Stanton l jones homosexuality

Upcoming Events

LGBT rights Core Issues Trust and Anglican Mainstream cite a study carried out by Stanton L Jones of Wheaton College in Illinois and Mark. Homosexuality by Stanton L. Jones, , available at Book Depository with free delivery worldwide. Stanton L. Jones argues that Christian colleges that bar gay sex can still religious institutions of higher education handle matters of sexuality.

Stanton L. Jones is a professor at Wheaton College and was a speaker at the EFCA Theology Conference. Download. Stanton L. Jones presents an overview of the Christian understanding who are challenging the traditional Christian position of homosexuality. How prevalent is homosexuality? by. Stanton L. Jones (Goodreads Author), Questions like these often accompany discussions of homosexual behavior.

Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate Paperback – November 6, ​ Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse help us face these issues squarely and honestly.​ Next they help us to interpret the research's relevance to the moral debate within the church. Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate. Front Cover. Stanton L. Jones, Mark A. Yarhouse. InterVarsity Press, Sep 20, Stanton L. Jones presents an overview of the Christian understanding who are challenging the traditional Christian position of homosexuality.

M any religious and social conservatives believe that etanton is a mental illness caused exclusively by psychological or spiritual factors and that all homosexual persons could change their orientation if they simply tried hard enough.

This view is widely homosexuality and rightly so as both wrong on the facts and harmful in effect. We are told that homosexual persons are just as psychologically healthy as heterosexuals, that sexual orientation is biologically determined at birth, that sexual orientation cannot be jone and that the attempt to change it is necessarily harmful, that homosexual relationships are equivalent to heterosexual ones in all important characteristics, and that personal identity is properly and legitimately homosexuality around sexual orientation.

These claims are as misguided as the ridiculed beliefs of some social conservatives, as they spring from distorted or incomplete representations of the best findings from the science of same-sex attraction. Today we approach same-sex attraction with views grounded in social and biological scientific perspectives that are only partially supported by empirical findings.

Once homosexuality came to be seen not as a sin but as a sickness, it became a simple matter for social science to overturn the opposition to homosexual acts.

But the decisive blow stantn the mental-illness construal of homosexuality came from a single study in Psychologist Evelyn Hooker published findings that convincingly demonstrated that homosexual persons do not necessarily manifest psychological maladjustment. To avoid misunderstanding the phenomenon of homosexuality, we must grapple with the Achilles heel of research into the stanton condition: the issue jones sample representativeness.

But representative samples of homosexual persons are difficult to gather, first, because homosexuality is a statistically uncommon phenomenon. This infrequency makes it hard to find participants for research studies, leading researchers to study easy-to-access groups of persons such as visible participants in advocacy groups who may not be representative of the broader homosexual population.

Add to this the difficulty of defining homosexuality, of establishing boundaries of what constitutes homosexuality with individuals coming in and out of the closet, and also shifting in their experience of same-sex identity and attractionand of the shifting perceptions of the social desirability of embracing the identity label of gay or lesbianand the difficulty of knowing when one is studying a truly representative sample of homosexual persons becomes clear.

W ith this caution in mind, we can now approach the broad beliefs shaping our culture. First, are homosexual persons as psychologically healthy as heterosexuals? Many believe so, and public representations of the scientific evidence support the belief. For instance, inin its amicus curiae brief for the Supreme Court case Bowers v. Evelyn Hooker, in her study, was careful to reject only the claim that homosexuality is always pathological.

She never made the logically distinct assertion that homosexual persons on average are just as psychologically healthy as heterosexuals. It is well that she did not, because the consistent findings of the best, most representative research suggest the contrary, despite a few scattered compatible findings from smaller studies of less representative samples.

Depression and substance abuse are found to be on average 20 to 30 percent more prevalent among homosexual persons. Teens manifesting same-sex attraction report suicidal thoughts and attempts at double to triple the rate of other teens.

Similar indicators of diminished physical health emerge in this literature. Social stigma is the popular explanation, both in scientific studies and in mass media, for heightened homisexuality distress jomosexuality stanton.

The possibility that the orientation and all it entails cuts against a fundamental, gender-based given of the human condition, thus creating distress, is not raised. The correlation between social stigma and psychological problem is real, but the empirical case for the first causing the second has yet to be made. Is homosexuality biologically determined at birth? A pervasive understanding is settling into Western culture that homosexual orientation, indeed any and all sexual orientations, has been stantonn by science to be a given stantkn the human person and rooted in biology.

Why does this falsehood—that homosexuality has been santon to have an exclusively biological cause—matter? It is the basis for asserting that sexual orientation is the same sort of characteristic as race or skin color, which has become, for instance, the foundational metaphor in the push for the right to marry someone of the same sex. One reason it is jones believed that homosexuality is conclusively caused by homosexuality factors is the supposed lack of a credible alternative.

There are, in fact, many such studies and a lot of actual evidence. Recent studies show that familial, cultural, and other environmental factors contribute to same-sex attraction. Broken families, absent fathers, older mothers, and being born and living in urban settings all are associated with homosexual experience or attraction. Even that most despised of hypothesized causal contributors, childhood sexual abuse, has recently received significant empirical validation as a partial contributor from a sophisticated thirty-year longitudinal study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior.

Of course, these variables at most partially determine later homosexual experience, and most children who experienced any or all of these still grow up heterosexual, but the effects are nonetheless real.

T o say that psychological and environmental variables play a part in causation does not mean that biology does not, rather just not to the extent that many gay-affirming scholars claim. The two most influential contemporary theories of biological causation focus respectively on fraternal birth order and genetics; each has some level of support, but for modest-sized causal effects at best.

Males who were the product of jones wombs are incompletely masculinized. And it is posited that the more male children such mothers bear, the more profound their reactions and the greater the likelihood that the later-born sons will be homosexual.

In short, the more older brothers, the more likely the younger brothers are to be homosexual. The actual evidence such an immunological reaction exists is minimal apart from the raw claim jones gay men tend to have homosexuality numbers of older brothers. But jlnes they? Early studies claiming to demonstrate a disproportionate jones of older brothers among homosexual men were based upon advertisement-recruited, volunteer samples vulnerable to volunteer bias.

As Anthony Bogaert and Ray Blanchard, the major proponents of this theory, multiplied their reports of this phenomenon, their larger and larger samples were created by folding new volunteer samples into a common pool nomosexuality their original samples, thus stanton larger and larger nonrepresentative samples. Recently, Bogaert analyzed two nationally representative samples and found only dtanton exceptionally weak older-brother effect, but only for same-sex attraction, not for same-sex behavior.

Then he analyzed an independent homowexuality truly representative sample eight times the size of homosexulity previous studies, finding no older-brother effect.

At roughly the same time, a study of two million Danes and another of 10, American teenagers both failed stanton find the effect. If there is a genetic component to sexual orientation, then the more two people share their genetic endowment, the more likely they are to share the same sexual orientation.

The then-moribund jones theory received a homosexuality boost from J. Bailey examined three groups in descending order of genetic similarity: genetically identical twins, fraternal twins and non-twin brothers who are essentially 50 percent identical, homosxeuality adopted siblings who have no particular genetic similarity.

The results generated wide and simplistic media coverage. What was stanton widely understood was that only in 14 of the 41 identical-twin pairs did the two twin brothers match for sexual orientation; in the remaining 27 sets the identical twin brothers did jones match.

B ut the deeper problem with the study was again one of sample representativeness. Using a more representative sample from the Australian Twin Registry, Bailey homosexuality saw jones concordance for identical male twins fall from 52 to a mere 20 joens, and the matching for tsanton orientation between each pair of identical male twins fell to a mere 3 out of 27 homosexuality The ballyhooed genetic effect had shrunk considerably, a fact that failed, of course, to capture any media attention and is often left out of the textbook treatments of the subject.

Inan impressive and much larger study utilizing the Swedish Twin Registry produced almost homosexualiry results: Among the 71 pairs stanton identical male twins of whom at least one twin was gay, in only seven cases 9.

But the search for a genetic mechanism continues, stanton a more statistically powerful calculation, that of heritability, which estimates how much of the variability of sexual orientation may be attributed to genetic influences. The higher this estimate, the greater the suggested genetic contribution. The best recent studies consistently generate heritability estimates for male homosexuality of 30 to 50 percent, a statistically significant finding that sounds quite powerful.

Heritability estimates for female homosexuality are slightly less than for males, but still statistically significant. But what do heritability estimates of 30 to 50 percent mean? Behavior genetics has established heritability estimates for a vast array of psychological traits. Quite a number of traits demonstrate much higher heritability than does homosexual orientation.

Those with roughly similar heritability include social attitudes such as right-wing authoritarianism, inclination to religiosity, and church attendance. One study by a giant stanton behavioral genetics, Robert Plomin, found that the proclivity to watch television has an average heritability estimate of 45 percent, on par with the typical stanton for the heritability of male homosexuality.

Contrary to the assumptions of many social conservatives, biology does appear to play a modest part in determining sexual orientation. Contrary to the assumptions of many social progressives, psychological and environmental variables also appear to play at least a modest part in determining sexual orientation. In contrast to the hubris of those prone to making emphatic pronouncements, what we do not yet know about the causation of sexual orientation dwarfs the bit that we are beginning to know.

And the fact that causation is indubitably a complex and mysterious by-product of the interaction of biological and psychological variables confounds the assertion that sexual orientation is just like skin color, determined at birth or even conception.

And contrary to the suggestions of some, the involvement of some biological influence does not prove that change in sexual orientation is impossible. If some measure of heritability does not establish that the trait is not modifiable, what does the direct evidence show about change? H as science established that sexual orientation cannot change? Dozens of scholarly papers appeared in homosexuality from the s to the early s reporting that a substantial portion of those wanting to change homosexual orientation did change to some degree.

But rarely since has a professional publication reported such results. Did science change direction and prove change impossible? Not quite. Certainly, there has been lately less research of late studying the possibility of stznton. The removal in of homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders both changed the political environment in the mental-health professions and undermined grant funding for research on this subject. Many academics no longer had any motivation to study this phenomenon and considerable political reasons not to do so.

Further, prior published research is commonly dismissed as inadequate. For example, treatment outcome is not followed and homosexualitg over time as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention. Such criticism took its most comprehensive form in the report of the APA task force studying SOCE sexual-orientation change efforts. These scholars set extraordinary standards of methodological rigor for what they regarded as a reasonable scientific study of the possibility of sexual-orientation change, a move that resulted in the satnton of homoswxuality six studies out of dozens as meriting close examination.

These studies were, in turn, dismissed for a variety of reasons, jones the panel with no credible findings, by their standards, documenting the efficacy of SOCE. After dismissing SOCE for its lack of empirical validation, the panel then recommended gay-affirming therapy while explicitly acknowledging that it lacked the very type of empirical validation required of SOCE.

Not at all; rather, skeptical reviewers have dismissed evidence of the possibility of change for some on the basis of such studies homosexuality methodologically inadequate by post hoc and artificially stringent standards. Is sexual orientation immutable? With Mark Yarhouse of Regent University, I recently studied people seeking to change their sexual orientation. We assessed the sexual orientations and psychological distress levels of 98 individuals 72 men, 26 women trying to change their sexual orientation through ministries organized under Exodus International, beginning early in the process and following them over six to seven years with five additional, independent assessments.

Our original round of findings was published in a book titled Ex-Gays? On the other hand, 20 percent reported giving up and fully embracing homosexual identity, and the remaining 27 percent continued the process of attempted change with limited and unsatisfactory success. On average, statistically significant decreases in homosexual orientation were reported across the entire sample, while a smaller but still significant increase of heterosexual attraction was reported. The attempt to change orientation was not found to lead to increases in psychological distress on average; homosezuality, the study found several small significant improvements in homosexuaity distress associated with the interventions.

And jones we fall prey to the same mistakes we have been criticizing in others, we have said repeatedly that because our sample was not homosexuality representative of those seeking change among all religious homosexuals, these are likely optimistic outcome estimates.

I conclude that homosexual orientation is, contrary to the supposed consensus, sometimes mutable. Not all interventions are the same; not all practitioners are equally skilled.

Perhaps most important, those seeking change vary considerably stantoj their intensity of motivation, in their resourcefulness, and in the context in which they try to change. Most of those seeking change and most of those who actually attain some level of change are highly religiously committed, and these individuals who believe in a God who intervenes in their lives stanton embedded in communities of care and are motivated by their core understanding of who they are as a person before God.

It is a wonder that anyone without such resources successfully obtains sexual-orientation change.

Jones authored the lead article, "Religion and Psychology," for the Encyclopedia of Psychology, jointly published in by the American Psychological Association and Oxford University Press. His article in the March American Psychologist, titled "A Constructive Relationship for Religion with the Science and Profession of Psychology: Perhaps the Best Model Yet," was a call for greater respect for and cooperation with religion by secular psychologists. Jones has also written, with his wife, Brenna, a five-book series on sex education in the Christian family called God's Design for Sex.

He is also the coauthor of Modern Psychotherapies with Richard E. Yarhouse and editor of Psychology and Christianity: Four Views. He has published many other professional and popular articles and chapters. InterVarsity Press Bolero Ozon. The Gay Debate. Jones presents an overview of the Christian understanding of sexuality in general and then skillfully tackles the revisionists of Scripture who are challenging the traditional Christian position of homosexuality.

The details of the therapy undertaken by participants was also not clear. In their paper, Jones and Yarhouse wrote that the "change process" referred broadly to general involvement in an Exodus-affiliated ministry group, "which typically incorporates worship, prayer, education, and discussion.

King said the omission of detail was serious, given the claims being made on behalf of the research, because it would prevent others from being able replicate the study. He said the study was part of a long line of attempts to "cure" homosexuality. This is the latest round is much more spiritually-based and has been going for at least 25 years in the US and, increasingly, here. It seems to be a mixture of a feeling that the person is "wounded" - they talk about emotional woundedness in their stuff.

That seems to be old psychoanalytical theory about a distant father and an overbearing mother, stuff that's been already shown to be not associated with sexuality, but they [campaigners] keep on this line. In the American Psychological Association put together a taskforce to review scientific literature on efforts to change sexual orientation. It looked at 83 studies in English published from to They recommended that APA should, "take a leadership role in opposing the distortion and selective use of scientific data about homosexuality by individuals and organisations and in supporting the dissemination of accurate scientific and professional information about sexual orientation in order to counteract bias.

King said that promoting so-called treatments for homosexuality on the sides of buses can be "tremendously harmful within society because it underscores the stigma against gay and lesbian people that, somehow, they're ill and need to be healed. The NHS would never pay for a treatment with this grade of evidence. It's just poor. Topics LGBT rights. Christianity Religion Sexuality analysis.