Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "環境和性取向" in Chinese language version.
It must also be borne in mind that the present homosexual participants may not be representative of homosexual persons. The overwhelming preponderance of homosexual participants was in the gay pride group. There were only three homosexual men and seven homosexual women in the college group.
The reason some individuals develop a gay sexual identity has not been definitively established – nor do we yet understand the development of heterosexuality. The American Psychological Association (APA) takes the position that a variety of factors impact a person's sexuality. The most recent literature from the APA says that sexual orientation is not a choice that can be changed at will, and that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors...is shaped at an early age...[and evidence suggests] biological, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality (American Psychology Association 2010).
No conclusive evidence supports any one specific cause of homosexuality; however, most researchers agree that biological and social factors influence the development of sexual orientation.
Most health and mental health organizations do not view sexual orientation as a 'choice.'
it was a non-clinical study and the data concerning homosexuals was gathered by setting up an interview booth at a “Gay Pride” parade while the data for heterosexuals was gathered at a college. Did the signage attracting participants at the Gay Pride parade booth ask specifically for victims of abuse who were willing to tell their story? The study does not say anything on this point – we do not know how participants were attracted. How likely is it that all the persons who took the questionnaire at the booth just happened to be gay, as it is claimed in this study? [...] Meanwhile, the data on heterosexuals was obtained at colleges; is this a group that one could then compare to persons attracted by unknown means to a booth at a gay pride parade? Can one then ethically extrapolate the findings to the general public? [...] A non-clinical and flawed study with a much skewed sample that even the authors suggest may not be representative.
Another interesting aspect of this study is the use of the word “molestation.” In the questionnaire given to participants, the word “molestation” is never used; “sexual contact” is used. What does this phrase mean to the various participants? Does it mean one thing to those participating in a festive Gay Pride Parade and something quite different to a student at a perhaps more subdued or introspective University setting? Since 84% of gay men and 95% of women considered themselves gay before the “sexual contact” according to the study, could it be something less nefarious than, for example, forcible rape they were recounting? Could it be that the college students were only counting more disturbing experiences, such as forcible rape? Of course it is possible the two groups were defining “sexual contact” in precisely the same manner, but we really should not have to assume such a thing; our doubts are due to the absence of pertinent info from the researchers – this should have been made clear. The study does not even attempt to quantify these probably relevant differences in these two groups. And, instead of continuing to use the phrase “sexual contact” in their closing discussions, the authors of the study switch to “molestation” in their analysis of the data
Also cited in the Tomeo, et al. report are studies conducted by Paul Cameron that supported the contention that gays are more likely to have been molested and to molest others [...] The American Sociological Association has criticized Dr. Cameron, stating that "Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism" and that he was kicked out of the American Psychological Association. Further, in a court case in 1985, a judge saw fit to characterize Paul Cameron’s “expert” testimony thusly: Second, this Court reaffirms its findings that Dr. Simon and Dr. Marmor were very credible witnesses and that their qualifications were impeccable. In contrast, Dr. Paul Cameron--the basis of the claim that Drs. Simon and Marmor committed fraud in their testimony--has himself made misrepresentations to this Court. For example: (i) his sworn statement that "homosexuals are approximately 43 times more apt to commit crimes than is the general population" is a total distortion of the Kinsey data upon which he relies--which, as is obvious to anyone who reads the report, concerns data from a non-representative sample of delinquent homosexuals (and Dr. Cameron compares this group to college and non-college heterosexuals); (ii) his sworn statement that "homosexuals abuse children at a proportionately greater incident than do heterosexuals" is based upon the same distorted data--and, the Court notes, is directly contrary to other evidence presented at trial besides the testimony of Dr. Simon and Dr. Marmour. (553 F. Supp. 1121 at 1130 n.18.) n309 Yes, this study used data from this same researcher without commenting on his questionable credibility and the possible fraudulence of his data.
It must also be borne in mind that the present homosexual participants may not be representative of homosexual persons. The overwhelming preponderance of homosexual participants was in the gay pride group. There were only three homosexual men and seven homosexual women in the college group.
It must also be borne in mind that the present homosexual participants may not be representative of homosexual persons. The overwhelming preponderance of homosexual participants was in the gay pride group. There were only three homosexual men and seven homosexual women in the college group.
The reason some individuals develop a gay sexual identity has not been definitively established – nor do we yet understand the development of heterosexuality. The American Psychological Association (APA) takes the position that a variety of factors impact a person's sexuality. The most recent literature from the APA says that sexual orientation is not a choice that can be changed at will, and that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors...is shaped at an early age...[and evidence suggests] biological, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality (American Psychology Association 2010).
No conclusive evidence supports any one specific cause of homosexuality; however, most researchers agree that biological and social factors influence the development of sexual orientation.
Most health and mental health organizations do not view sexual orientation as a 'choice.'
it was a non-clinical study and the data concerning homosexuals was gathered by setting up an interview booth at a “Gay Pride” parade while the data for heterosexuals was gathered at a college. Did the signage attracting participants at the Gay Pride parade booth ask specifically for victims of abuse who were willing to tell their story? The study does not say anything on this point – we do not know how participants were attracted. How likely is it that all the persons who took the questionnaire at the booth just happened to be gay, as it is claimed in this study? [...] Meanwhile, the data on heterosexuals was obtained at colleges; is this a group that one could then compare to persons attracted by unknown means to a booth at a gay pride parade? Can one then ethically extrapolate the findings to the general public? [...] A non-clinical and flawed study with a much skewed sample that even the authors suggest may not be representative.
Another interesting aspect of this study is the use of the word “molestation.” In the questionnaire given to participants, the word “molestation” is never used; “sexual contact” is used. What does this phrase mean to the various participants? Does it mean one thing to those participating in a festive Gay Pride Parade and something quite different to a student at a perhaps more subdued or introspective University setting? Since 84% of gay men and 95% of women considered themselves gay before the “sexual contact” according to the study, could it be something less nefarious than, for example, forcible rape they were recounting? Could it be that the college students were only counting more disturbing experiences, such as forcible rape? Of course it is possible the two groups were defining “sexual contact” in precisely the same manner, but we really should not have to assume such a thing; our doubts are due to the absence of pertinent info from the researchers – this should have been made clear. The study does not even attempt to quantify these probably relevant differences in these two groups. And, instead of continuing to use the phrase “sexual contact” in their closing discussions, the authors of the study switch to “molestation” in their analysis of the data
Also cited in the Tomeo, et al. report are studies conducted by Paul Cameron that supported the contention that gays are more likely to have been molested and to molest others [...] The American Sociological Association has criticized Dr. Cameron, stating that "Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism" and that he was kicked out of the American Psychological Association. Further, in a court case in 1985, a judge saw fit to characterize Paul Cameron’s “expert” testimony thusly: Second, this Court reaffirms its findings that Dr. Simon and Dr. Marmor were very credible witnesses and that their qualifications were impeccable. In contrast, Dr. Paul Cameron--the basis of the claim that Drs. Simon and Marmor committed fraud in their testimony--has himself made misrepresentations to this Court. For example: (i) his sworn statement that "homosexuals are approximately 43 times more apt to commit crimes than is the general population" is a total distortion of the Kinsey data upon which he relies--which, as is obvious to anyone who reads the report, concerns data from a non-representative sample of delinquent homosexuals (and Dr. Cameron compares this group to college and non-college heterosexuals); (ii) his sworn statement that "homosexuals abuse children at a proportionately greater incident than do heterosexuals" is based upon the same distorted data--and, the Court notes, is directly contrary to other evidence presented at trial besides the testimony of Dr. Simon and Dr. Marmour. (553 F. Supp. 1121 at 1130 n.18.) n309 Yes, this study used data from this same researcher without commenting on his questionable credibility and the possible fraudulence of his data.