October 23, 2004

DADDY DEAREST:

Known causes of same-sex attraction: If genes are not the cause of same-sex attraction in some people, what is? (SUSAN BRINKMANN, May-June, 2004, Catholic Standard & Times)

Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons, a West Conshohocken psychiatrist and principal contributor to the Catholic Medical Association's book, Homosexuality and Hope, identifies the major causes of same-sex attraction disorder (SSAD) in men and women.

In his contribution to the book by Father John Harvey, The Truth About Homosexuality, Fitzgibbons writes: "Weak masculine identity is easily identified and, in my clinical experience, is the major cause of SSAD in men. Surprisingly, it can be an outgrowth of weak eye-hand coordination which results in an inability to play sports well. This condition is usually accompanied by severe peer rejection."

In a culture dominated by sports heroes, it's easy to understand how a young boy who can't play ball or run fast may not feel very good about himself — especially when this is accompanied by ridicule from his peers and perhaps even exclusion and isolation. He may escape the resulting loneliness with academics or by cultivating comfortable relationships with girls.

"The sports wound will negatively affect the image of himself, his relationships with peers, his gender identity, and his body image," Fitzgibbons writes. "His negative view of his masculinity and his loneliness can lead him to crave the masculinity of his male peers."

Another major cause for SSAD is when a father is perceived by a child as distant, critical, selfish, angry or alcoholic. This produces yet another crucial conflict in the development of a boy's masculine identity. "As children and adolescents, these men yearned for acceptance, praise and physical affection from their fathers," Fitzgibbons said, "but their needs were never met."


The latter contributes to atheism as well, for obvious reasons.

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 23, 2004 10:08 AM
Comments

What a load of hooey. Just about what one would suspect from a publication dedicated to maintaining superstition in the face of God's nature.

How about: all--which is to say, All*--mammals start out with the female template. And female brains are wired differently from male brains. And no--which is to say, No--natural process, including the formation of male brains from the female template, is deterministic. Which means gays are born that way on account of God's say so.

This author cannot possibly account for gay athletes from model families, can it?

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 23, 2004 7:34 PM

Jeff:

Sure, theyt just have other pathologies, But the father role model problem is so classic it can only be ignored for psychological reasons.

Posted by: oj at October 23, 2004 9:33 PM

Jeff:

The truth is I have never known any gay men to be at all interested in athletics.

Posted by: Vince at October 23, 2004 11:13 PM

Vince:

You're not attempting to claim that there are no gay athletes, are you ?

Or are you just noting that you like to hang out with feminine gays ?

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at October 24, 2004 7:52 AM

The "Father Role Model Pattern" so utterly fails that it is supported only for theological reasons.

If it held at all, there would have been an explosion of atheism along with the divorce rate.

Not.

The FRMP is also a classic ad hominem attack--it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. And, as with all ad-hominem attacks, is a sign of an empty argument. A record breaking thread last week illustrates that point perfectly.

But what is telling is that this article fatally mistakes correlation for causation. Many, heck, most gays may have all the upper body strength for which teenage girls are famous.

That doesn't cause homosexuality, it is correlated with homosexuality to the cause of both.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 24, 2004 8:10 AM

Atheism rose with the decline of two parent households too.

Posted by: oj at October 24, 2004 9:35 AM

Hard to explain me, then.

Loved my father and he loved me, yet I'm an atheist.

Miserable eye-hand coordination and I was the classic fat klutz. Whenever we chose up sides, and there were an uneven number of boys, the last pick was, "You can have Harry."

Yet I'm not homosexual.

Orrin's error is that he has decided, without evidence, that homosexuality and atheism are not merely sins but diseases. This may not be true.

Asserting it is true does not make it so.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at October 24, 2004 2:49 PM

Harry:

Yours is just a function of your Marxism--different God is all.

Posted by: oj at October 24, 2004 5:49 PM

"... too."

In order for "too" to make sense, the former has to be true.

It isn't, nor is the latter.

And still ad hominem attacks.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 24, 2004 8:11 PM

How is an observed factual correlation ad hominem?

Posted by: oj at October 24, 2004 8:14 PM

It's your hope that I'm a Marxist, Orrin. You know I'm not.

But without that trope, you'd run a duller blog.

I believe it was Bruce -- whatever happened to him? -- who proposed that homosexuality was the result of birth order, at least among boys.

Face it, we don't have any idea why some people are partly or wholly homosexual. We can be pretty sure, though, that simple explanations are incorrect

Posted by: Harry Eagar at October 25, 2004 1:01 AM

Birth order appears to be a contributing factor for some too.

You can't defend every communist regime--especially Stalin's--hate every significant anti-communist, think the New Deal was about to work, etc., etc., without being a Marxist. Your views on every issue are very much those of an orthodox 40s liberal, so very much Marxist.

Posted by: oj at October 25, 2004 7:44 AM

OJ:

Harry is no closer to being a Marxist than you are.

How is it an ad hominem attack? Because it side steps the issue by casting an aspersion--never mind hopelessly confusing correlation with causation (NB: national income has also increased with single parent households)--upon atheists having nothing to do with their belief.

Atheism and Christianity have mutually exclusive truth values utterly independent upon the background of the people holding them.

That is how it is an ad hominem attack.

No one knows precisely how homosexuality occurs, any more than we know precisely how smoking causes cancer.

But those not protesting too loudly because their pet theological superstition is getting gored understand that it is very likely something that occurs during pregnancy, and that homosexuals, by and large have no more choice over their orientation than heterosexuals.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 25, 2004 7:14 PM

Jeff:

That's an ad hominem attack, to suggest that only biology could force homosexuality, rather than someone freely choosing it.

Posted by: oj at October 25, 2004 7:40 PM

Orrin:

That is fascinating. I have never thought about the correlation between atheism and children growing up with weak male role models, but it does make sense.

Michael:

Are you a gay athlete or just a feminine gay?

Posted by: Vince at October 25, 2004 7:49 PM

I don't recall defending any Marxist regime.

I just poke fun at the delusions of the antimarxists.

I'm a Constitutionalist, an atheist and I loved my father.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at October 25, 2004 8:05 PM

Stalin, Lenin, Castro, North Vietnam, the Cong, N.R.A....

Posted by: oj at October 25, 2004 8:11 PM

I'm an atheist. My father was always my best friend, as well as an excellent role model.

This Freudian theory of atheism is crackpot, and frankly rather impudent.

Partly, the problem here lies in the use of the term 'atheist'. I see no point in going around proclaiming myself an 'atheist', as the word affords too much dignity to the thing is opposes.

The fact is, that other than in discussions like these, my disbelief - or my absence of a belief - in God's existence, doesn't impinge upon my consciousness one iota. The absence of a supernatural deity from my life and from the universe is just obvious to me.

I don't believe in Santa, but I don't go around calling myself an 'aSanta-ist'. I don't believe in ghosts, but I don't insists upon the title 'aghostist'.

Calling someone an 'atheist' allows theists to put him in a category, to assign him a 'condition', make him seem abnormal in some way.

This condition can then be 'explained' - for example, with a crackpot Freudian theory.

In my opinion, the ouness is not on the non-believer, but on the theist, to explain why he has faith in something for which there is no material evidence.

Posted by: Brit at October 26, 2004 4:28 AM

Brit:

You're European, you don't count.

Posted by: oj at October 26, 2004 7:31 AM

OJ

First, I'm not European but British.

Second, if we don't count, why do you spend so much time talking about us?

I suspect you have a deep-seated envy of the traditions and history of the venerable founder nations across the pond. This is a perfectly common neurosis among colonial upstarts such as yourself, and can be entirely explained in terms of Oepidal father-figure hatred.

I suggest you visit your shrink. I believe I'm right in thinking that all Americans have one?

Posted by: Brit at October 26, 2004 7:55 AM

Brit:

You guys are the canary in the coalmine. You were once a great Christian nation that now wallows in secular statist drivel. I use you as a warning to us. Once your improbable Catholic PM is gone there seems little reason to hope for continued relevance.

Posted by: oj at October 26, 2004 8:19 AM

Do you realise how much you sound like an angsty teenager railing at his parents?

Pure Oedipus, son.

Posted by: Brit at October 26, 2004 8:31 AM

Brit:

Exactly. Laius dies and Maggie's one of us.

Posted by: oj at October 26, 2004 9:15 AM

Very good, OJ :)

Though I've always thought of Maggie as more Gorgon than Jocasta.

Posted by: Brit at October 26, 2004 9:26 AM

Yes, but we're her children, not you Brits.

Posted by: oj at October 26, 2004 9:31 AM

Oh dear. You see MT, your number one pin-up and lust object, as maternal?

This is an even more tangled Freudian web than I initially feared.

Posted by: Brit at October 26, 2004 9:34 AM

Vince:

Well, I'm not an athlete...

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at October 26, 2004 12:33 PM

I don't recall defending any of those guys.

I do recall pointing out that your beliefs about what went on there were sometimes -- frequently, in fact -- delusional

Posted by: Harry Eagar at October 26, 2004 2:51 PM

OJ:

Among other things, you have no idea what an ad hominem attack is.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 26, 2004 9:28 PM

AD HOMINEM - Definition
... WordNet Dictionary. Definition: [adj] appealing to personal considerations (rather
than to fact or reason);


The argument that they're controlled by biology is disconnected from fact and reason.

Posted by: oj at October 26, 2004 10:45 PM

It is disconnected from neither.

Your attack is ad hominem because you use it to avoid the points under consideration: all the fact and reason supporting homosexuality as innate, or that the cited article hopelessly confused correlation and causation.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 27, 2004 7:08 PM

No, it obviously doesn't cause either, else all boys with difficult or absent fathers would be gay, atheist, or both. Of course causation is alsoi rtuled out for bilogical factors on the same basis. The difference is that if those pathologioes are merely psychological defects they're probably easily treatable, whereas if it's bilogy the treatment will be medical or even eugenic..

Posted by: oj at October 27, 2004 7:15 PM

Yes OJ, I wish they'd hurry up and invent those anti-atheism pills. And homosexuals are just queueing round the block to be cured.

The only people I know who still think homosexuality is the kind of thing we need to set about 'curing', are people who work themselves up into red-faced frenzies at the mere mention of a 'shirtlifters', while at the same time refusing point-blank to believe that their favourite musicians - Freddie Mercury and Elton John - belong to the very category they'd like to eradicate.

Posted by: Brit at October 28, 2004 6:58 AM

Brit:

You think in a world where people Botox wrinkles they'll leave their fetuses gay?

Posted by: oj at October 28, 2004 7:09 AM

Nothing would surprise me.

But if it turned out that a bit of careful gene-tampering could 'nip homosexuality in the bud' it would prove your Freudian theory wrong.

Whether anyone ought to do it is another question.

Posted by: Brit at October 28, 2004 8:35 AM
« BONFIRE OF THE MYTHS: | Main | NAME GAME: »