Permissive Laws, Permissive Behaviour

Dr. Trayce Hansen, licensed clinical and forensic psychologist, compiled an overview of various comprehensive research studies performed regarding the genetic v. environmental debate surrounding homosexuality.

Permissive Laws, Permissive Behaviour

Extensive research from Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the United States reveals that homosexuality is primarily environmentally induced. Specifically, social and/or family factors, as well as permissive environments which affirm homosexuality, play major environmental roles in the development of homosexual behavior.

A closer look at the research

Twin study investigations of homosexuality were recently conducted in both Sweden and Finland. Such twin studies compare rates of homosexual behavior between different sibling groups who share varying degrees of genetic similarity (ie, identical twins versus non-identical twins). By comparing such rates, twin studies help sort out the extent to which homosexual behavior is genetic and/or environmental. For instance, if homosexuality is genetic, then in cases where one identical twin is homosexual the co-twin should be homosexual nearly 100 percent of the time because identical twins share 100 percent of their genes.

But that is not what these two large-scale Scandinavian studies found. Both studies revealed that when one identical twin was homosexual the other twin was homosexual only 10 percent or 11 percent of the time. Such findings indicate that homosexuality is not genetically determined.

A Danish research investigation studied two million adults living in Denmark, a country where same-sex marriage has been legal since 1989. This study uncovered a number of specific environmental factors that increase the probability an individual will seek a same-sex rather than an opposite-sex partner for marriage.

For Danish men, the environmental factors associated with higher rates of homosexual marriage include an urban birthplace and an absent or unknown father. Significantly, there was a linear relationship between degree of urbanization of birthplace and whether a man chose homosexual or heterosexual marriage as an adult. In other words, the more urban a man's birthplace, the more likely he was to marry a man, while the more rural a man's birthplace, the more likely he was to marry a woman.

For Danish women, the environmental factors related to increased likelihood of homosexual marriage include an urban birthplace, maternal death during adolescence, and mother-absence.

...

Finally, an American research study—the most comprehensive and representative survey of sexual behavior in America—reported its findings concerning homosexuality. The results of this study also support an environmental theory of homosexuality, not a genetic one. In particular, this survey identified specific types of environments that increase the likelihood of homosexual behavior. The authors describe these environments as "congenial" to the development of homosexuality.

For American men, the environmental factor most related to homosexual behavior was the degree of urbanization during the teenage years. Specifically, boys who lived in large urban centers between the ages of 14 and 16 were three to six times more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than were boys who lived in rural communities during those same ages. The authors offer the following possibility: "an environment that provides increased opportunities for and fewer negative sanctions against same-gender sexuality may both allow and even elicit expression of same-gender interest and sexual behavior." Note the word "elicit." These researchers believe that growing up in a more pro-homosexual region may evoke or draw out homosexual behavior in young men. The implication is that some homosexual men who were reared in urban centers would not have become homosexual if reared in non-urban centers. The authors explain, "the environment in which people grow up affects their sexuality in very basic ways."

This map of the CA Prop 8 results would seem to support the "urban influence" findings.

For American women, the environmental factor most associated with a homosexual or bisexual identity was a higher level of education. And though that was also true for men, the pattern for women was more dramatic. For instance, a woman with a college degree was nine times more likely to identify herself as non-heterosexual than a woman with only a high school diploma.

For more information about the college education influence on homosexual determination, click here.

To read the entire Trayce Hansen research compilation with reference and source citation, click here.

The Marketing of Evil

From another member of the DNA (Digital Network Army), comes a tip about a book that I will most definitely buy, devour, and promote, because I wholeheartedly agree with the very premise upon which it is written: that while the freedom-and-rights gift-wrap is beautiful and enticing, homosexuality is, at its very core, evil.

The Marketing of Evil, by veteran journalist David Kupelian.

"The Marketing of Evil" reveals how much of what Americans once almost universally abhorred has been packaged, perfumed, gift-wrapped and sold to them as though it had great value.  Highly skilled marketers, playing on our deeply felt national values of fairness, generosity and tolerance, have persuaded us to embrace as enlightened and noble that which all previous generations since America's founding regarded as grossly self-destructive - in a word, evil.

Love That Most Definitely Does NOT Work

The following excerpt is the disturbing reality of activists' desires for society as a whole to embrace "alternative" lifestyles as good and wholesome and acceptable.  I find the statement located in the parenthesis of the third bullet to be most exceptionally pertinent to the Prop 8 conversation and debate.

"Literally tens of millions of responsible, well-adjusted people are seeking out and living new ways of relating that don't embrace the traditional model of 'one man, one woman, sexually/emotionally exclusive, legally bound for life.' 

	Recognizing the demonstrated perils of legal marriage at a young age, people are postponing marriage, or (as has been the case in Scandinavia for decades) forgoing it altogether in favor of cohabitation in record numbers.
	Millions of senior citizens choose not to marry legally for a host of valid financial, tax, and emotional reasons.
	Millions of same-sex unions, both sexually-exclusive and non-exclusive, exist and thrive - yet participants generally cannot (and many say they would not) legally marry.
	Millions of couples (primarily) enjoy the swinging lifestyle, where sexual openness is paired with emotional exclusivity successfully to deepen and enhance the coupled relationship.
	There is a rapidly emerging polyamory movement that practices multiple, simultaneous, open and honest romantic relationships, including varying degrees of sexual intimacy.
	Elements of the BDSM/power exchange relationship style are being accepted by, and assimilated into, society at an increasing pace, despite widespread misunderstanding.
	Religiously-motivated polygamy has gradually re-emerged from the shadows and, when practiced responsibly and consensually among adults, is being objectively judged by many as deserving a measure of tolerance out of respect for religious diversity.

All of these choices, when practiced consensually and freely among adults, deserve respect and social support.  They also need the kind of empirical research to discover and promulgate 'best practices' that the old monogamous marriage model has enjoyed for decades.  Finally, there needs to be empirical research to help demolish unfounded stereotypes and prejudices that work to inhibit complete freedom of relationship choice.  We seek to support the attainment of all three objectives.

We honor and respect those who freely choose monogamous traditional marriage.  It is unquestionably a valid choice for many.  Nevertheless, we equally and firmly believe it is time to lay aside prejudice, inflexibility, ignorance and the insistence that humanity in all its wondrous diversity must adhere to a single acceptable model of intimate relationships, or do without."

Excerpt can be found on the home page of lovethatworks (dot) org.

Cohabitation, homosexuality, swinging, polyamory, BDSM (Bondage and discipline, Dominance and submission, Sadism, and Masochism), and polygamy!  Wondrous diversity?  Acceptable?  Deserve social support?  Unreal!  I am flabbergasted.  These are not "misunderstood" relationships.  In fact, research shows that they are socially devastating lifestyle choices.  And, of course, if you are one of the quiet majority that chooses to uphold and defend traditional marriage for society, if you choose to protect the innocence of children and secure a mother and a father for the wee ones, if you believe that monogamous traditional marriage is divinely appointed by God, then you are obviously, what was it (?), oh yes, "prejudiced, inflexible, ignorant, and dogmatic."  No matter that research shows that traditional marriage is best (and required) for the continuation of society and for the good mental and emotional health of children.  No matter that marriage between one man and one woman has worked for thousands of years.  No matter that the success of government and greater society depends wholly upon the success of the traditional family unit.  In this case, the embracing of "humanity in all its wondrous diversity" would suggest that we toss aside reason and govern ourselves, our communities, and our society based purely on emotion and passion.  This is foolish folly.  We have a Super Ego for a reason.  We need reason to temper our passions.  We need to be checked and reigned in.  

Between the Id, Ego, and Super Ego exists the same system of checks and balances that exists (or used to exist) in our government between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.  In the case of Proposition 8, the Id (gay rights activists fueled by activist judges) jumped off the deep end, demanding same-sex marriage so that the homosexual lifestyle could be sanctioned by the government, receive a stamp of approval, and roll forward in its agenda for total surrender and acceptance.  And where the Super Ego (gay bashers and homophobes) would have called for absolutely no gay union rights, the Ego (52% of Californians) jumped in with a reasonable compromise to make both sides happy (you get all the same rights under the title domestic partnerships while we retain the sacred word "marriage").  Or so the formula usually goes.  In this case, the Id decided to take a turn for the teenage worse and set off on a Herculean rampage against the Ego.  Now, the Super Ego is sitting back laughing at the petulant Id as it destroys its own case for same-sex marriage.

Are you a member of the voice of reason?  The Ego?  What are you doing today to further defend traditional marriage.  This fight is far from over.  In fact, it's just beginning.  So, grab a laptop, a mug of root beer, and a favorite snack then sit down and start saving marriage.  The real marriage.  The marriage that we know by experience works.  Blog, comment, Facebook, Twitter, My Space, whatever you decide to do, just get out there and do something!  Marriage needs us.  And the Internet, which is largely controlled by that stampeding, raging Id, needs more voices of reason.