36 replies to this topic

[Hasan]

WHY are political and religious figures who campaign against gay rights so often implicated in sexual encounters with same-sex partners?

In recent years, Ted Haggard, an evangelical leader who preached that homosexuality was a sin, resigned after a scandal involving a former male prostitute; Larry Craig, a United States senator who opposed including sexual orientation in hate-crime legislation, was arrested on suspicion of lewd conduct in a men’s bathroom; and Glenn Murphy Jr., a leader of the Young Republican National Convention and an opponent of same-sex marriage, pleaded guilty to a lesser charge after being accused of sexually assaulting another man.
One theory is that homosexual urges, when repressed out of shame or fear, can be expressed as homophobia. Freud famously called this process a “reaction formation” — the angry battle against the outward symbol of feelings that are inwardly being stifled. Even Mr. Haggard seemed to endorse this idea when, apologizing after his scandal for his anti-gay rhetoric, he said, “I think I was partially so vehement because of my own war.”
It’s a compelling theory — and now there is scientific reason to believe it. In this month’s issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, we and our fellow researchersprovide empirical evidence that homophobia can result, at least in part, from the suppression of same-sex desire.
Our paper describes six studies conducted in the United States and Germany involving 784 university students. Participants rated their sexual orientation on a 10-point scale, ranging from gay to straight. Then they took a computer-administered test designed to measure their implicit sexual orientation. In the test, the participants were shown images and words indicative of hetero- and homosexuality (pictures of same-sex and straight couples, words like “homosexual” and “gay”) and were asked to sort them into the appropriate category, gay or straight, as quickly as possible. The computer measured their reaction times.
The twist was that before each word and image appeared, the word “me” or “other” was flashed on the screen for 35 milliseconds — long enough for participants to subliminally process the word but short enough that they could not consciously see it. The theory here, known as semantic association, is that when “me” precedes words or images that reflect your sexual orientation (for example, heterosexual images for a straight person), you will sort these images into the correct category faster than when “me” precedes words or images that are incongruent with your sexual orientation (for example, homosexual images for a straight person). This technique, adapted from similar tests used to assess attitudes like subconscious racial bias, reliably distinguishes between self-identified straight individuals and those who self-identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual.
Using this methodology we identified a subgroup of participants who, despite self-identifying as highly straight, indicated some level of same-sex attraction (that is, they associated “me” with gay-related words and pictures faster than they associated “me” with straight-related words and pictures). Over 20 percent of self-described highly straight individuals showed this discrepancy.
Notably, these “discrepant” individuals were also significantly more likely than other participants to favor anti-gay policies; to be willing to assign significantly harsher punishments to perpetrators of petty crimes if they were presumed to be homosexual; and to express greater implicit hostility toward gay subjects (also measured with the help of subliminal priming). Thus our research suggests that some who oppose homosexuality do tacitly harbor same-sex attraction.
What leads to this repression? We found that participants who reported having supportive and accepting parents were more in touch with their implicit sexual orientation and less susceptible to homophobia. Individuals whose sexual identity was at odds with their implicit sexual attraction were much more frequently raised by parents perceived to be controlling, less accepting and more prejudiced against homosexuals.
It’s important to stress the obvious: Not all those who campaign against gay men and lesbians secretly feel same-sex attractions. But at least some who oppose homosexuality are likely to be individuals struggling against parts of themselves, having themselves been victims of oppression and lack of acceptance. The costs are great, not only for the targets of anti-gay efforts but also often for the perpetrators. We would do well to remember that all involved deserve our compassion.


Richard M. Ryan is a professor of psychology, psychiatry and education at the University of Rochester. William S. Ryan is a doctoral student in psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

[Luigi]

And maybe you're not.

Maybe you've thought about it from multiple perspectives and come to an intellectual conclusion that is at odds with the current intellectual fashion.


And really - does anyone take Freud seriously these days?

[mortify]

Homophobia is a non sensical term.

[Hasan]

And maybe you're not.

Maybe you've thought about it from multiple perspectives and come to an intellectual conclusion that is at odds with the current intellectual fashion.


And really - does anyone take Freud seriously these days?

I take it you didn't read the article.

[Basilisa Marie]

But at least some who oppose homosexuality are likely to be individuals struggling against parts of themselves, having themselves been victims of oppression and lack of acceptance. The costs are great, not only for the targets of anti-gay efforts but also often for the perpetrators. We would do well to remember that all involved deserve our compassion.

I think that^ is important. I've noticed that it's not just that these people who are later "outed" are anti-gay rights, it's that more often than not it seems that they push an anti-gay position with an unsettling amount of hatred attached. Everyone deserves compassion.

But I also think that articles like these are dangerous, because the final message of compassion for everyone is almost ALWAYS lost, and people take this as supposed "evidence" that anyone who opposes gay rights in any fashion is secretly gay and hates himself.

[Hasan]

I think that^ is important. I've noticed that it's not just that these people who are later "outed" are anti-gay rights, it's that more often than not it seems that they push an anti-gay position with an unsettling amount of hatred attached. Everyone deserves compassion.

But I also think that articles like these are dangerous, because the final message of compassion for everyone is almost ALWAYS lost, and people take this as supposed "evidence" that anyone who opposes gay rights in any fashion is secretly gay and hates himself.

I think that any article can be 'dangerous' if you are deciding that label on what somebody who doesn't bother to read the article could possibly come away with.

[MissyP89]

If we lose compassion, we lose the capacity for reasoned, open dialogue. We won't get anywhere without it.

[cmotherofpirl]

I have never met any who was afraid of gay people. Who could not like a happy person?

[Hasan]

I have never met any who was afraid of gay people. Who could not like a happy person?

[beatitude]

^
I am going to have nightmares about that bird thing now.

[Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye]

Why does not agreeing with somone asertain to being anti or persecutive. Your all paranoid. Grow up! I'm tired of the cold war which indeed now seems to have become a social war, vying for position and glory. We have all watched Lord of the rings yeah? And how mans greatest weakness is his thirst for power. And we christians should already know that because it is the devils oldest trick where he said to adam and eve that God didn't wan't us to eat from the tree in the middle of the garden because God secretly knew we would become Gods if we did so. I'm neither anti homosexual nore pro homosexual, but i do understand lust is a sin and can become a grave disorder which reduces the ability to recieve Gods love and return with true charity in what we say and do,and not just a dollar bill.

Edited by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye, 28 April 2012 - 06:52 PM.

[Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye]

Well possibly a bit hard on the cane but it all does seem overly paranoid. And i should know coz i'm like the noid of nodes thinking everyone and everything is out to get me @ times and please whack me whenever i vocalise these misled feelings.

[Ice_nine]

nvm

Edited by Ice_nine, 28 April 2012 - 11:53 PM.

[Luigi]

I take it you didn't read the article.

I did read the article. I find it meaningless. If they published an article that said "It might rain tomorrow," my reaction would be the same - "and it might not."

Additionally, I question their methodology. The efficacy of subliminal suggestion is still disputed, so I question their claim that their experiment "reliably distinguishes" true sexual identity from stated sexual identity.

Their results show a discrepancy between real sexual identity and stated sexual identity of "over 20%" - but they don't say how much over. Can I assume 'just over'? 'Approximately'? Good researchers would tell you, not let you assume.

The 20% in the discrepancy group were "more likely" to be harsher toward homosexuals. How much more likely? Are we talking 50% of 20%?

And even if the results are valid, so what? Is the implication that we should disregard the anti-homosexual stance of those who are secretly homosexual? Is their stance tainted or invalidated by the fact that they have a direct connection & involvement with the question? If anything, that should strengthen the validity of their opinions. Perhaps they see the negative consequences more clearly than those who aren't connected & involved, and struggle to do something about it in much the same way that a diabetic might fight to have hidden sugars removed from processed foods, an alocholic might work to get liquor stores out of the neighborhood, or a reformed smoker might campaign to limit smoking in public places.

It's basically an ad hominem attack - if I can figure out your background and who you (really, truly, secretly) are, I can rationalize my way to ignoring your position. But true argumentation looks at reasons, not who is speaking the reasons.

[Papist]

Accepting, unconditionally, behavior which you believe to be harmful to the person is not compassion.

[MissyP89]

Papist, a question (no debate intended here): if a person with SSA believes that a Catholic loves and accepts them, is that an indicator that the Catholic isn't being clear enough about their position?

It seems to me that if we speak the truth, they're going to get upset. So if they're not upset, we're doing something "wrong."

Apologies if this post is unclear. I'm having a hard time expressing what I mean...

Edited by MissyP89, 29 April 2012 - 01:40 PM.

[Norseman82]

What's next - concluding God is gay because He set forth anti-homosexual standards in the Bible?

[BG45]

What's next - concluding God is gay because He set forth anti-homosexual standards in the Bible?

Actually I can't link to it here, but that's already been said. In fact there are entire fiction communities dedicated to writing about Jesus and His disciples engaging in homosexual sex.

[BigJon16]

Papist, a question (no debate intended here): if a person with SSA believes that a Catholic loves and accepts them, is that an indicator that the Catholic isn't being clear enough about their position?

It seems to me that if we speak the truth, they're going to get upset. So if they're not upset, we're doing something "wrong."

We can still "speak the Truth" with compassion and love.

John Paul II once said: "Do not accept anything as the truth if it lacks love, And do not accept anything as love which lacks truth! One without the other becomes a destructive lie."

From Chris Stefnick's book, Absolute Relativism: The New Dictatorship and what to do about it:

Jesus did accept people as they were, but he also challenged them to change their lives. These two aspects of His ministry stand in contradiction only if you fail to grasp what motivated his interactions with others: Love.

Jesus Christ was so welcoming that it shocked the people of his day and would probably scandalize some of his followers today. He ate and drank with sinners. In other words, he was able to hang out with completely non-religious people without scaring them away.

On the other hand, Jesus was also extremely challenging to those he welcomed. Like any religious leader throughout history, Jesus invited people to to live in a certain way.

Jesus Christ loved everyone enough to accept them as they were. Immoral behavior being as damaging as it is, he also loved them too much to let them stay that way.

Jesus taught his followers to do as He did: to welcome everyone but also teach about sin, since love demands warning people about what can hurt them.

We must approach the questions of this time--questions like abortion, homosexuality, and other immoral things--with both Truth and Love.


As Catholic Christians, we know the Truth, and so we must make it known to people who live lives of sin, but we must do it out of Love, not out of pride of "being right" or anger towards a psychological phenomena.

"To share the truth about Christ effectively, you have to truly love people--not just loving them so that they might convert but wanting their conversion because you love them..." (Chris Stefanick. Also taken from the book mentioned above.)

[Hasan]

I did read the article. I find it meaningless. If they published an article that said "It might rain tomorrow," my reaction would be the same - "and it might not."

I was referring instead to your comment which seemed to imply that the results were based on Freudism.

Additionally, I question their methodology. The efficacy of subliminal suggestion is still disputed, so I question their claim that their experiment "reliably distinguishes" true sexual identity from stated sexual identity.

By who?

Their results show a discrepancy between real sexual identity and stated sexual identity of "over 20%" - but they don't say how much over. Can I assume 'just over'? 'Approximately'? Good researchers would tell you, not let you assume.

The 20% in the discrepancy group were "more likely" to be harsher toward homosexuals. How much more likely? Are we talking 50% of 20%?

Ok, so the only methodological objections that you can raise would be regarding their use of semantic association to gauge true sexual orientation. Which may be perfectly valid. I don't know. The above request for sources was earnest. But the rest is just you kicking up dust. You know perfectly well that this was not the study, this is a highly abbreviated presentation of the actual study to the popular press. If you want to find out exactly how much more than 20% that would be pretty easy to discover.

And even if the results are valid, so what? Is the implication that we should disregard the anti-homosexual stance of those who are secretly homosexual? Is their stance tainted or invalidated by the fact that they have a direct connection & involvement with the question? If anything, that should strengthen the validity of their opinions. Perhaps they see the negative consequences more clearly than those who aren't connected & involved, and struggle to do something about it in much the same way that a diabetic might fight to have hidden sugars removed from processed foods, an alocholic might work to get liquor stores out of the neighborhood, or a reformed smoker might campaign to limit smoking in public places.

This is ridiculous. Having hidden sugars removed is different from having sugar removed full stop because you have a secret yearning for sugar.

It's basically an ad hominem attack - if I can figure out your background and who you (really, truly, secretly) are, I can rationalize my way to ignoring your position. But true argumentation looks at reasons, not who is speaking the reasons.

No, it's not. You're adding conclusions that the authors do not draw and then attacking them for those very assertions that they did not make. The paper says that *obviously* this does not mean that if someone opposes gay rights then they themselves are gay. It only suggests that there is an empirical basis to the long observed fact that a not insignificant subset of those most vocal anti-gay political voices to be caught on their knees in some mens room somewhere.

Edited by Hasan, 29 April 2012 - 03:18 PM.