Wayne Besen - Author, Activist, Columnist, Public Speaker

Monday, March 13, 2006

60 Minutes On The Origins Of Sexual Orientation

The CBS news magazine 60 Minutes had a fascinating segment last night on the origins of sexual orientation. I thought it was very well done and rebutted the patently absurd notion that homosexuality is caused by family dynamics. After all, it takes a particularly foolish person with blinders to still believe in that outdated theory. However, the show may have gone too far with stereotyping gay men.

I'd be curious to get my reader's thoughts on the 60 Minutes segment.

37 Comments:

The segment left out something very important: Jesus Christ.

Without the Savior there is no science. So, how could they discuss science without the savior? Science without Jesus leads to SIN - which also leads to homosexuality.

We must remember that Godless sex is a deathstyle and those who partake in such sodomy will suffer not only in this life, but inherrit Hell.

I pray for both science and the sons of Sodom.

Adam
posted by Anonymous, at 3/12/2006 11:23 PM

As someone whose been in the Northwestern Community (student & staff) for a few years and followed the stories about Michael Bailey, I can't say I have much respect for him as a scholar. His methods are highly suspect.

As a gay man, I find the basic tilt of this story to be out of line with my experience. This idea that "gay male" equals "feminine" doesn't match up with my experience at all. Certainly some men--both gay and straight--carry characteristics that our particular culture associates with women. That in itself is not indicative of homosexuality, and many, many gay men are the most masculine guys around. To base a study on such shallow concepts seems to set up an inherently flawed paradigm rooted in false stereotypes.

...which is about what I'd expect to come from Michael Bailey
posted by Anonymous, at 3/12/2006 11:37 PM

I am going to ignore the comment above...

I loved the segment. Specially how, at the end, the mother of the gay/trans kid said she did not want to change the outside of her son when he would continue to be who he is inside. Beautiful.

I also liked that the segment shed some light on the issue of prosmicuity. It has always been obvious to me that gays are like straight guys when it comes to sex, the difference is that gays tend to be more sucessful in hooking up because the targets (other men) are equally eager. It's that simple. Of course there are exceptions, a lot of exceptions, but in general, it made a lot of sense. Kudos on CBS!
posted by Anonymous, at 3/12/2006 11:40 PM

I can relate to what Jay just said, and I agree that there are a lot of gay guys who can easily pass for straights (I am said to be one of these) but what is the problem with a guy "looking gay"?

I see no problem with the so called stereotype. Actually, one of the problems we have is that we are not visible, we should wish everybody looked gay, it would make our lives much easier.
posted by Anonymous, at 3/12/2006 11:44 PM

Good News: We now know you people were born fags.

Bad News: You are still fags.

Life ain't fair.

Mac
Montgomery, AL
posted by Anonymous, at 3/12/2006 11:49 PM

Quote:
"Good News: We now know you people were born fags.

Bad News: You are still fags.

Life ain't fair.

Mac
Montgomery, AL"

Good News: We know you weren't born to be spiteful.

Bad News: You still are.
posted by Anonymous, at 3/13/2006 12:10 AM

Yea Montgomery, AL, who posted as anymonous then signs his name not too bright, life sure ain't fair, gays don't have there noses stuck up their asses like you do, filling your brains with shit!

Dominick
posted by Anonymous, at 3/13/2006 1:14 AM

The family dynamics theory of homosexuality has not been disproven. CBS is mistaken and behaving unethically in claiming otherwise.

The one thing that you can say in favour of that program is that it is so obviously one-sided and unfair in not giving supporters of the family theories any time to make their case that it isn't likely to convince anyone who hasn't made up their mind already.
posted by Anonymous, at 3/13/2006 3:53 AM

Well I have not yet seen the show, I recorded it, as far as being unfair and and not going into giving the family dynamics as cause to homosexuality to be unfair, well there have been times when the religious concertive programs have (NOT) given any fair Disussion by gay activist so what goes around comes around.
posted by Anonymous, at 3/13/2006 8:25 AM

Hello....wakeup. There is no family dynamics side to the debate. The family side has not had a cogent study since the 60's -and these have been disproved.

The only people who beleive it is upbrining are haters of homosexuals who are stuck in the past.

If the show is one-sided, maybe it is because there is only one side. A show on the earth also does not have to have a moron saying that the earth is flat for the sake of balance and the expense of accuracy.
posted by Anonymous, at 3/13/2006 8:58 AM

Great to see a segment that ignored the trash- peddling of the religous right and their ridiculous "family dynamics" theories of sexual orientation. That bullshit does not deserve the time of day or to be included in a real life interpretation of sexual orientation research. The program confirms what any gay person can relate to and that is that sexual orientation is an innate characteristic that you cannot supress or deny.
posted by Anonymous, at 3/13/2006 9:52 AM

The show did at least make an argument for gay not being a choice, but i agree with jay that it unfortunately peddled the same "female" stereotypes of gay men. I wonder if their conclusions would have been the same if they had done the experiment with 30 butch guys from a leather bar.
posted by Anonymous, at 3/13/2006 10:45 AM

I find it strange there still is stereotyping and CBS continues to promulgate this fallacy. Not all gay men desire to be drag queens. Never once did I want lacy curtains or paint my nails. I can’t cook worth a darn nor am I patient enough to be anal-retentively ultra-organized. I wanted to be a fireman when I was younger.

Let me be honest with you. My MP3 player is loaded with Renee Fleming operas and Broadway show tunes. And, yessssssssss, even the requisite Madonna newest CD is in my ear right now.

But, I’m still wearing cowboy boots. That’s closest I get to wearing heels.
posted by Anonymous, at 3/13/2006 11:20 AM

(Anonymous wrote:)

Hello....wakeup. There is no family dynamics side to the debate. The family side has not had a cogent study since the 60's -and these have been disproved.

The only people who beleive it is upbrining are haters of homosexuals who are stuck in the past.

If the show is one-sided, maybe it is because there is only one side.

No, the reason there's no debate is because the debate has been shut down (see: Dr. Robert Spitzer and the smearing of his reputation by false charges in 2001).
posted by Anonymous, at 3/13/2006 12:10 PM

Did they ever show Adam and Jared's Dad in this "60 minutes" segment?
posted by Anonymous, at 3/13/2006 12:14 PM

It's tempting to take anything Michael Bailey says on this subject with a grain of salt.
posted by Anonymous, at 3/13/2006 3:33 PM

The debate was shut down because is outdated bullshit; like debating if the earth goes around the sun or not and spitzer is a quack---asshole. I bet kurt wrote that one. And Adam, the first poster, i'll have you know i'm a son of Gemorrah; and proud of it!
We only go to Sodom for circuit parties.
Bitchard Queer
posted by Anonymous, at 3/13/2006 4:06 PM

Someone wrote that "The only people who beleive it is upbrining are haters of homosexuals who are stuck in the past." This is untrue. Try reading the chapter 'Virtually Abnormal' in Andrew Sullivan's book Love Undetectable. Written by a layman, it happens to be one of the more sensible contributions to the debate.

See also the chapter on psychoanalytic and behaviorist theories in Simon LeVay's Queer Science - he deals with them in a rather more honest and responsible way than some other biological researchers.
posted by Anonymous, at 3/13/2006 4:08 PM

To Jay,

I have found that many gay men who are "masculine" or "Very masculine" are trying too hard at it. In other words - it does not seem natural - but is phony. A way of fitting in, being more attractive to other gay men, and adhering to society's standards.
And a sign that being who they are is really NOT OK [internalized homophobia].
That is it.

G.
posted by Anonymous, at 3/13/2006 5:34 PM

Who cares what andrew sullivan has to say; he's a self-hating homo rightwing suck-up. None of these bozos have any credentials for pontificating about homosexuality. The APA are the real experts and they say it's not an 'illness' nor caused by family disfunction. But we gays already know that! End of discussion!
posted by Anonymous, at 3/13/2006 6:03 PM

Adam is retarded! "Without the Savior there is no science" are you as daft as you sound!?!? Science has florished BECAUSE it havent been polluted by your assbackwards religion.
posted by Anonymous, at 3/13/2006 6:05 PM

Oy! Let's calm down.
The spot on "60 Minutes" was basic, incomplete, simplistic, generalized... what else? It was a TV show, guys! Did you expect something scientific?
Yes, I was astounded that nowadays CBS would air something as incomplete, as uniformed, hell, as UN-formed as that piece of quasi-journalism, but it IS television. It's MEANT to get a reaction. Now our call and duty is to go out there and, once again, right the wrongs, clear up the lies, etc.
Life is hard.
posted by Anonymous, at 3/13/2006 8:01 PM

I think you will find that there are many reasons to care about what Andrew Sullivan has to say. He's a highly talented and intelligent writer, and a widely influential one. There are also plenty of good reasons for seeing what LeVay says - he's one 'bozo' with plenty of credentials, and much too smart to rule out family dynamics as one possible cause of sexual orientation. Neither of them is 'self-hating.'
posted by Anonymous, at 3/13/2006 8:49 PM

EVERY SINGLE STUDY IN THE LAST 15 YEARS REGARDING THE SOURCE OF HOMOSEXUALITY POINTS TO A BIOLOGICAL CAUSE.

AS SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH TECHNIQUES ADVANCE SO DOES THE PROOF OF A BIOLOGICAL CAUSE.

ANYONE WHO ARGUES DIFFERENTLY IS DOING SO BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

g.
posted by Anonymous, at 3/13/2006 9:17 PM

Capital letters, dear lord! Everyone knows writing everything in capitals is characteristic of cranks, or people who aren't able to think or reason properly.

You're just wrong in thinking that criticism of exclusively biological theories of homosexuality must be motivated by religious belief. Try reading.
posted by Anonymous, at 3/13/2006 9:24 PM

YOU try reading Wayne's book! Shmuck!
posted by Anonymous, at 3/14/2006 10:23 AM

There was nothing wrong with my family dynamics and i was attracted to other boys by the time i was in 1st grade. You're 'family dynamics' argument is untenable victorian age baloney!
posted by Anonymous, at 3/14/2006 10:27 AM

How does Besen's book show that criticism of biological theories of homosexuality must be motivated by religion?
posted by Anonymous, at 3/14/2006 7:03 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at 4/01/2009 9:13 AM

ugg shoes
ugg boots
ugg
ugg sale
fake ugg
ugg store
ugg discount
men's ugg
womens ugg
buy ugg boots
ugg cardy
replica ugg
cheap ugg
ugg classic
Ugg Amelie Suede
UGG Bailey Button
UGG Classic Cardy
UGG Classic Crochet
UGG Classic Mini
UGG Classic Short
UGG Classic Tall
Ugg Gypsy Sandal
Ugg Halendi Sandal
UGG Hammond Slipper
UGG Infant's Erin Baby
UGG Layback Slipper
UGG Locarno
Ugg Matala Sandal
Ugg Napoule Sandal
UGG New style
UGG Nightfall
Ugg Persephone Sandal
Ugg Skimmer
UGG Sundance
Ugg Tasmina
UGG Ultra Short
UGG Ultra Tall
UGG Women's Coquette
UGG Women's Knightsbridg
UGG Women's Mayfaire
posted by Unknown, at 12/21/2009 9:20 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at 1/10/2010 8:33 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at 6/25/2010 9:27 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at 8/11/2011 12:42 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at 8/06/2013 1:00 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.
posted by 新北接睫毛板橋美睫預約推薦 0915551807, at 4/03/2015 9:47 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at 5/25/2015 8:56 AM