Although the parents maintain the traditional Christian, non-affirming view of homosexual behavior, parents and son have maintained their relationship. What they all do much less often now is become preoccupied over causes and self-blame. The father sees a bigger picture.

Dr. Nicolosi gets it wrong to reduce the thorns in our sides/lives to a human event where we have but one chance to get it right. Does that sound like the relationship we have with our heavenly Father? God has allowed all of us to experience thorns, some painfully obvious, others less so. No doubt the thorns God allows are refining our character and leading us back to Him.

In fact, sexual orientation is quite complex. Most likely, multiple pre-and post-natal factors are involved in different ways for different people. One size does not fit all. What this means for Christian groups, however, is the stuff of controversy. For some, it means that homosexuality should be affirmed and Scripture reframed. For others, it does not lead to a change of orthodoxy, but rather to greater humility regarding the need for spiritual support to live a different and often difficult calling. What is not needed is adoption of simple, but misleading, answers.

Warren Throckmorton, PhD is Associate Professor of Psychology and Fellow for Psychology and Public Policy at Grove City College (PA). He can be contacted through his blog at www.wthrockmorton.com.

It could have to do with something that happens during development in the womb,

Of all the explanations that I've heard over the years, I think that one is the most likely, that the levels of hormones during fetal development can result in different sexual orientations if too low or too high.

And then we have the cultures where male/male relationships have been different than in the modern Western societies. There were several articles after the invasion of Afghanistan about the practice of men seeking relationships with teen aged boys, especially around Kandahar. When women are less attainable, habits of the male often change.

It's not simple, and as some have said, the youth of today are more "flexible", even those who eventually marry the opposite sex.

Probably party nature and part nurture and part current fads.

However, it is an erroneous leap to then posit that either the “clown culture” is a dominantly gay creation - which would need to imply it is dominated, in its population by “gays”, for which there is no foundation, or that something called “the gay culture” has been cross-fertilized by the “clown culture”.

Neither of which I was suggesting. Rather, I was saying that there is something in human society that calls for and finds social utility for a subcultural phenomenon, such as clowns; and that gays are invading that niche in large numbers nowadays. Maybe because we're too sophisticated for clowns and decadent enough to let gays take that position.

If a “gay gene” exists, would not a gay person’s natural state to be void of the desire to procreate? If an individual’s natural state makes it impossible to procreate, then why is the gay community so desirous of changing society to allow for gay “parenting” and gay “marriage?” Both of these desired societal changes are in direct conflict with the natural state presented by a “gay gene.”

If one’s nature causes the desire to nuture, then how is it possible for the same nature to make it impossoble to fullfill that desire?

“Anybody who has raised cattle or studied the sexual behavior of jailbirds can tell you that, yes, it is not unusual to see bulls (or jailbirds) mounting each other when no females are available.”

That is not a function of sexual desire/orientation. It is simply a function of establishing dominance over the weaker members of the group.

I am sure there are many valid ‘causes’ for homosexuality. I had a professor friend who was gay. His mother was ‘seductive’, his sister was promiscuous and his father had always been distant or remote.

It may not be enough for the father to be unengaged, but an over involved mother (with he son) with no psychological boundaries can also play a major part....(in my humble opinion). The seductive aspects of a mother can also terrify a young boy. Mothers sleeping (not sexually) with young sons can confuse the ‘sexual identity’ of a young boy. He can come to identify with her especially with an unengaged or absent father.

If it is genetic, where did it come from? Pioneer families didn’t have the familial dynamics to set up these predisposing circumstances.

There needs to be more research in this area, examining ‘historical’ gays, family dynamics. England sure produced a bunch but only in the ‘boarding school’ classes. Working class yobs just didn’t grow such a crop of them.

Oh, well....it is fascinating for sure.

“Rather, I was saying that there is something in human society that calls for and finds social utility for a subcultural phenomenon, such as clowns; and that gays are invading that niche in large numbers nowadays. Maybe because we’re too sophisticated for clowns and decadent enough to let gays take that position.”

I think you still have it backwards. I do not think the human finds a “social utility for a subcultural phenomenon”; I think “subcultures” are a natural element, a natural development of “culture” of humanity, because the higher intelligence plus genetic diversity plus diversity of circumstances plus individual choice and “value” decisions inbred into the human individual CANNOT create a monolithic culture that can contain all the satisfying elements for all individuals.

It is ONLY HUMAN, due to “human nature” that human society is composed of many sub-cultures; and some of them will always seem more “outside” the rest.

The fact that such sub-cultures exist is not part of a rational societal choice, to induce their creation, but the net affect of millions of individual choices.

My late brother was abused by a pedophile [.....] when he was in grade school. Our father was cold and distant when he was sober and mean and irrational when he was drunk every evening. I used to think that my brother was born homosexual, but my mind has been changed by this and other theories like it. Well, that and my sister’s informing me about the pedophile — as the “baby” of the family, those sorts of things were kept from me. By the time I was seven, all the other people in my family were adults.

Throckmorton is attacking what virtually is a strawman version of Nicolosi’s theory. Nicolosi is speaking of the most common case he sees, a situation which can (but need not necessarily) lead to homosexuality and other family relation dysfunctions. Had Nicolosi documented this better at his talk, even a statistics head would be able to see these common issues.

That is not a function of sexual desire/orientation. It is simply a function of establishing dominance over the weaker members of the group.

Maybe. I would suspect the motivations are as varied as those engaging in the behavior. They say rape is a crime of violence and establishing dominance and not sexual desire either. Some say the same about pedophilia. But I think it is hard to draw a neat boundary line between the two.

Properly developed men may have sexual desires (it is innate), but they also learn how to control them either due to proper upbringing or societal factors or even something as simple not to get lead poisoning from the girl's father.

That third point, the one about molestation, is not sufficiently explored by the author. You are quite right. #3 is a huge factor.

In fact, in my experience, even if #1 and #2 in your list are ok (sort of like what the author is saying), there might be a #3 which the child has not told anyone. And Christian youth camps are often the venues for molestation.

Bottom line? Your list is spot on. Without 1 or more of those, no homosexuality. With one or more of those, the chance of homosexuality goes way up.

The first part of your statement attacks a straw man with somewhat tortured logic. I won’t argue with you there because it’s largely irrelvant (IMO).

Your definition of “psychosis” is idiosyncratic. Try reading the DSM-IV for a clearer understanding in “practical” terms.

BTW, I am a mental health professional with a research doctorate and about 30 years experience in the field. (Yes. There are a few conservatives in the field. We huggle and whisper our thoughts privately lest the pod people find out about us).

“Certainly not every homosexual has that background, but in my experience its a very very large percentage.”

I agree with your three common threads. I also think there are homosexuals who simply turn out that way or are born that way. Trying to find absolute common causes of homosexuality is pretty much a waste of time.

The first part of your statement attacks a straw man with somewhat tortured logic. I won’t argue with you there because it’s largely irrelvant (IMO)

If you would be a little more specific, I would love to engage you in debate. However, just for clarity, let summarize my points:

1) “Sexual orientation,” as a debate term, has no practical relevance since it can mean whatever anyone subjectively wishes it to mean.

2) Homosexuality is defined in a practical sense only by behavior.

3) Any mentally healthy human being chooses his or her behavior.

4) Therefore, one is a homosexual purely by choosing to be so.

Your definition of “psychosis” is idiosyncratic. Try reading the DSM-IV for a clearer understanding in “practical” terms.

Here is the definition (and its source) that I was using:

psy⋅cho⋅sis - Med.) A disease of the mind; especially, a functional mental disorder, that is, one unattended with evident organic changes.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

BTW, I am a mental health professional with a research doctorate and about 30 years experience in the field. (Yes. There are a few conservatives in the field. We huggle and whisper our thoughts privately lest the pod people find out about us).

My doctoral work is also in psychology. Unfortunately, the financial necessity of family demands forced me to abandon my course of study approximately half way through. Nonetheless, I found the field a fascinating study albeit, in many cases, fraught with a huge number of half-baked and poorly researched (in a scientific sense) theories.

I agree that homosexuals choose to engage in that behavior, and that people (in general) choose to behave as they do. After all, I am a dedicated cognitive-behaviorist. However, we are finding increasing evidence of neurological and genetic factors that influence our choices.

The research on genetic influences on human behavior is many years from being conclusive, so we can only surmise. Karl Popper would say that scientists always surmise because non-mathematical theories can never be proven true, only false. Thus, it becomes a question of emerging consensus based on a collected body of empirical evidence.

I also agree that psychological research has greatly deteriorated as the field has become more political. However, I am more interested in neuroscience and genetics research. Those professions seem far less affected by political correcteness.

IMHO, non-political scientists are developing an emerging consensus that there is a gay gene in humans and other mammals. The percentage of people who are affected by this presumed gene is unknown. The current thought is that 10-15% is the outside limit. It may be a significantly smaller number. So when homosexuals say they are “born gay”, most, if not the vast majority are likely FOS.

Also note that “mentally healthy” is and continues to be a historically subjective term.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.