Showing posts with label sexual orientation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sexual orientation. Show all posts

Thursday, April 25, 2019

Gay Christian Identities still in Conflict in 2019



Recently, an American politician has increased his national standing since he became a Democratic candidate for president. Pete Buttigieg is the Mayor of South Bend, Indiana. 

Two identities in conflict for some Americans don't appear conflicted when Buttigieg speaks of himself. In a recent interview with the Washington Post, he referred to a time when he wrestled with his identity as a gay man and a Christian (29 March 2019).

It's no surprise that many conservative American evangelical Christians continue to view same-sex relations as sinful. Evangelicals are highly represented in the Republican party and evangelical leaders have spoken out in support of president Trump. For these conservatives, the identities of American, Republican, and Christian seem highly integrated. And for many, the notion of being gay and Christian doesn't make sense.

Despite their views on same-sex relations, many evangelicals have shown a kinder face toward sexual minorities in recent years. A recent book by Mark Yarhouse and his colleagues of the conservative Wheaton College (formerly at Regent University) expresses this trend in the lead title, Listening to Sexual Minorities. Yarhouse is a favored speaker at many evangelical colleges and universities.

In contrast to what seemed like a more friendly environment for sexual minorities, evangelical leader, Franklin Graham, just issued a two-pronged attack on Buttigieg aimed at splitting the "gay Christian" identity. Here's a recent quote (WP, 25 April 2019):

“Mayor Buttigieg says he’s a gay Christian,” Graham wrote. “As a Christian I believe the Bible which defines homosexuality as sin, something to be repentant of, not something to be flaunted, praised or politicized. The Bible says marriage is between a man & a woman — not two men, not two women.”

Eventually, Democrats will decide who will represent them in the national election. Meanwhile, we can expect more people wrestling with religion and sexual identities. Some will look at their own identities while others look at their attitudes toward those identifying as gay Christians. 

But there is another identity that might be in conflict for some-- party affiliation. We don't hear much about being gay Christian and Republican. Hopefully, no one will challenge the integration of gay Christian and American.

For those interested in the conservative and progressive interpretations of biblical texts, consider reading A House Divided: Sexuality, Morality, and Christian Cultures



Buy from the publisher, WipfandStock, or at your favorite bookstore.

Now for some data. PRRI reported that most Americans support protections for people who identify as LGBT (2018). The supports is stronger among Democrats, but more than half of Republicans are supportive.


Connections

   My Page    www.suttong.com
   My Books   AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE
   FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton
   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

Publications (many free downloads)
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)     
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)


Thursday, January 24, 2019

Conversion Therapist Comes Out & Apologizes


David Matheson, a gay conversion therapist, has come out as gay according to The Independent (24 Jan 2019). The story was also covered by Sky News and other sources.

Matheson is identified as a Mormon. He has created coursework to help people change their sexuality.  In the coming out story, we learn he left his marriage of 34 years and has begun dating men.

Matheson has not given up his Mormon faith but he did criticize the way he was raised.

According to The Independent, 15 U.S. states have banned mental health professionals from practicing conversion therapy on minors.

His apology was directed to those who identify as LGBTQ: "I unequivocally apologize," he said.

Matheson provided a lengthy post on Facebook dated 21 January. In the post, he provides more details about his marriage and experience in dealing with this life-change.

Same-sex attraction and marriage are topics covered in A House divided: Sexuality, Morality, and Christian Cultures available with discounts from the publisher (Pickwick).

Professors receive FREE exam copies.




Connections

If interested, please join me. I write about psychology and culture—especially topics related to the Psychology of Religion and Positive Psychology.

___________________________________________________

My Page    www.suttong.com

My Books  
 AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE

FACEBOOK  
 Geoff W. Sutton

TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

LinkedIN Geoffrey Sutton  PhD

___________________________________________________

Academic Publications (many free downloads)
     
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)
     
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)







Thursday, September 29, 2016

Philosopher Swinburne Stimulates Same-Sex Strife


Swinburne at MSU
Before becoming a psychologist, I took a number of courses in philosophy. As I recall, many of the professors seemed to enjoy saying edgy things to engage students in thinking clearly about one thing or another.

Swinburne and Sex

Strangely, Professor Swinburne caused quite a stir last week when he made comments about same-sex orientation (his term, homosexuality) and other matters of sexual ethics in a talk on the subject at the Midwestern conference of the Society of Christian Philosophers (SCP). I'm used to hearing Christians offer reasons why same-sex orientation is morally wrong, sinful, and so forth.

Here's the link to Swinburne's talk on YouTube



What would be surprising to me at such a venue is to hear a defense of same-sex orientation as a moral good or perhaps not an issue worthy of moral judgment. Nevertheless, Swinburne's comments stirred a pot that bubbled up to the head of the president of the SCP, Michael Rea who posted an apology on his Facebook page.

Rea's apology provoked further discussion, which went in many directions. I'll post a few quotes and encourage you to read more to get a sense of how professors of philosophy write about same-sex relationships and the freedom to express diverse views. In addition, there are hundreds of comments offering even more ingredients to the mix.

J. Edward Hackett's reaction
 to the Swinburne talk.

Yesterday, I gave Richard Swinburne, the famous Oxford Christian philosopher, a piece of my mind. As one of the keynotes of the Midwest Meeting of Society of Christian Philosophers, he referred to homosexuality as a “disability” and a “incurable condition.” While Swinburne did not think homosexuality was intrinsically wrong in the same way that adultery was wrong, he argued (if that’s the right verb under some principle of charity) that homosexuality was extrinsically wrong. Homosexuality was a disability in the lacking of the ability to have children, and God’s commands of abstaining from homosexuality might prevent others from fostering this incurable condition in others.
My response was mixture of abhorrence and overwhelming anger, and I tried as I might to encounter this idea calmly. 


I want to express my regret regarding the hurt caused by the recent Midwest meeting of the Society for Christian Philosophers. The views expressed in Professor Swinburne's keynote are not those of the SCP itself. Though our membership is broadly united by way of religious faith, the views of our members are otherwise diverse. As Preisdent of the SCP, I am committed to promoting the intellectual life of our philosophical community. Consequently (among other reasons), I am committed to the values of diversity and inclusion. As an organization, we have fallen short of those ideals before, and surely we will again. Nonetheless, I will strive for them going forward. If you have thoughts or feedback you would like to share with me, I would welcome hearing from you via email or private message.

Dreher refers to Swinburne's talk and the surrounding controversy. He includes additional quotes before referring to the "rot in academia." Dreher refers us to a book he recently read by Polish Catholic philosopher Ryszard Legutko. A particular quote caught my attention as worthy of consideration:
 "Legutko, who lived under Polish communism and under Poland’s transition to liberal democracy, writes about how contemporary liberal democracy has adopted the communist habit of denouncing dissenters from its dogmas. He says this is politically useful to the left."

In a lengthy post, Feser observes some "odd things about Rea's statement." I won't repeat all of them here. Suffice it to say, I found Hackett's response surprising given the context of the conference and the known views of Richard Swinburne. And I was surprised at Rea's "apology." At the time of this writing, Feser's blog has 72 comments-- I'll leave it to you to wade through his opinions and the many comments at your leisure.

My Thoughts

1. I support freedom of speech as long as it does not incite people to take harmful action. 

I believe this is Mill's view. I hardly think the mild mannered Swinburne is encouraging anyone to do harm to members of the LGBT community-- especially those who would attend a philosophy conference. 

2. I appreciate hearing views that differ from my own as they provide a basis to consider the merits of different arguments.

Frankly, I heard Swinburne speak on evil and suffering at Missouri State University on the 21st September. His arguments were not impressive but I'd like to see them in print to make sure I am clear why he failed to make a good case for his views. I'm applying what I've learned from neuropsychology— our memories are not perfect recording devices. I cannot apply my meager capacity for philosophical analysis without being able to carefully examine the arguments.

3. I didn't know I was on the progressive side of social thinking until I moved to the Midwestern United States. 

That's where I discovered I wasn't as conservative as many locals. Context matters. I learned to listen closely to intelligent Christians. Some denounced extreme right wing views of vocal clergy but most hid their views in obscure metaphors and theological obfuscations. That's too bad but I suspect that's how they avoid the pain of expressing liberal views in a conservative context.

4. Given my experience noted in number three, I remain surprised by the reaction to Swinburne's lecture.

 He articulates a conservative position quite clearly. It's the varied opinions among Christians that stimulated my own pursuit of differences on sexual morality, which I published in AHouse Divided earlier this year.

5. Some views were expressed with emotional-laden language.

I hardly think of philosophers as people with a passion. Stereotypes abound. It would have been more helpful if the philosophers disagreeing with Swinburne would articulate the bases for their disagreement.

Ironically, I gave a talk at the same conference on Saturday morning. My subject was moral psychology and philosophy and I used an example of same-sex marriage to illustrate moral foundation theory and the arguments conservative and progressive Christians employ. Here's the link to my paper.  Everyone was no polite. I actually wanted more engagement.

6. Another odd event happened that reveals the community context.

At the same time as the philosophy conference, another group of people attended a Faith and Science conference where the them was the Biology of Sin. I also gave a talk there titled, "What is Sin?" I presented some data on the views of Christian counselors about sin-- many, but not all, considered same-sex marriage as sinful. Considering other data, I commented that Christian counselors were often not in sync with most Americans. During the question and answer period, one participant asked a rhetorical question to the effect of, "Is that (being out of sync) bad?" (Link to my paper).

I suspect my questioner might be more concerned with the importance of holding fast to the traditional interpretations of Scripture on matters of sexual sin. Nevertheless, in view of the discussion at hand, I think it serves a greater good to hear conservative and progressive voices on this and other topics. 

(A commercial follows)


Read more 

A House Divided: Sexuality, Morality, and Christian Cultures

Order from Pickwick              Order from Amazon









Connections

   My Page    www.suttong.com
   My Books   AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE
   FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton
   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

Publications (many free downloads)
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)     
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)


Saturday, April 30, 2016

How do youth view sexual identity, attraction, and behavior?






Christians in the United States continue to write and speak about sexual orientation and same-sex relationships as if condoning or condemning same-sex relationships were the keys to Christian identity.

The terms referring to human sexuality can interfere with communication when people use the terms inconsistently or imprecisely. In addition, new research changes our understanding of human sexuality such that older terms may carry meanings that are no longer substantiated by evidence.

I take a look at some terms and cite a study to illustrate the complexity of sexuality. Given the confusion and misinformation, I hope to return to the topic in other posts.


Sex
 In the context of identity, sex refers to a person’s biological status as male, female, or intersex. Intersex is a biological state that includes an infrequent set of features linked to being male or female. The common indicators of biological sex include external genitalia, internal reproductive organs, sex chromosomes, and gonads.

Gender
People commonly use the words sex and gender interchangeably. Scientists use gender to refer to a culturally defined set of attitudes, feelings, and behavior linked to biological sex. Thus there are expectations about what it means to be a girl or boy, woman or man. Clearly, in some cases, it will be important to clarify if a person is referring to sex or gender.

Gender Identity
Gender Identity is the personal sense of being male, female, or transgender. A person’s gender identity may or may not match their biological sex.

Sexual Orientation
A consensus has developed that the construct, sexual orientation, is multidimensional. Scientists argue about the dimensions that compose the construct.

Three dimensions were proposed by Laumann, Gagnon, Michael and Michaels (1994). Each of the three can be viewed in terms of a range of values rather than in terms of categories. The three dimensions are Sexual Identity, Sexual Attraction, and Sexual Behavior.
Some people speak about sexual orientation as if there are firm categories. Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, and Gebhard (1953) referred to four types of sexual orientation. These terms are in common use (homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, and asexual), although our understanding of sexuality has advanced in the last few decades.

Sexual orientation varies overtime
As youth gain an understanding of their sexuality, they respond to questions suggesting that some of them change their appraisal of their sexuality. Recent findings from a longitudinal study by Rosaro, Schrimshaw, Hunter, and Braun (2006) are helpful.

90% of students identifying as gay or lesbian continued to report that identity
The identification rate was lower for bisexual identity- 60 to 70% continued with that identity.

Research problems that affect our understanding of sexuality

The way questions are phrased can make a difference in how youth respond.
Youth respond based on their personal experience and understanding, which can vary.

Some youth are unable or unwilling to respond for different reasons including a lack of being sure about their identity.

Some researchers include only limited aspects of sexuality e.g., identity as gay or lesbian, which may not yield accurate data when other relevant aspects of sexuality such as attraction and sexual activity or behavior are ignored.
A Survey of Three Dimensions

2013 by Gisela Priebe and Carl Goran Svedin.

I included this survey because the researchers looked at three dimensions of sexual identity in a large sample of 3,432 Swedish High School seniors. The measurements help identify current thinking about sexual orientation and related concepts.

1. Sexual identity. The available choices included heterosexual, homosexual (lesbian, gay) bisexual, unsure and None of these

2. Sexual attraction was assessed in two ways. Emotional Attraction was assessed by asking students to use a 5-point scale rating their attraction to other and same sex persons from No attraction = 1 to Strong attraction = 5.

The other aspect of sexual attraction was Romantic Attraction. This was phrased by asking if the students had ever been in love with a man/boy or woman/girl.

3. Sexual behavior. The researchers asked 6 questions to identify actual behavior of the students. They were asked about oral and anal sex and vaginal intercourse. As you can see, the researchers were able to classify type of sexual experience and relate that to other aspects of sexuality.

Selected Survey Results

Most students responded to the items.

The results are complex because many options were available to understand human sexuality. Overall, 24 categories could be formed.

Those who identified as biologically male or female were different in their responses. As in previous studies, female sexuality was more complex. They varied more on the three dimensions than did male students.

The researchers note that a number of the students had not yet been in love (8%) or had sex (26%). This can influence how students answer questions about sexuality.

Heterosexual identity was most closely linked to romantic attraction and sexual behavior.

Homosexual or bisexual identity was most closely linked to emotional attraction.

An unsure identity was linked to different types of emotional attraction. Most of those reporting “unsure” reported bisexual emotional attraction.

Those reporting an asexual identity were 1.4 % of the sample. As the authors note, the number may not be stable given the life experience of the youth.

See the article if you are interested in more details (reference below).

Thinking about Sexual Orientation, Sexual Identity and Sexual Attraction

People who work with youth will do well to better understand the complexity of human sexuality—especially developmental aspects of sexuality.

How people ask questions about sexuality can make a difference in the answers given. Consider consulting with an expert if you are using or developing questionnaires.

Youth may answer the same question in different ways over time because experience and understanding can make a difference. Different answers may reflect confusion or an actual change.

There are variations in sexuality among those we perceive to be in the majority— that is, those with a heterosexual identity.

Sexual minorities are a diverse group of persons. Relying on stereotypes will interfere with understanding a person’s sexual identity.

People refer to sexual orientation, sexual attraction, and sexual behavior in different ways. It’s important to clarify what people mean.

As the study authors note, they did not ask about kissing and sexual touch as a part of sexual behavior. However, these sexual activities are a part of sexual identity formation.

Sexual abuse is common and it is also linked to sexual identity formation. But sexual abuse cannot be identified as a cause in a strict cause-effect relationship.

The way in which people express their sexuality and gender identity depends on a complex interplay between genetic factors, biological status, and life experiences. Research does not offer sufficient evidence to explain the variations in human sexuality. The extant evidence does not support an exclusive role for biology or environmental factors, or personal choice when it comes to variations in human sexuality.

To read more about sexuality and morality in Christian cultures, see A House Divided.

Connections


Twitter  @GeoffWSutton 


For a related but different focus on morality and Christian cultures see

  A House Divided.

Also, A House Divided Website
For additional free book reviews and articles



References
Priebe, G., & Svedin, C. (2013). Operationalization of Three Dimensions of Sexual Orientation in a National Survey of Late Adolescents. Journal of Sex Research, 50(8), 727-738. doi:10.1080/00224499.2012.713147
Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., Hunter, J., & Braun, L. (2006). Sexual identity development among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths: Consistency and change over time. Journal of Sex Research, 43(1), 46-58. doi:10.1080/00224490609552298
Related Posts






Tuesday, March 8, 2016

Identities in Conflict: Sexual and Spiritual





Recently I was invited to give a talk to Christians in a graduate counseling program. The topic was "Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation," which fits with a chapter in my new book, A House Divided. I was glad for the opportunity because I think its important for Christians to understand what sexual minorities are saying and how different Christian groups understand what sexual minorities are saying.

I think it's really important for Christians to understand that sexual identity and spiritual identity are often in conflict within conservative faith communities.

Our sense of self--who we are-- consists of several identities. For example, people might identify themselves based on their marital status (married, living with, single), career type (teacher, electrician, counselor), or parental status (mother, daughter, grandfather).

Two major identities are spiritual and sexual

Identities are multiple and they are not static. We continue to reshape our identities throughout our life.

Spiritual

Most of the people in the world identify as religious or spiritual. The largest religion is Christianity with about 2.2 billion people identifying as Christian. Of these, most are Catholic (about 1.1 billion). For some, their specific faith group is highly important. Others may say, "I'm spiritual but not religious."

Spiritual identity is not static. Although some continue with a child-like faith through much of their life, others grow in their understanding of God and their relationship to God. I've seen youth from fundamentalist homes treat Jesus like a special friend. It's a bit strange to see girls relate to Jesus as a boyfriend--heterosexual guys can't relate like that.

Intelligent Christian youth who attend a Christian liberal arts college will find themselves questioning their faith just as they learn to question other beliefs and ideas. You can't teach young people critical thinking skills and expect them to consider faith off-limits. Identities can change as many youth want to leave the embarrassment associated with implausible interpretations of their faith.

Sexual

The second major identity, sexual, requires some negotiating for sexual minorities. Heterosexuals may be happy to respond "male" or "female" on a survey. But some may think in terms of gender rather than biological sex. When young men describe the good looking women and the young women assess the local selection of men, it's easy to identify as a man or woman.

But what if you aren't attracted to people of the opposite sex? What if you are attracted to women and men? What if you think of yourself as more like a person of the opposite sex from your biological sex? Sexual orientation is part of sexual identity. The sex of those we desire to be with informs our identity.

Sexual identities develop as people integrate their experiences with their own thoughts and feelings. It's easy to identify as a woman or a man when there is a close match between one's biological sex and the cultural expectations for people of that sex. But struggles arise when a culture does not support differences.

Many Christians with same-sex attraction have tried to fake being straight.  Some married opposite sex partners and had children but did not feel they were true to themselves. "Living the lie" is an expression I'v heard from sexual minorities who hide their sexual identity.

Conflict

Spiritual and sexual identities overlap in their formation for many. Thus, the normal struggles of youth can be exacerbated when they do not have a supportive culture to deal with either or both identities if they are different from their local culture. For example, Christian youth who question their faith and experience same-sex attraction within a fundamentalist church, community, or school may not find a supportive person who will listen to their struggles.

For some, inner conflict becomes unbearable. Survivors resolve their struggles in many ways. Spiritually, it's a no-brainer to understand that sexual minorities must leave conservative churches if they want to remain a Christian and live openly as a non-heterosexual. Some of course, drop their faith and join others based on their gender identity.

Even as Christians are divided on how to respond to the needs of sexual minorities, some sexual minorities experience inner divisions when they feel forced to choose between spiritual and sexual identities.


Conservative Christians who want to be loving and kind toward sexual minorities sometimes ask two things. One, change your sexual identity and two, remain celibate unless you marry someone of the opposite sex. Unfortunately, the harm done to so many sexual minorities based on change efforts has resulted in a public outcry to end the abuse-- even among Evangelicals. Change therapies have a poor record of success and a long-record of harm.

As far as celibacy goes, it has a long history of failure regardless of sexual orientation. Most people "burn" with sexual desire. Only a minority of humans have little interest in sex.

Sadly, some youth do not resolve the conflict but live in distress for years, perhaps decades. And as we know, some end their lives. Conflict resolution is critical to the personal health of sexual minorities. See this CDC link for more about suicide attempts and violence among LGBT youth. There's also suggestions for being helpful.

*****
I must say that I was surprised that by the end of the talk many in the room were weeping. Memories of people in pain came to the fore. Despite a conservative faith, the focus was on people in conflict and their stories.


Connections


Learn more in the book: A House Divided

Book Website A House Divided

Facebook  Page Geoff W. Sutton

Twitter  @GeoffWSutton 

Website: Geoff W. Sutton   www.suttong.com