THE TEMASEK REVIEW

12Lotus:

Yes, it’s high time Dr Thio should stop blinding all Singaporeans with her narrow focus on gay people. Imagine all the energy and resources lost in fighting a bigotry crusade.

There are many more important issues eroding the traditional family in Singapore. Dysfunctional families, money woes, divorces, child management, schooling problems. These are very pressing problems that need to be addressed.

Its time that she look at the bigger picture.

Let’s not allow her mental obsession, which is highly imbalanced, to affect all Singaporeans.

sunny low:

agree. can post this to the straits time for the mainstream readers who may not make it here? BTW, was she really ousted from law firm because of her imposing overly-evangelistic activities onto her former colleagues? we need to know the details please.

儒道學者:

Dr Thio 只不過是假道學者，躲在道德倫理後面來達到她推翻AWARE領導層的目的，試問受英文教育的她對儒家思想知多少？

其實，在中小學實施性教育有必要嗎？其效果適得其反！衆所周知，性教育是西方文化，不必強加在以華人等非西方人的社會裏。所以，這不是性教育教材的問題，而是根本就沒必要什麽性教育。因爲連這種連動物都懂的東西，需要人來教嗎？自盤古開天地以來，都沒發生過重大問題，問題就發生在政府的崇洋政策，導致西方道德的敗壞淪陷我們東方社會。一切順其自然，性教育根本是多餘的。

不求治本只求治標，是不能解決問題的！

Robox:

Re: “Dr Thio wrote that she shares the government’s view that ‘the conventional family, a heterosexual stable family’, is society’s building block.”

But the more important question regarding the above statement is this: “Does [the above statement] mean the EXCLUSION of LGBTs as part of society and it’s building blocks? And if so, exactly how? Because there are many Singaporeans who are no longer prepared to accept statements made by those who are patronaged by the PAP to make statements like Old Hag Thio’s without any substantiation.

Would Old Hag Thio be prepared to accept that childless heterosexual couples be treated in exactly the same way that she wishes that gay couples be treated since they too CANNOT produce any offspring?

I hate hypocrites:

I think its a given that homosexuals are entitled to their lifestyle and their space.

Its a stretch to tie the objection to the Aware CSE as a case of objecting to Homosexual space. I see it as a exercising of a right of a parent to determine what their kids should be taught.

Granted, more should be done to try and save marriages.

gambit:

dear feminist mentor, it is time to redirect your vitrol to more worthy causes. how about arm twisting your own children to bear you some grandkids so you can spend your days more constructively. i’m sure some heterosexual male would actually be willing to help in that department if you get him drunk enough.

meanwhile you are giving the gays too much credit for the degeneration of society. surely they can’t be completely responsible for the crime rates, falling birth rates, economic downturn, wars, pandemics etc? how is it they can do all that when they only account for 10% of society? they must have more influence than your gang of bible-thumpers if that is the case!

and if the next time a student asks, what is homosexual and how does one know he is gay, i will surely send him to your wonderful counselling sessions, which will guarantee a quick and certain cure, and self-inflicted death.

Eterna2:

“I see it as a exercising of a right of a parent to determine what their kids should be taught.”

I have seen this reasoning over and over again, yet they can never never understand my explanation.

1. AWARE CSE is optional, no one forces anyone to go for it. There is no imposing of any views on anyone who disagree with AWARE’s liberal stance. So did AWARE CSE infringes on any of the parent’s rights. Please tell me how if any.

2. Is insisting that AWARE cannot teach its liberal CSE an infringement on liberal parent’s rights to teach their kids? I send my kid for the CSE because I agree that homosexuality should not be discriminated. But now, because of the “militant” anti-gays, AWARE CSE is shelved temporarily in consideration of public opinion. Is it infringing on what I teach should be taught to my kid? Why are you insisting that only homosexual is not natural, and wrong be taught in CSE? Are you telling me what to teach my kid?

3. Liberals never have any strong objections to conservatives to have their own brand of CSE (except they disagree, but did they insist that it should be remove? Or attempt to take over the group?).

4. Why do conservatives always insist we are telling conservatives what to teach their kids? Did we? We are saying don’t tell us how should be teaching our kids. Who are the one that is telling who how should they be teaching their kids?

But I guess they can never understand this because they can only see things from their own views.

As for the sneaky gay agenda argument. Parents have duty of care to check what the kids are taught in the CSE. Homosexuality class is less than 5 min, and there is no misrepresentation on the part of AWARE. Why should homosexuality be particularly highlighted? And regardless of how long, how is it considered sneakily when u are teaching accepted mainstream facts from professional scientific associations?

One sneak in misinformation, but one don’t sneak in facts. And the very fact that conservatives felt that AWARE should have declared that they felt homosexuality is neutral, is an evidence of discrimination against homosexuality.

Example:

A school has Malay teachers. The public felt that the school should have publicly announce to the public that they have Malay teachers so that those who do not like Malay teachers can don’t go to the school.

Is this a form of discrimination against Malay teachers? A socially acceptable action would be for the parents who disagree with having Malay teachers to check themselves with the school and based their decision on the fact, instead of insisting the school to inform all parents that they have Malay teachers.

But of cuz, a significant proportion of the conservatives felt that discrimination against homosexuality is right. But they strongly oppose when we liberal “discriminate” back against those who discriminates. But then, our discrimination are but just telling them they are wrong. But of cuz, opposition to their views are considered an attack on their values.

Anonymous:

This article is good, clear and to the point.

john on Thu, 4th Jun 2009 4:48 pm
“haha .. quoting a US gay publication ??”

It’s not a “gay publication”, it’s a publication of the American Psychological Association. The Royal College of Psychiatrists is British. These findings are backed up by all the professional organisations across the world including the World Health Organisation. Some fundamentalists claim this is just a worldwide conspiracy: I believe that sort of unfounded belief is called paranoia.

John, you apparently believe you must know better than all these professional people simply by dint of not being American. Your comment actually is racist in terms of denigrating professionals purely because of their nationality. Maybe you also have delusions of grandeur in thinking you know better than all of them?

haha:

gays are human too.
God loves all humans.
Why doesn’t Thio and the other bigots get it?

Parent:

Regarding Eterna2 post,

I am not sure how many parents out there share your views. I would like to share mine on what Eterna2 wrote.

As with controversial topics, we all have different views and sometimes these will never be resolved.

As a parent, I would like my children to share my values (what parent wouldn’t). I would like to see them enjoy the happiness of a happy marriage with many kids. Hence, I would think most parents hope their kids will be straight. This should be independent of religion.

So, it is also natural that parents would not want their children to be exposed to homosexual material – for real or imagined reasons. I think that’s the main reason why they are against the Aware CSE is that it touches on homosexuality that position it as acceptable.

As parents make up majority of adults in Singapore, I think its the majority view. It is also the reason why our government has acted. Again, this is speculation, I believe if the trainer’s guide was made public, our government is unlikely to pass it. No one knows for sure but that’s my thought.

Its a fact that homosexuality lifestyle is accepted in singapore and they are not discriminated in real ways such as being denied any needs. As usual, discrimination is subjective and many can continue to claim all kinds of discrimination but I think we should put such claims to a test – does it prevent you from going about your lifestyle?

On the other hand, I think parents have a right to decide what their child is taught – and no one else. In fact, I am so strong on this issue that my husband and I are prepared to migrate if the government forces wrong values on our kids.

I personally think parents and gays will never agree on this issue about whether its right to teach about homosexuality but surely, it need not be a stumbling block in other areas.

Willy:

This is a good article! Well done admin!

Robox:

To I hate hypocrites on Thu, 4th Jun 2009 2:07 pm:

Re: “I think its a given that homosexuals are entitled to their lifestyle and their space. Its a stretch to tie the objection to the Aware CSE as a case of objecting to Homosexual space.”

That refers ONLY to our rights to privacy; but as equal citizens, gays have a right to access the PUBLIC space as well, and on ALL matters that affect us as members of the general public including those that have nothing to do with sex, sexuality or sexual orientation.

On matters that affect us specifically such as with sex, sexuality and sexual orientation, we have a right to help shape policy directions that impact on us directly; we have a right to object to policy direction that affects us negatively.

On other matters, such as the country’s economic and foreign policy direction say, we have an equal right to input because those too are matters that affect us directly. And we have a right to do so as openly gay individuals to stave off what has dogged us systemically throughout history: the blackmailing by opponents to our input (”If you don’t back down from your position, I’m going to squeal on you and tell everyone that you are gay.”).

I don’t think that I’ve stretched my imagination in any way. On the contrary, it is your imagination that could do with a bit of a stretch exercise.

Let Live:

In the eyes of Thio and The Gang, gays are not family.

They do not “belong” to the family “category”, ie they are born out of their own (or created by god – a non-Christian god?).

Even if they claim to be a daughter or a son, their parents should not consider them “family”.

Ellen Degeneres Show is not “profamily” even though she has consistently get her Guest Stars, from kids to seniors, from a wide diversity & sections of the society to talk about their families and their relationships on the show.

The effort by AWARE to organise a gathering for the mothers and their lesbian daughters to foster closer ties is not “profamily”.

Oops… Thio and The Gang could have mistaken the idea of profamily means pro-Thio-family’s Stand in all issues as regarding civil society, religion, MOE’s curriculum, etc.

We witness it all, we have Mother Hen, Daughter, In-Laws…..
Thio and The Gang is definitely very “profamily” leh!!!!

Anonymous:

Because “blind” belief in a “GOD” can be destructive if one doesn’t use one’s “heart,mind and soul” to differentiate what is morally right or wrong in words written by human beings but labelled as “inspired” by GOD!
If there are contradictions in any “holy” book where selected parts can be used to instil and propage hate, then it is time for human beings to be courageous to admit, hey, these can’t be in line with a GOD of compassion, so let’s delete them out!
However such GOD-centred religions use FEAR to retain the followers and prevent questioning.

The whole foundation of Christianity, that has been described as the longest surviving cult in present Man’s History, will collapse if the book is no longer deemed HOLY.

With so much bloodshedin the HOLY BIBLE (http://www.evilbible.com/), is it ironic that it is used to be sworn in court for witnesses and accused to “swear to tell the truth but the whole truth.”!

k:

I think flying planes into a building was a faith-based initiative. I think religion is a neurological disorder. – Bill Maher

a:

Those 2 statements are just trying to say that the homosexual condition is not a mental or psychological one. And it’s not curable. That’s all. Anything else beyond that is obviously out of their domain.

Robox:

To Sigh on Fri, 5th Jun 2009 8:55 am

Re: “That sexual orientation cannot be changed(converted) is only an opinion.”

Whose opinion? Yours?

Why don’t you change your own (presumed) heterosexual orientation and prove to us the truth of your own statement?

fearandignorance:

>> to hoho
From Guidelines for Psychotherapy with Lesbian, Gay, & Bisexual Clients By American Psychological Association
For over a century, homosexuality and bisexuality were assumed to be mental illnesses. Hooker’s (1957) study was the first to question this assumption. She found no difference between nonclinical samples of heterosexual and homosexual men on projective test responses. Subsequent studies have shown no difference between heterosexual and homosexual groups on measures of cognitive abilities (Tuttle & Pillard, 1991) and psychological well-being and self-esteem (Coyle, 1993; Herek, 1990; Savin-Williams, 1990). Fox (1996) found no evidence of psychopathology in nonclinical studies of bisexual men and women. Further, an extensive body of literature has emerged that identifies few significant differences between heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual people on a wide range of variables associated with overall psychological functioning (Pillard, 1988; Rothblum, 1994; Gonsiorek, 1991). When studies have noted differences between homosexual and heterosexual subjects with regard to psychological functioning (DiPlacido, 1998; Ross, 1990; Rotheram-Borus, Hunter, & Rosario, 1994; Savin-Williams, 1994), these differences have been attributed to the effects of stress related to stigmatization based on sexual orientation. This stress may lead to increased risk for suicide attempts, substance abuse, and emotional distress.

All major American mental health associations have affirmed that homosexuality is not a mental illness. In 1975, the American Psychological Association (APA) urged all psychologists to “take the lead in removing the stigma long associated with homosexual orientations” (Conger, 1975, p. 633).

How does one treat a condition that is not considered a mental/psychological/physical disease by mainstream medical association?

petra:

Hi hoho,

You seem to be lagging by more than three decades. Homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Stastical Manual of Mental Disorders(DSM) of the American Psychiatric Institute in 1973. Neither do the mental institutions recognize homosexuality as an illness.

The last time I checked, cancer of any form, contrary to the case with homosexuality, is an illness. So your argument holds no water.

BTW, the writer of this article is Fang Zhi Yuan, not Fang Zhi Yang.

Eterna2:

Be Honest <<

Semantics. Left handedness is deviant by definition. But do the general public agree that being left handed is normal?

And what the LGBT and liberal are asking are that homosexual should not be stigmatized. And I have repeated this many times. Is this considered a promotion of homosexual lifestyle (whatever that means, because there is no such thing as homosexual lifestyle, or heterosexual lifestyle).

AWARE CSE state that homosexual are normal people, even though they form the minority. And it is natural for homosexual to be attracted to those of the same gender, just as it is natural for heterosexual to be attracted to those of the opposite gender. Homosexuality should be a neutral term. It describe a set of behaviors that is different from mainstream.

Josie et al objected to this. So tell me, how shld homosexuality be described instead? Tell me a reasonable description without discriminating against them?

Anonymous:

Pangyuan on Fri, 5th Jun 2009 11:51 am
“It’s time to move on, WP! Go get fresh ideas or issues!”

Another way of saying “shut up and sit down ! “.

Seems there’s a little cell group going around and saying this whenever the issue is raised.

Anonymous:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shannyn-moore/christian-fundamentalist_b_209521.html

Christian Fundamentalist Terrorism

Christian Fundamentalist Terrorism.

It’s shocking to write. But it’s time to start calling it what it is.

When Jim D. Adkisson walked into the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church with 76 rounds and a shot-gun, he killed 2 people and was charged with murder. His motive was “he hated the liberal movement” and was upset with “liberals in general as well as gays.” He should have been charged with terrorism.

Sunday George Tiller, a Wichita doctor, was killed INSIDE the lobby of his Wichita church. Reformation Lutheran Church became a crime scene; fundamentalist terrorism.

The right wing media hacks make targets of the left. The fundamentalist reverends blather their intolerance of other Americans. Their marriages are in jeopardy if the GLBT community can walk down an aisle. Their children are going to be molested if you have to rent to a same sex couple. Fear…fear…fear the queer.

Bill O’Reilly’s hit piece on Dr. Tiller is a training tape for Christian Fundamentalist Terrorists. Never did he ask the woman interviewed how she, as a 13 year old, got pregnant, who was the father, or where her parents were when she underwent an abortion at Dr. Tiller’s clinic. I’m sure O’Reilly’s drivel will insist on personal accountability for the murderer. I’m sure he won’t be in line for any “accountability” for calling the doctor “Tiller the baby-killer” or his clinic a “death mill.”

Are anti-choice groups celebrating today? An abortion doctor is dead so women won’t have unwanted pregnancies!

The “war on terror” needs to include domestic religious, fundamentalist terrorists.
Who is next?

Mr Yeo:

I agree with petra and Eterna2.

As a biology student, I would like to correct hoho on his views. Cancer, can NO WAY be compared to homosexuality. Cancer is a family of diseases that are characterised by upregulation of proto-oncogenes (normal) to become oncogenes (cancerous) or downregulation of tumor-suppression genes (which keep normal genes in check and serve to shutdown the faulty mechanism and allow for its repair. eg. p53 gene, RB gene).

I would like to stress that there is NOTHING biological about homosexuality. Nothing to do with cancer, nothing to do with genes. I challenge you to show me a qualified study that shows that homosexuality has biological markers with citations included (maybe you can argue that it has not been discovered *shrugs*).

“The impact of one minute in that program is worse than one cancer lump in your body. An analogy in AWARE’s case is that of a doctor (that is, person of given authority) injecting cancer cells deliberately into your body without informing you, the owner.” – hoho

Clearly, you have no idea what you are talking about. Worse than a cancer lump in your body? If that is the case, then perhaps you do not mind contracting any form of cancer and then tell me if you wish to swap it with one HOUR of AWARE’s CSE. Bullshit.

Btw, injecting cancer cells do not necessarily cause you to develop cancer, as most cancer cells need to be produced on a regular basis due to their low survival rate (they might not be viable, cannot survive the normal cell environment, killed by immune system). For cancer LUMP to be formed, certain conditions need to be met, such as hijacking certain aspects of the immune system, and angiogenesis (the local cancer cell environment is different from the rest of the body). It takes time for such conditions to be met, but well it has plenty of time to fight a probability game with the body’s immune response.

Please, take biology of this discussion. Homosexuality may or may not be “convertible”, it may not or may not be “natural or normal”, it may or may not “congenital and uncontrollable”, but is sure as hell nothing to do with biology. Do not bring in issues that you are not familiar about and come up with strange theories (it brings to mind Cesare Lombroso’s “Biological Stigmata” – he attempts to link criminals with biological characteristics, ha!)

The central dogma of biology is that genes code for proteins. Behaviour is pretty far removed from genetics, unless you tell me that there is a protein that makes your balls feel all warm and fuzzy when you see a hot dude.

fearandignorance:

>> Mr Yeo
care to explain the article on Biology and Homosexuality in Wikipedia
- effect of Prenatal hormones on sexual orientation
- Biological differences in gay men to straight men
- differences in brain structure corresponding to sexual orientation
- Blanchard and Klassen (1997) study that reported that each older brother increases the odds of being gay by 33%.
- Bailey and Pillard (1991) in a study of gay twins found that 52% of monozygotic (MZ) brothers and 22% of the dizygotic (DZ) twins were concordant for homosexuality.

Sniper:

fearandignorance: Thank you for linking Featherstone’s article. Most of his arguments in support of homosexuality as a normal occurence have been said elsewhere, but I especially like his statement that gays don’t convert people…but evangelical christians do.

observ:

After all has been said, the fact remains that homosexuals have a much higher risk of contracting HIV and also other STDs.

This fact was borne out by the recent report. In major cities across the world, homosexuals are the ones most prone to all these diseases.

So, letting them ‘live their lifestyle’ puts the responsibility on the homosexuals themselves.

But to allow homosexual activists to spread the message that homosexuality is perfectly normal is doing harm to society as a whole.

Teaching that “homosexuality is neutral” is akin to saying that “acquiring a higher risk of contracting HIV is neutral”.

reader:

Hi observ (12:21pm):

Your statement is incorrect because you have mixed up correlation with causation.

Statistics may indicate that a higher proportion of homosexuals have STDs but that does not mean homosexual behavior causes people to have a higher chance of contracting STDs.

The more likely explanation is that homosexuals tend to be promiscuous and practice unprotected sex. Thus we can see that STDs have nothing to do with homosexuality since promiscuous heterosexuals suffer the same risks.

Like fearandignorance said above, if we are concerned about STD rates, it is far more important to REACH OUT to the gay population and educate them on the risks of unprotected sex.

You may not condone homosexuality, but I hope you can at least get your facts correct.

morris:

“If they say homosexuality is GOOD the “anti-gays” will gather and mob them. Vice versa, if they say its BAD, the “liberals” will have something to say too.”
****************************************************

How should we answer our children if they ask the following questions?
Is being left-handed good or bad? Is having brown eyes good or bad? Is having curly black hair good or bad? Is being more intelligent than most “normal” people good or bad? Is being less selfish than most “normal” people good or bad?

And of course, is homosexuality good or bad?

If my children ever ask, I will tell them this: homosexuality is just a type of sexual orientation, like heterosexuality. I won’t say homosexuality is good or bad, so nobody can accuse me of being “pro-gay” or a bigot.

In a sense, homosexuality can be quite positive. It gives us a chance to talk to our children about inclusiveness, tolerance, respecting differences and celebrating diversity.

The majority of us are attracted to the opposite sex. It’s a fact. We should tell that to our children. Our children must know that heterosexuality is the norm. But that’s only one part of the story.

Here’s the remaining part: a significant minority of people (from 4-10% in any population) are naturally attracted to those of the same sex. It’s just the way they are. Nobody gets hurt because someone else has same-sex attractions. There’s no need to demonize anyone with derogatory labels such as bad, deviant, pervert or abnormal.

Homosexuality is definitely not the “norm”, but that doesn’t mean it’s therefore a kind of sickness.

Someone with an IQ of 200 is not the “norm”. Left-handed people are not the “norm”. Living to a 100 years old is not the “norm”. Having perfect vision in a country where the majority of people are myopic is also not the “norm”.

Does it mean that high intelligence is a kind of mental illness? Longevity is a type of sickness? Left-handedness a form of perversion? And keen-sightedness an ophthalmologic disorder?

Our children do not benefit from absorbing our prejudices; and there are real repercussions when we choose to promote bigotry in the classroom. A number of our children will inevitably be non-heterosexual, and they will experience a lot of dissonance, distress and helplessness in a world which only accepts people of a particular type of sexual orientation..

There is strong consensus amongst mental health professionals today that the following conditions are crucial determinants for physical and mental health (Wilkinson and Marmot 1998): a sense of control, that is, the absence of helplessness; a feeling of social connectedness and significance, in other words, the absence of alienation, marginalization and social deprivation; a sense of cohesion, that is to say an absence of meaninglessness and existential emptiness, and finally, the feeling of dignity, status and integrity in life.

Dr Thio is rightfully concerned about protecting our youngsters from negative influences. I fully empathize with her concerns.

But can we extend our care and concern to our LGBT youths as well? Can we also ask for their protection from the adverse effects of minority stress and homophobia?

LGBT youths are also our children, also human, also vulnerable to physical and psychological insults. Rather than invisibilizing them, we should be making a conscious effort to INCLUDE them in our sex education courses. There are currently very few avenues for this vulnerable group to receive positive counseling support and guidance. In a crisis, where can they go to, who can they approach, without being judged and condemned?

Fierce accusations of “promoting homosexuality” are quickly levelled against anyone who sends out affirmatory messages to our sexual minority youths, many of whom are already suffering from self-denial, guilt and poor self-esteem.

How may we safeguard the well-being of our LGBT youths? If ever there truly is a homosexual agenda, let it be this.

Protect our LGBT youths today.

morris:

After all has been said, the fact remains that homosexuals have a much higher risk of contracting HIV and also other STDs.
******************************************************

You are absolutely right. This is the strongest reason why we must INCLUDE homosexuals in our sex education courses.

And in fact, this is also a strong reason why we should help to promote stable relationships within the LGBT population, in fact, this is one reason why people support gay marriages.

Imagine a world where heterosexuals are not allowed to settle down and get married, where their love is scorned and demonized, where their only outlet for sexual release is furtive, anonymous “one-night-stand encounters” in back alleys.

What do you think the HIV situation would be like for the heterosexuals in such a hypothetical world?

observ:

“reader on Sat, 6th Jun 2009 2:59 pm
The more likely explanation is that homosexuals tend to be promiscuous and practice unprotected sex. Thus we can see that STDs have nothing to do with homosexuality since promiscuous heterosexuals suffer the same risks.
Like fearandignorance said above, if we are concerned about STD rates, it is far more important to REACH OUT to the gay population and educate them on the risks of unprotected sex.”

Actually, the perception is that the vast majority of homosexuals are promiscuous.
Of course, you can start quoting the examples of gays in “long term stable relationships”. But aren’t those the exception?

Even your point on reaching out to the gay population is not to educate them to stick to one partner, but to practise safe sex.

In a heterosexual relationship, the ideal is ‘monogamy’. But it seems that in a homosexual relationship, the ideal is safe sex.
Ever wonder why?

killer instinct:

To observ on Sat, 6th Jun 2009 12:21 pm
May i side-tract to quote the experience of Prostitution or Sex service.

Some decades ago, almost all countries ban paid-sex service, and STDs rate was very high. Subsequently, under health-authorities (worldwide) lifted the ban, and actively engage sex-workers, the rate come down.

if GLBT are not discriminated, they need not go underground, and STDs and HIV rates will come down. One of the moves that most government health regulatory bodies (throughout the world) do is education on condom use. With that, the transmission rate seems to come down. (case reporting is another totally different issues : one of the factors to be considered is better diagnosis, and gradual de-stigmatisation of HIVs encouraging people to come for testing)
Sorry, too many issues to consider at one short post.

a:

infp (6th Jun 2009 4:49am),

I don’t want to contend the oft-quoted view that homosexuality is congenital, though I feel that’s simplistic and still inconclusive. Likely, it’s more complex, with both nature and nurture playing their parts.

The main thing is: even if congenital, it’s still an abberation. And the thrust is : our species, homo sapiens, reproduce sexually. With the condition, they won’t be able to reproduce.

So, homosexuality is abnormal in homo sapiens. Acceptance can come from humanistic reasons, but we can’t elevate it to be something normal. It can’t be a “normal” way of life on equal standing as the normal homo sapien way.

morris (6th Jun 2009 3:35 pm),

Please consider: Homosexuality is in a different league from left-handedness and eye colour and so on. Homosexuality precludes reproduction. It comes with this big discount. The other said traits don’t coe with any discount whatsoever.

To be fair, we should compare homosexuality to other congenital conditions that comes with a discount. But before any chastise, I’d like to add: these conditions does affect the quality and fullness of life for the affected people, but they don’t detract from their values as individuals.

So, heterosexuality and homosexuality is very different from right-handed and left-handed or black eyes and brown eyes.

hoho:

petra, fearandignorance, others:

I used the cancer analogy as an example to say that you can love a person but not the disease. Clearly, there have been many who previously seem not to be able to understand that you can separate the two. The one who do not accept homosexual lifestyle can be not homophobic.

The list of American journals and publications also say many things besides homosexuality as being “normal”. The misfit who in anger killed others, the child molester, serial rapist, etc can be explained as committing acts “beyond their control, and hence not their fault, but society’s who mistreated them when they were young”.

We can explain any act as due to a cause to something else and that “the perpetrator is not to be blamed”. We have seen how “off the mark” some of their scholarly works and values are. Some societies certainly have a value system that is not close to our values in society. Unfortunately, we quote them in a different context, and assume that they are applicable to us in Singapore! Their thinking might be 30 years ago, but who is there to say that they are right? Many so called modern theories have been with time found to be false. So, it is too early to tell. Imagine some reader saying that it is right for anyone to buy a weapon as it is done in America! Very soon, our women would need to wear coverings, and our guys must wear snow suits “as that’s what Eskimos do”. (Having said that, I sure wish they had laws like we have on caning and drug abuse.)

Thinking further along and extending what some of you have said, would not it be wonderful if homosexuality is actually as disease and there is a cure for them? Much like a cure for the kleptomaniac.

My quibble with the old AWARE (who clearly have a different agenda from the original AWARE) of offering so call choice to young kids is akin to an adult telling a kid that it is OK to tell a white lie that does not harm anyone.

When we teach our children, we start from the ideal. Even dishonest parents will teach their children to have true values. “Do what I said and not what I do” kind of situations do exist. So, with young children in school, teach the ideal values of family, society and community.

I have, as can be deduced from my earlier post, some issue with LGBT doing what they want privately with their consenting partner (although it is illegal). What irks me is AWARE teaching it as an employed agent and abusing stealthily the authority of an expert teaching very objectionable (and illegal) values to them.

To me, this is worst – many times worst – than what Josie and her team’s entry into the AWARE leadership. If they were judged and condemned, then more so the old AWARE.

Thio and the rest of them were whistle blowers. It is unfortunate how these whistle blowers have been treated.

Anonymous:

hoho on Sat, 6th Jun 2009 11:47 pm
“My quibble with the old AWARE (who clearly have a different agenda from the original AWARE) of offering so call choice to young kids”

What choice did they offer to kids? If you’re suggesting they would say to kids they could choose to be gay if they wanted, this is a total lie.

killer instinct:

Amendments, the above post by killer-instinct is addressed to [Anonymous on Sat, 6th Jun 2009 11:22 pm]

Anonymous:

To “hoho on Sat, 6th Jun 2009 11:47 pm ”
You are obviously in the blind flock who cannot see beyond the space above the deep well that you are in.
You bigotry is also like a cancer and you too should have your cancer destroyed so that you can be whole again.

What has been taught in the old CSE was NOT a creation of AWARE but materials put in by experts, objectively of course.

What came out good is the whistle-blowing on this group of fundies (Feminist mentor and gang) steeple-jacking to impose their narrow-minded religious views on others and to incite HATE!

hoho:

Looks like we have a disturbed hornet nest.

Unlike physics, biology, chemistry, engineering, etc, psychology is not a hard science. Even Freud is still controversial in some of his works today. So, it is a fallacy to treat it as such. There might be 50% consensus; this also mean that 50% disagree. Thanks to “killer instinct” for highlighting this. And even then, that fraction changes with different issues.

[By the way, in spite of my disagreement with some parts of this article, I respect Fang Zhi Yuan is that he/she put down her (real?) name. In scholarship and debate, there allows for peer reviews and this makes for progress.

In contrasts, we have recent articles (not including comments) written by sniper (a church drop out criticising the church, much like a school drop out or former employee criticising the former organization), or dogemperor (who quotes a list of people by name, but choose not to use his/her own name).

So, moving on, you point that the material was created by experts is sweeping, ambiguous and debatable.

To killer instinct: Reparative therapy was suggested by Richard von Krafft-Ebing, Sigmund Freud, Anna Freud, Eugen Steinach, Sandor Rado, and Edmund Bergler (from wikipedia). well, remember “one flew over the cuckoo’s nest”? The human mind and brain is extremely complex. There are still much debatable issues when it comes to Psychology. Maybe , that is why (joke, ok) there are so many psychology publications in Fang’s list above.

Whistle blowers takes a risk – there will be people who appreciate them, and some who will hate them. History will decide on who are the bad guys who do wrong things in the hope of not being exposed.

reader:

Hi observ (6:09pm):

“the perception is that the vast majority of homosexuals are promiscuous…In a heterosexual relationship, the ideal is ‘monogamy’. But it seems that in a homosexual relationship, the ideal is safe sex.”

I actually do agree with your perceptions that many homosexuals are promiscuous, though to what extent I’m not sure. But my point is simply that homosexuality is fundamentally unrelated to STDs. We must understand the real cause of high STDs if we wish to tackle the problem.

As for differences in ideals, I do not have any “ideals” for both sides. Young heterosexuals are getting more promiscuous by the generation, not just homosexuals too. I won’t preach to both camps using my own value judgments, as I believe people should have the freedom to live the way they want as long as they are not hurting others.

Mr Yeo:

To fearandignorance on Sat, 6th Jun 2009 10:23 am

>> Mr Yeo
Mark Featherstone,Professor in the School of Biological Sciences, Nanyang Technological University.
wrote about what science (medical biology) does and does not say about sexual orientation on his blog
http://consideritopinion.blogspot.com/2009/05/queer-science.html
was he wrong?

I have forgotten to clarify the way I used “genetics” in my previous post. “Genetics” refer to the study of genes, which in the field, relates to hereditary issues. Rather I was referring to the expression of genes, that there is no “gay” gene which produces a protein that will cause an individual to be gay.

Wow, thank you for posting his article here. As a matter of fact, I know him personally and he was the one who taught me my cancer biology. He is a good professor who is very eloquent and most importantly accurate in the words and terms that he uses. He would, most definitely be more precise in his wording than me. Definitely I am not saying that he is wrong, and I agree fully to his article. I shall clarify my words, align it and put it into context with his article.

In his article,
“2) Are homosexuals “born that way”?
There is clear evidence that genetics and the environment within the womb contribute to the likelihood of homosexual orientation (STATISTICAL).

The best support for a genetic basis comes from studies of identical twins. Investigators have also found that the greater the number of older brothers, the more likely a boy is to be gay (STATISTICAL). An intriguing but UNPROVEN explanation is that the mother produces antibodies to “maleness proteins” presented by her sons in the womb (BIOLOGICAL). Each time the mother carries a boy, the antibodies get stronger, and then act on subsequent sons during pregnancy to prevent fully male development. Still other research SUGGESTS an influence of hormones.

Twin studies also reveal that many homosexuals are not “born that way”, leaving us to conclude that OTHER INFLUENCES FOLLOWING BIRTH (which could be biological or non-biological) are at least as important. I stress, however, that social contact with homosexuals is not one of these influences (see below).

3) Can children be influenced to become homosexual?
Not a single study has indicated that children are vulnerable to adopting a same-sex orientation as a result of exposure to the idea of homosexuality or even homosexual role models. Quite simply, the vast majority of children raised by heterosexual and homosexual couples alike grow up to be heterosexual. Pronouncements that it is otherwise are not based on fact. Bad science.”

As per my prior post, I am stating that the existing, credible studies only show statistical correlation. The “maleness protein” theory which is the only biological study that would refute my statement is unproven as written by Prof Featherstone. I do not see any conflict with the rest of my statements after clarification and his article.

When he says “Not a single study..” he means that there are no conclusive study that proves a certain point, but yet it doesnt mean that they cant be correct. Like being raised in by homosexual parents might influence the child to be homosexual, you can state this point but not proclaim with surety that this is the case. As a side note, being raised by homosexuals might be balanced with the social stigmata and pressure to be straight due to other environmental, social and non-familial interaction with other members of society.

Sorry guys, for the long post.

Mr Yeo:

To reader on Sun, 7th Jun 2009 1:42 pm

“As for twin studies, they are often used in scientific circles as an integral portion of converging evidence. They do have shortcomings, but so do EVERY other kind of study.
It is unreasonable to put down studies because they are correlational and cannot prove causation. Only scientific experiments can achieve that but how is it possible to manipulate genes in this case?”

Yes, alot of studies have flaws and I am not trying to dismiss them, but rather dismiss the usage of them in the wrong context. Statistical studies are something to work with, a guide for the direction of empirical research but they do not explicitly link homosexuality with expression of genes. That what I am trying to point out.

“I also wish to correct the misconception that cancer is biological only. Lung cancer is related to smoking, and HPV causes cervix cancer.”

You are absolutely right. I mentioned that cancer is “biological” <- in the way that I used it in comparison to homosexuality, but the CAUSES of cancer, is not purely biological. Genetics (Statistical) could play a part in the predisposition and development of cancer (Biological), or they could be non-genetic and caused by lifestyle (Environmental) or viral (Biological) factors.

“Most biological outcomes do interact with the environment, and homosexuality should be no exception. Just because environment plays a part does not mean they can all be changed or that it is a matter of choice.”

On the part of “homosexuality should be no exception”, I am not sure that I agree with you as that remains to be proven, but for the rest I totally agree.

My take on this is, there are certain facts that need to be established, always research going on to prove certain points. Dont bring in unfounded theories and analogies to justify actions as they could confuse and mislead. Based on what we have, we should be objective about the facts and translate them into meaningful, humane attitudes and behaviour.

killer instinct:

TO Mr Yeo
Just to point out a logical fallacy : You wrote “These statements say that they COULD have links, but they are UNPROVEN, so the prevailing stand is that they are not, but research is ongoing to gather more results for more conclusive observation”

A = “They could have links” can lead to B= “they are unproven”
but
A= “They could have links” CANNOT lead to C= “They are NOT”

You have make logical error.

Killer Instinct:

Amendments: I wrote “Statistical correlation at THAT TIME did not demonstrate cholesterol plague causing death.
Even up to today, having cholesterol plague DOES NOT cause death, many healthy walking 50 years old man walk around with cholesterol plague narrowing up to 70, 80, 90% of the coronary artery.”

Should be ” precisely it is only statistical correlation at that time, lead to the postulation that cholesterol plague has something to do with heart attack, Statistical correlation at THAT TIME did not DIRECTLY demonstrate cholesterol plague directly causes death…..”

Thanks for allowing me to clarify.

reader:

Hi Mr Yeo:

I agree with you that people tend to not understand the implications of different kinds of studies, and thus understate or overstate their significance.

On the part of “homosexuality should be no exception”, I meant to say that homosexuality is probably likely to be no exception, and not “ought to be”. I agree it remains to be proven.

Although there is still no conclusive proof that link homosexuality with genes, I feel that the weight of scientific evidence would suggest there is at least some connection. In fact, it may be impossible to ascertain causation given practical constraints, so the current evidence may be as good as it can get.

Compare this to the stand that homosexuality is purely a social choice – there is virtually no scientific evidence for that.

Everything said, I believe we agree more than we disagree, and I am glad that important ideas are being clarified in this comments section.

morris:

From the point of a medical doctor, I wish to question an oft repeated assertion that “homosexuality is a disorder simply because two same-sexed people can’t reproduce”.

Firstly, we look at the term “disorder”. Broadly speaking, there are two types of disorders – physical and mental.

We have to ask ourselves this – when we say homosexuality is a disorder, are we saying it is a physical disorder, or a mental illness?

Now, is homosexuality a type of physical disorder, like say, cancer?

Obviously, it isn’t. Very few people will dispute that. A physical disorder must imply a physical impairment or limitation, and there isn’t any in the case of homosexuality.

The LGBT folks are in every physical aspect as healthy (or unhealthy) as everyone else. We have LGBT athletes, swimmers, cyclists and soccer players, and they have not been shown to be physically inferior.

The LGBT folks are also susceptible to the same physical illnesses which trouble us.

And in case some of us don’t realize this – sexual orientation does not affect reproductive powess as long as the sexual organs are working.

That’s why the gays and lesbians are producing and raising their own children, even though they cannot YET have children who share the genetic material of the couple at this point in time.

But who is to say that technology will not make that dream a reality in the not-so-distant future? After all, technology has already allowed us to fly farther and higher than any bird can fly, despite our lack of wings.

And don’t forget, there are many heterosexual couples “in the same shoes” as the LGBT folks – who face the same problem of not having children who share the genetic material of husband and wife – but does that really matter? For a couple of examples, think of the case of adopted children, and the case of the wife who has to use donated sperm and IVF technology when the husband is reproductively incapable, etc.

Ok, so we agree that homosexuality is not a physical disorder.

Then we ask ourselves, is homosexuality a type of mental disorder?

The assertion often made is this – homosexuality is a mental illness because children cannot be produced from a sexual union between 2 men or 2 women.

We need to ask ourselves – is that a logical criterion for defining a mental illness?

Is that how psychiatrists define mental illness (and mental health, for that matter)?

Remember, children also cannot be produced from a sexual union between an elderly man and his elderly wife.

So therefore, is sexual behaviour amongst elderly folks a sign of mental illness too?

Should we refer elderly couples who continue to have sex with each other to psychiatrists for treatment of their mental illness?

I hope you get my point. Whether or not children results from a particular type of sexual union is NOT the criterion for defining a mental illness.

Psychiatrists, psychologists, scientists and researchers do not call homosexuality a “normal, non-pathological variant” for no better reason than to please the gay activists.

Homosexuality is not a disorder simply because it fails to fit the criteria for both physical and mental illnesses.

But lay-people are of course free to call homosexuality or heterosexuality anything they like.

If you like, you can call heterosexuality a type of mental disorder too. After all, many problems we face today, including homosexuality, is the result of heterosexual union. Homosexuals are born of heterosexual union, and so are murderers, adulterers and bigots. Hunger and over-crowding are a big problem in some countries, and that’s all due to heterosexuality.

Or if you are prejudiced against those with yellow skin or a particular religion, you can call them mentally ill too.

In fact, there are indeed people who think that those who believe in God are mentally ill. That’s totally up to them.

But rest assured the medical/psychiatric community will not endorse such beliefs, because the process whereby health and dis-eases are defined is a much more logical and objective process than sheer personal prejudice.

Killer Instinct:

TO Mr Yeo;
You wrote: ” I did not mean to discredit all statistical studies.” May i take it that your stand is, ………..while you do not discredit ALL statistical studies, when homosexuality studies is concerned, you do not think statistical studies are APPROPRIATE ?? Yes or No answer??

When you wrote: “Based on the studies that have been discussed on that post, these studies do not conclusively state that homosexuality has a gene or a group of genes that expresses proteins which lead to development of homosexuality.”
I belief these studies methodology was designed in such a way to study if there is a relationship (how it is linked is not in the research methodology or aim of studies) between certain observation with certain behaviour……………. much akin to trying to see if there is statistical correlation of cholesterol deposition with death, these studies did not designed to find the protein-expression with behaviour, nor finding the genes which result in certain protein-expression.

If so, please explain why statistical studies are imappropriate in finding the correlation.
A researcher methodology decides what conclusion to be drawn (whether positive or negative), but i feel you want to read another conclusion (whether positive or negative) in a research done with different method,

Again, those protein-design study was NOT done previously (both camp, pro-gay as well as christian scientist, would need to design specific study to answer that question, and no one knows whether the outcome will be positive or negative).
But until such study is out, we can only conclude that there is some biological basis of homosexuality, The empirical evidence seems to suggest a biological basis, rather than “sinful nature which lust to sin”.
We still cannot said (for both camp) “there is gay gene” or “there is no gay gene”.

Killer Instinct:

TO Mr Yeo:
You wrote: “These statements say that they COULD have links, but they are UNPROVEN. Prevailing stand is that they are not, but research is ongoing to gather more results for more conclusive observation”

Prevaling stand is THEY ARE (not they are not), which resulted in mainstream scientific and medical bodies throughout the world to take homosexuality out of the disease lists.

observ:

“morris on Sun, 7th Jun 2009 4:13 pm
But in those countries which are more accepting and more friendly to our LGBTs, we can clearly see the hundreds of thousands of LGBT couples who are not only in long-term, stable relationships, they are actually raising happy and healthy children and forming families like their heterosexual counterparts.”

The very nice picture you are painting is more like an illusion.

Why not take a look at the REAL PICTURE (Fridae.com):
“Over 50% of HIV transmissions in US gay men are from main sexual partners, investigators report in a study published in the online edition of AIDS.”
“Gay men remain the group most affected by HIV in the US. There is some evidence that the number of new HIV infections in this group has increased since 2000. This has prompted calls for a renewed focus on the continuing HIV epidemic amongst gay men and the development of new prevention interventions.”

There you are, a gay friendly country. Which according to you, has lots of long-term stable LGBT relationships.
What is the result? Shocking and alarming statistics.

I hope you are not wishing for the same in Singapore?

Mr Yeo:

To Killer Instinct on Sun, 7th Jun 2009 6:27 pm

” I did not mean to discredit all statistical studies.” May i take it that your stand is, ………..while you do not discredit ALL statistical studies, when homosexuality studies is concerned, you do not think statistical studies are APPROPRIATE ?? Yes or No answer??”

Yes, I think that they are appropriate but they must be interpreted in the correct fashion. For the rest of your post, yes I agree with it completely but I am more for the camp of “there is no gay gene” (personal opinion not fact).

To a on Sun, 7th Jun 2009 9:03 pm

“Oh dear, we seem to be in the midst of a confounding language game.. My point is that it’s not normal and shouldn’t be confused to be normal. It’s an exception to the norm. And no, I didn’t say that it’s not worthy of our compassion and understanding.”

Haha, yes indeed I think we are on the same page but as we have slight differences in the way we use words and we are rather particular in the accuracy of what we are saying hence many comments that we have posted are on clarifying our stand. However, I think that we are engaging in a very meaningful discussion. I am learning alot and improving in the way I write as I express myself and my views. Thank you all for your constructive inputs =).

reader:

Hi a (9:03pm):

I think a language game is important here, because the root cause of the controversy is AWARE’s usage of “normal” & “neutral”. It is hard for both camps to have a meaningful debate if they are using different definitions for the words.

I agree with you that homosexuals are “handicapped” in the sense that they cannot reproduce like most people. In your words, they face “insurmountable limitations”.

But sterile individuals cannot reproduce too. Should we say they are abnormal?

To answer my own question, in the statistical sense, yes. Sterile individuals are in the minority. Using your “handicap” definition, yes too.

But most people would object to labeling sterile individuals as abnormal, because they define abnormal as “something bad”. In other words, the label carries negative connotations. It is obviously unfair to label others negatively when it’s no fault of their own and they are not harming anyone.

I suggest that AWARE’s CSE should instead say that homosexuality is “neutral”, that there is “nothing right or wrong with it”, and that “they should be accepted the way they are”.

Does anyone still find this disagreeable?

Anonymous:

Dear “#a on Sun, 7th Jun 2009 9:03 pm ”

Your argument is again based on a very narrow perspective of life for a homo sapien, based on very narrow “religious” teaching – that we are NO better than animals..fuck, have children and then expire to a heavenly place FOREVER, praising the LORD…geez…can you imagine an eternity of BOREDOM!!???

Why do we have such low esteem of ourselves as HOMO sapiens that we need to subserve ourselves to an imagined creator..Jesus Christ…creation in 7 days?? Create LIGHT, then NIGHT??

So any homo sapien who cannot fuck the “normal” way is condemned and labeled ABnormal, for not doing his or her God-prescribed duty?

Your INSURMOUNABLE limitations are set by your outdated religious teachings.

morris:

(1) But homosexuality is abnormal. By themselves, homosexuals have insurmountable limitations due to the condition.

********************************************************

To the person who said the above:

What are those “insurmountable limitations”? Perhaps it’s due to the poverty of my imagination, but really, I cannot see any “limitation” apart from the fact that two men and two women cannot – given our current technology – have a child who is genetically related to both parents. That’s the only “limitation” I can think of.

Can you name us a few more “insurmountable limitations”?

Now we must ask ourselves two important questions. First, is this type of “limitation” specific to homosexual couples? Second, does this “limitation” apply meaningfully to every homosexual couple?

The answer is a resounding no to both questions. We shall see why.

Statistics have shown that 12-15% of reproductive-age couples in the US are infertile. The statistics in Singapore is not too far off, especially with Singaporeans getting married at an increasingly older age.

What does this mean? It simply means that there are quite a number of heterosexual couples around the world who are facing the same type of “limitation” as the same-sex couples – the “limitation” of not having children who are genetically-related to both parents. This situation is not unique to the gays and lesbians.

We shall look at a hypothetical scenario to see how similar the situation can be between homosexual versus heterosexual couples.

Ann and Susan are a lesbian couple who stay in California. They were married in their hometown in June last year when same-sex marriage was briefly allowed. Ann is now three months pregnant using donor sperm. They are looking forward to the birth of their first child at the end of the year.

John and Mary also stay in California. They were married 3 years ago. They have tried to have children but Mary was unable to conceive. They saw a doctor and investigations revealed that John has very low sperm count (oligospermia). The couple decided to have children using donated sperm. Mary is now three months pregnant and the couple is looking forward to the birth of their first child at the end of the year.

In the two scenarios above, the children produced will not be genetically related to both parents. It makes no difference that one couple is homosexual and the other couple is heterosexual. The outcome is exactly the same, both couples face the same “limitation”. So unless both parties in a heterosexual union are fertile, their situation is no different from that of gay and lesbian couples.

It is also questionable whether the so-called “limitation” is truly insurmountable. Human history is replete with instances of how scientific advancements have surmounted many of our previously “insurmountable limitations”. Although we are not born with wings, we can fly higher, faster and further than any bird can fly today. Who is to say that we will never discover the technology to extract genetic material from one woman’s egg and implanting it into her partner’s someday? That day may come sooner than we expect.

Actually gay couples are no different from straight couples. Some of them want to have children, but some of them don’t. Perhaps they find children too much of a hassle, or they want more time for their careers and for each other. There are a million and one reasons why some married couples don’t want to have children.

Now, for a heterosexual couple who doesn’t want to have any children, infertility of one or both partners is not a “limitation” at all. In fact, it is an ADVANTAGE – because now they can have all the sex they want without having to waste any money on birth-control.

Similarly, for a gay couple who doesn’t want to have any children in the first place, your so-called “insurmountable limitation” is simply meaningless.

It’s like a footballer who can’t sing. But as long as he isn’t trying to become a professional singer, his inability to sing is of no consequence. For a footballer, the inability to sing is not a “limitation”.

So really, your argument that homosexuals face “insurmountable limitations” and therefore homosexuality must be pathological simply does not stand up to scrutiny.

Reproductive futility cannot be the rationale for labeling a behaviour as pathological. The majority of us (especially the unmarried guys) masturbate regularly, whether or not we confess to it. Some surveys actually suggest that close to 100% of men have masturbated at least once in their lifetime, and the vast majority do so regularly. For the celibates, masturbation is the only form of sexual release. It doesn’t matter if you’re a doctor or a lawyer. It’s something we all do in private. That includes the married men when the wives are not available. Since babies cannot be produced through masturbation, can we conclude that masturbation is pathological sexual behaviour? And since the vast majority of us are masturbators, are we all psychologically unwell?

We await a convincing argument that shows that homosexuality is indeed more like a true pathological condition like schizophrenia or cancer, rather than just a normal variant like left-handedness.

gambit:

observe the level playing field: just as a homosexual can be blamed for HIV with his promiscuous lifestyle, a heterosexual can also spread the disease by sleeping with prostitutes. the key to responsible sexual values is abstinance or contraception. it isn’t about one’s sexuality.

on another note, someone with h1n1 traveling in public transport should also be taken to task.
so why don’t we start pointing fingers at anyone who’s irresponsible? would his sexuality even matter then?

morris:

The article is reproduced below for your reference:

___________________________________________________________

Oct. 13, 2005 (Washington) — An analysis of multiple studies of 500 households shows that rearing children in a same-sex household does not affect the their self-esteem, gender identity, or emotional health, a Boston researcher reported.

“Pediatricians need to recognize that there are variations in families and learn what kind of advice to give them to optimize the child’s development,” said Ellen Perrin, MD, professor of pediatrics at Tufts-New England Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts.

The researcher and colleagues looked at data from 15 studies evaluating possible stigma, teasing, social isolation, adjustment, sexual orientation, and strengths. The findings were presented here at the American Academy of Pediatrics National Conference and Exhibition.

“The vast consensus of the studies is that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way,” Dr. Perrin said. “In some ways, children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures.”

It has been estimated that one to six million children are being reared by committed lesbian or gay couples in this country. Some children were born to a heterosexual couple and later raised by a same-sex couple; others were placed in foster homes, were adopted, or conceived through a surrogate mother through artificial insemination.

Previous studies of same-sex parenting have been criticized for being biased, but Dr. Perrin said the research team was extremely careful to select only solid, evidence-based research for review.

Based on nine studies from 1981 to 1994 of 260 children, aged three to 11 years, reared by either heterosexual mothers or same sex-mothers after divorce, the researchers found there was no difference in intelligence of the children, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, or parental stress. “The children all had a similar emotional experiences with divorce,” she said.

What they did find was that after divorce children being reared by lesbian mothers had more contact with fathers than children reared by divorced heterosexual mothers, Dr. Perrin said. “There are interesting suggestions that these children are more tolerant of differences.”

A separate longitudinal study of 37 children of 27 divorced lesbian mothers and an equal number of children with divorced heterosexual mothers found no differences in behavior, adjustment, gender identity, and peer relationships.

“What is exciting about this study was that they followed the children 11 years later when they became adults,” Dr. Perrin said. “But they still found no difference in adjustment, self-esteem, psychiatric or psychological problems, family relationships, or in identifying sexual orientation.”

Four other large studies of more than 100 couples that evaluated children either born or adopted into families found that same-sex parents were more likely to have contact with extended family for social support as well as a more equal division of labor in the home. However, children of same-sex parents did experience some stigmatization.

“The researchers found no differences in the parents other than that lesbian couples share household and child care tasks more equitably,” said Dr. Perrin. “The children of lesbian couples also appeared to be less aggressive, more nurturing to peers, more tolerant of diversity, and more androgynous,” playing with toys for both boys and girls.

A further analysis of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health used randomly selected representative data from 44 adolescents aged 12 to 18 years. The study compared children living with two women in a “marriage-like” relationship to teenagers living with two heterosexual parents.

The study showed that the adolescents were similar in intrapersonal adjustments such as self-esteem, depression, and anxiety. They also were similar in school success, family relationships, and neighborhood integration, Dr. Perrin said.

“What is striking is that there are very consistent findings in these studies,” she concluded. “But further study conducted in a long-term systematic manner in community samples needs to be conducted.”

Dr. Perrin pointed out that “as pediatricians we have a lot of different kinds of roles. We need to be extremely careful about confidentiality with these families and assure them that their family constellation won’t be broadcast. This will give us a better chance of learning more about the family and providing needed advice and discussing some of the issues.”

“This is valuable information,” Carol Berkowitz, MD, told Medscape. She is the immediate past president of the AAP and professor and executive vice chair in the Department of Pediatrics at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center in Torrance, California. “This subject evokes a lot of emotions that have influenced some studies. Some studies in the past were weighted based on nothing more than their own views.”

The value of this presentation is these are all evidence-based studies, Dr. Berkowitz said, adding this information will help pediatricians in their practices and for setting policy.

AAP 2005 National Conference and Exhibition: Concurrent Seminar F340. Presented Oct. 10, 2005.

Reviewed by Gary D. Vogin, MD

[CLOSE WINDOW]
Authors and Disclosures
Author(s)
Linda Little
Linda Little is a freelance writer for Medscape
[ CLOSE WINDOW ]
Information
Authors and Disclosures
Linda Little
Linda Little is a freelance writer for Medscape

Accreditation Statements
For questions regarding the content of this activity, contact the accredited provider for this CME/CE activity noted above. For technical assistance, contact CME@medscape.net

This activity has expired.
The accredited provider can no longer issue certificates for this activity. Medscape cannot attest to the timeliness of expired CME activities.

a:

morris (8th Jun 2009 7:46 am),

Yes, the limitation is exactly that: homosexuals can’t have their own children. That’s the debilitating effect of this condition. It carries this deficiency.

But the idea of a same-sex family is radical. Even people in liberal countries also find it radical. What’s more, the basis behind this is such a great turn-off. It flies a big flag labelled “Rights” with a bold R, complete with some forceful propaganda aiming to elevate it to be a normal way of life.

Shouldn’t they use compassion and understanding as the basis? It’s actually due to an abnormal condition to applies only to some. Instead they open it up to be another “normal way of life”, and pull out the Rights card. What an odd way to go about acceptance.

a:

reader (7th Jun 2009 11:18 pm),

Oh dear, of course, I wouldn’t say they’re abnormal before them, whether sterile or handicap. But if I tell an infertile couple that their infertility is normal, I think I’ll most likely get a slap.

But it seems from here that if I tell a homosexual couple that their homosexuality is normal, I should get a hug instead, even though that means they can’t have their own children.

Anthony lee:

All you fanatics and sick religious fundies, you make me puke with your intolerance as if you are “GOD”. For god’s sake, the world is round BUT NOT EXACTLY ROUND.

You got only one Mother Theresa, the rest of the hothead preachers are all hypocrites. I have seen too many – behaviour in private lives are completely revolting of their own preaching. Wonder how come they don’t vomit.

Wake up, you morons!!!

Anonymous:

WallFlower on Tue, 9th Jun 2009 9:09 am “scientists don’t even know whether homosexuality is caused by nature or nurture…How is a potential employee going to discriminate against you unless you broadcast your sexual exploits”

There’s no evidence for nurture, no common denominator, but the evidence for nature is overwhelming.

Or is someone going to argue that various gay penguin couples had neutral sex education on the subject, or the 8% of goats that are gay come from broken homes. Likewise with thousands of other species. Even fundamentalists in America have admitted the point, given that it was one of them that was trying to “cure” his gay goats (not with prayer).

You don’t have to “broadcast exploits” to be known as gay, you just have to be honest. If a workmate tells me he’s going out with his wife tonight, and asks me what am I doing, or would I like to join them and bring someone, should I:

1) Lie (which is against my nature), and say I’ve no one to bring, or that I’m busy, and appear anti-social, or
2) Say I’d love to come along with my long time partner (it thus being clear I’m gay)

There are all sorts of situations where people talk about their families and what they’re doing, which gay people, including those in happy fulfilling long-term relationships, have to hide if they’re afraid of being discriminated against, giving an impression they’re secretive or antisocial. Many of us continually have to make decisions about whether we should be honest with a person we’re talking to, in case there are adverse consequences. No one should have to live or work in such secrecy, it’s extremely oppressive. But if we’re honest, we may get fired for no good reason, face irrational hostility, or even physical violence and murder.

As for other “more urgent” issues at hand; injustice is injustice, and all have an equal right to be addressed. You don’t get to say “shut up and sit down, my priorities are more important than yours”. But most of these issues boil down to the same basic one: prejudice, through an inability to stand in the shoes of the other person.

Robox:

To [reader]:

Re: “That said, I can see why usage of words like “normal” and “abnormal” are controversial. They are emotive words that carry multiple definitions.”

That’s right.

It is abundantly clear from both hispersistence at driving home his point as well on his insistence on the continued use of “abnormal” to describe same-sex attractions that he has every intention to *WOUND*!

PERIOD!

“Abnormal” is frequently used to describe a “deformiity”, and exactly how deformed are gays given that we function normally in every single way, even in our same-sex attractions?

Yet this is the same person who claims:

Re: “Shouldn’t they use compassion and understanding [as opposed to rights] as the basis [of advancing their cause]?” – a on Tue, 9th Jun 2009 12:47 am

Is is possible that someone who persists in using a word that gays ourselves find objectionable can be appealed to on the basis of “compassion” and understanding”?

Being a gay man, as far as I am concerned, when I say “I don’t like it [and here's why - which is what I have already done]“, it should be good enough of a reason to stop using the word.

Anyone with even a shred of goodwill would have done so.

[a] should be treated the way he WANTS to be treated: like someone with the emotional makeup of a hardened CRIMINAL!

Outsider:

Anthony lee on Tue, 9th Jun 2009 11:01 am
>
>All you fanatics and sick religious fundies, you make me puke with your intolerance as if you are “GOD”. For god’s sake, the world is round BUT NOT EXACTLY ROUND.
>You got only one Mother Theresa, the rest of the hothead preachers are all hypocrites. I have seen too many – behaviour in private lives are completely revolting of their own preaching. Wonder how come they don’t vomit.
>Wake up, you morons!!!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In a way they are truly morons who refuse to see simply that the so-called miracles they encounter every day are also capable of being demonstrated by people of any other religion, if the latter use the same psychological principles of the mind. But Christians and Christian leaders have openly commandeered god for their own sole use, and seek self-gain and material wealth from it.

It’s perfectly all right if they use their religion for their own self-improvement, since they are such unaccomodating morons in the first place. It’s about time the law makes determined converting of others an offence, nothwithstanding that they are doing in good faith. The recent example in the news of the married couple being convicted is a good eye-opener. It is an excellent deterence to other so-called Christians.

yik keng yeong:

That the heterosexual stable family is, and should be , society’s building block is incontrovertible.

This has been so since time immemorial. What is also indubitable is that innate same sex attraction is entirely

natural for at least 10% of homosapiens. Statistically speaking, anything more than 5% means that this trait is

a normal subset, not an aberration of nature to be ignored so that it will quietly go away,

nor an abhorrence that should be ostracised by society.

It is a moot point that official recognition and acceptance of homosexualism will increase its prevalence in society

leading to increased same sex cohabitation and marriages. Such policies have not been in existence long enough in other countries

for detailed long term research to substantiate its ill conception or to confirm its salutary effects.

Personally, without the benefit of statistics, I think all governmental interference will be neutral,

without any conceivable effects on one’s sexual orientation and disposition towards setting up a traditional family unit.

Just as it is preternatural and totally loathsome for homosexuals to even contemplate amorous affection and sexual intercourse

with the opposite sex, it is even more so for heterosexuals to consider a same sex liaison, no matter that they become better

exposed via governmentally sanctioned sex education on a regular basis as to how gays interact socially and sexually.

Traditional family values are almost universal, with or without any religious input. Every Chinese knows that

the Son who does not produce an offspring ( contentiously, this should be male ) is guilty of being unfilial. Yet it is difficult

to thwart nature which has been honed by millions of evolutionary years and if homosexuals are wired with neurons that make

them what they are, all the pressure, guilt traps , accusations and efforts to ‘ rehabilitate’ them from any quarter will come to nought.

Personal experience with patients has taught me that enforced marriages of gays to the opposite sex

in efforts to build traditional families normally result in dysfunctional relationships with tragic consequences to all concerned.

Anonymous:

Debating with a fundamentalis:

A: Homosexuality is unnatural! It occurs nowhere else in nature! It is caused by nurture not nature!
B: Er, it occurs throughout nature (refers to studies of showing 1500 species which show a percentage that are homosexual). Clearly it occurs naturally and is natural for a percentage of beings.
A: (shifting tack) How can you compare man to animals, man is not an animal! He has free will and morality!
B: Er, it was you that said it didn’t occur naturally or in nature…
A(not listening): Man has a choice whether or not to commit murder! Animals do not have morality!
B (puzzled by this tack): Animals (apart from some primates) generally only kill to eat, and stop if they’re not hungry. Only man kills in the name of religion. Which behaviour is more moral?
A: Stop comparing man to animals! Homosexuality is immoral! All religions agree on this!
B: (points out the religions that don’t agree and those within various religions that don’t agree)…and even the world leader of the Anglican Church says that gay relationships are fine for people of homosexual orientation if they are monogamous.
A: Those religions are the work of the devil! He’s a liberal! ! Liberals are noisy and uncouth and wont shut up and sit down when we covet their organisations and carry out a hostile takeover!! It is the mouth of the beast!
B: It’s not a liberal/conservative issue. Across the political spectrum there are those who believe gay people should have equality. Dick Cheney (Bush’s VP) is in favour of gay marriage…
A: He’s a Nazi! Gay rights supporters are Nazis! Liberals are Nazis! Why don’t they talk about something else! Why must they keep on about homosexuality! There are more important things! I have to spend all my time online telling people it’s unnatural and immoral! They are oppressing me!
B: But the Nazis murdered homosexuals, just like some fundamentalists do now…
A: The bible says they should be killed! It’s God’s will! AIDS is God’s punishment for gays!
B: But diseases are not punishment. Everyone gets ill sometime, even the saintly. And most people who die from AIDS are heterosexual…
A: Diseases are punishment! Cancer is the result of a sinful life!

And so on, ad nauseam.

Janelle:

Hi Anthony,

Interesting encounter. I think you should have seen the true color of that person. Trust a

Just remember, not everyone who goes to church is a christian. Neither is one a christian by professing himself/herself to be one. Likewise, not everyone who goes to temple lives by the Taoist principle, and not everyone who attends a Buddhism talk is a truly converted Buddhist.

When I was growing up, I came across many guys who went to church just to find a girlfriend. I also witnessed many hypocrite “christians”. That’s why I told myself I would never become a christian.

But, as I grew older, I also came across many very godly, sincere and truthful Christians. So, I learned to be more open. There’s black sheep in any organisation, religion or group. We should not lump all together.