Anti-Gay Marriage Amendments Spark Distress Among GLBT

"WASHINGTON – Amendments that restrict civil marriage rights of same-sex couples – such as Proposition 8 that recently passed in California – have led to higher levels of stress and anxiety among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender adults, as well as among their families of origin, according to several new studies to be published by the American Psychological Association."

The studies go on to reveal that not only do homosexuals feel higher levels of distress, but family members and friends and acquaintances too. Every now and then I read an article or research study that leaves me scratching my head in complete bewilderment. This is one such article. Did it really require three full-fledged research studies to come to this conclusion? Was it really necessary to expend all that time and energy to produce findings that any layman could have predicted? And what did they really hope to gain by publishing these results? If the desired outcome is to appeal to the collective public's sense of compassion, then truly they need look no further than the hundreds of thousands of religious and non-religious, concerned citizens who voted for traditional marriage. They are not anti-gay, just anti-gay marriage. And any number of them would readily open their arms wide to embrace a weary homosexual who is experiencing distress and anxiety from one of life's many upsets and disappointments.

Or maybe these research conclusions demand that politicians and legislators and informed citizens everywhere weep, gnash their teeth, rend their clothing, and vow never again to bring any type of protective legislation before the greater American society in order to spare the tender feelings of the homosexual community.

"'This information is especially timely, as we see the emotionally charged reactions from GLBT people in the wake of the Proposition 8 passage in California,' said Brent Mallinckrodt, Ph.D. editor of the Journal of Counseling Psychology. 'Psychologists serving GLBT clients and their families need to be aware of the real impact of these political forces on the everyday lives of the people most directly affected.'"

Whatever the desired outcome, it is painfully transparent that this article (though, I allow, not necessarily these research studies) does a superb job of securing a patent for victimization for homosexuals and excusing them from personal responsibility and accountability when it comes to post-anti-same-sex-marriage amendment reactions. Here are some participants' feelings toward anti-GLBT marriage legislation and my interjections (in brackets) of equivalent (and now supported) fears belonging to the heterosexual community:

"Participants reported feeling not just alienated from their communities, but fearful that they would lose their children [Christoffersen, Raddon, & Eckern lose jobs over Prop 8], that they would become victims of anti-gay violence [Anti-religious violence directed at Mormon and Catholic churches] or that they would need to move to a more accepting community. Some of these anxieties were mitigated by social support [It's difficult to hear heterosexual support amidst all this homosexual ruckus due to the main stream media bias ensuring that society never hears about the need for support]."

"For instance, one interviewee said he became 'petrified …of being raped or roughed up or killed, you know, for doing nothing, basically. I worry about being picked out as a gay guy because my mannerisms are not entirely masculine' [Yet it's the pro-traditional marriage teens in high school who are being picked on and heckled and ostracized for their beliefs; and young Christian adults being fondled and grabbed at and whistled to as they were escorted by police out of Castro and to their vehicle]. Another said the marriage amendment supporters were using the Bible 'like a brick on us. They are beating us with it' [Since when was citing religious beliefs, 'beating' someone with a Bible? Ironically, it was a gay man in the Castro district who literally beat a Christian girl over the head with a Bible, 'At one point a man tried to steal one of our Bibles. Chrisdene noticed, so she walked up to him and said 'Hey, that's not yours, can you please give it back?' He responded by hitting her on the head with the Bible, shoving her to the ground, and kicking her.']."

"Social support from religious institutions, families, GLBT friends and heterosexual allies led most of the participants 'to greater feelings of safety, happiness and strength,' the researchers wrote [Duh]."

In the end, no matter the intended reaction to these research studies, the evidence remains that when we couple APA-enabled victimization with society-enabled entitlement, and throw a good old-fashioned marriage amendment in the mix, we learn that "hell hath no fury like a [homosexual agenda thwarted by democracy]." This is evidenced by the ranting, raving, extremely emotionally-driven arguments being postured in defense of gay marriage of late.

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.