Jason

Christian Ex-Gay Ministry

Ursachen

Ursachen und Charakteristika von Homosexualität

Homosexualität wird bei uns nicht als Erkrankung oder psychische Störung gesehen, daher wird eine Therapie oder ähnliches weder als sinnvoll noch notwendig betrachtet. Ganz im Gegenteil - man weist auf negative Auswirkungen solcher Versuche hin.
Es gibt aber immer noch internationale Fachleute, die dies anders sehen (siehe www.narth com oder www.dijg.de). Im Zuge der Meinungsfreiheit wollen wir hier auch diese Wissenschaftler zu Wort kommen lassen. Wir weisen dabei auf unser Selbstverständnis hin.

Diese Wissenschaftler sehen Homosexualität eher als eine Störung der Geschlechtsidentität bzw. als Neurose und verweisen auf das Verhältnis zum gleichgeschlechtlichen Elternteil, dass bei Homosexuellen oft gestört sei.

Fakt ist, dass bisher eine eindeutige Ursache für Homosexualität nicht gefunden wurde. Es ist auch kaum davon auszugehen, dass menschliche Sexualität auf einen einzigen Faktor zurück geführt werden kann. Unbestritten ist der Einfluss des sozialen Umfeldes eines Kindes (insbesondere der Familie) auf die Entwicklung seiner Sexualität und seiner Identität.

Für Christen zählt letztendlich Gottes Wort. Wir wollen uns für ein Leben entscheiden, von dem wir glauben, dass Gott es so von uns will.



Homosexuality is not a problem with the opposite sex but most of all with the same sex!!





(Quelle dieser Seite: ua.a das Material von Joe Dallas, Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, Homosexuals Anonymous, Aardweg etc. Klicke hier für mehr Infos: Copyright)

 







Was ist Homosexualität eigentlich?

Homosexualität (bzw. Homophilie) bezeichnet eine sexuelle Orientierung, bei der Liebe und sexuelles Begehren ausschließlich oder vorwiegend gegenüber Personen gleichen Geschlechts empfunden werden. Homosexuelle Frauen werden auch Lesben oder Lesbierinnen genannt, homosexuelle Männer auch Schwule. Der Begriff Homosexualität wird gelegentlich auch auf sexuelle Handlungen zwischen Mitgliedern des gleichen Geschlechts angewendet.

(siehe auch Wikipedia) - Aktion Leben





 

Es gibt heute Psychologen und Psychiater (siehe www.narth.com), die folgende Theorie vertreten: Homosexualität ist im wissenschaftlichen Sinn eine Störung der (heterosexuellen) Geschlechtsidentität mit neurotischem Hintergrund - also keine eigenständige sexuelle Identität. Anders ausgedrückt: es gibt keine Homosexuelle, sondern nur Heterosexuelle mit einem homosexuellen Problem. Sie wird verursacht von einem Bündel verschiedenster Faktoren. 
Homosexualität hat regelmäßig auch Schmerz (in welcher Form auch immer) als Ursache, sodass hier grundsätzlich nicht von einer Identität, sondern von einem auf die verschiedensten Ursachen zurückzuführenden Verhalten auszugehen ist.




Aus christlicher Sicht ist die Ursache von homosexuellem Verhalten Sünde. Ich kann niemanden die Schuld für meine Homosexualität geben - nicht einmal mir selbst, da ich viel zu jung war, als sie sich entwickelt hat.

Als Christen haben wir aber auch einen Weg, der uns zur Freiheit führt: Jesus.





 

Zum Begriff Homosexualität

Karl-Maria Kertbeny erfand 1869 den Begriff Homosexualität:

• Griech. homo = gleich, gleichartig
• Lat. sexus = das männliche und das weibliche Geschlecht
Homosexuelle Männer werden auch als „schwul“ bezeichnet (in Anlehnung an „drückend heiߓ seit dem 18. Jhdt Im Jugendjargon auch als Schimpfwort für langweilig, weiblich); feminine Männer als „Tunten“. Frauen als „lesbisch“ (nach der griech. Insel Lesbos, Heimat der Frauen der liebenden Dichterin Sappho); maskuline Frauen sind „Butch“ oder „Kampflesben“.
Ebenfalls üblich als Überbegriffe (v.a. im englischsprachigen Raum): „gay“ (vormals in der Bedeutung von „fröhlich“ oder „bunt“). Ebenfalls üblich – aber eher abwertend – „queer“ („seltsam“, „komisch“). „Gay“ bezeichnet auch die Zugehörigkeit zur „gay community“ (im Gegensatz zu „homosexuell“.
Frauen sind „lesbians“ oder „dykes“.
„Transgender“ = transsexuell.









Was ist "Homosexualität"?

• Mehr als nur Sex zwischen Menschen desselben Geschlechts!
• Gleichgeschlechtliche Neigungen (ausschließlich/überwiegend und andauernd sowie sowohl emotional wie sexuell)
• Wer bestimmt, wann und ob ich homosexuell bin? Bin ich homosexuell, wenn ich homos. Fantasien habe? Wenn ich homos. Verhalten zeige?
• Niemand sucht sich seine Sexualität aus – wohl aber, ob er/sie sie auslebt!
• „Homosexuell“ gibt es eigentlich nicht. Biologisch sind wir alle heterosexuell. Allerdings haben manche Heterosexuelle aufgrund versch. Ursachen ein homosexuelles Problem.
• Angeboren? Gelerntes Verhalten? Sünde? Psychische Störung? Störung der Geschlechts-Identität? Lebensstil? Eine normale, andere Art der Sexualität, die vor der Geburt festgelegt wurde?








Homosexualität - Orientierung/Neigung oder Neurose?

Im Falle einer Neurose wäre es ein reines Verhaltensproblem (siehe: Aardweg, Nicolosi).

• Gestützt wird diese Theorie durch Ähnlichkeiten im Lebenslauf vieler Homosexueller (Problem mit gleichgeschlechtlichem Elternteil usw.)
• Bei einer Orientierung/Neigung treffen Umweltfaktoren auf genetische Vorbedingungen / Charaktereigenschaften.
• Dies ist wahrscheinlicher und gängige Lehrmeinung: hier gibt es eine genetische Grundvoraussetzung, die es dem Individuum erleichtert, in bestimmten Situationen (Umweltbedingungen) mit gleichgeschlechtlichen Verhaltensweisen zu reagieren. (auch hier dann also Verhalten, wenn auch unter anderen Voraussetzungen!). Vergleich: Fußballer (genet. Grundvoraussetzung: Kraft, Schnelligkeit, Geschicklichkeit usw. – aber KEIN Fußball-Gen!)
• Für einen Christen ist dies zweitrangig: ein sündhaftes Verhalten lässt sich jederzeit überwinden. Selbst bei genetischen Zusatzfaktoren muss der Einzelne lernen, damit umzugehen (ähnlich etwa Diabetes). Er ist und bleibt selbst verantwortlich für sein tun.
• Am wahrscheinlichsten: Sexualität wird bestimmt durch eine Mischung verschiedenster Faktoren, wobei deren Zusammensetzung individuell unterschiedlich ist und in jedem Fall durch die Umwelt erheblich beeinflusst werden kann (Erziehung, Verhaltens- und Einstellungsänderung usw.).
• Wichtig: in jedem Fall kann der Einzelne erst einmal nichts für die Entstehung seiner Homosexualität (sieh Aardweg‘s Selbstmitleid-Theorie: der Mensch ist sich dessen weder bewusst noch macht er dies absichtlich)







Was sagt die Bibel - Verhalten oder Orientierung?

Im allgemeinen sieht die Bibel Homosexualität eher als Verhalten ("Und solche gab es unter euch" 1. Korinther 6:11. Einheitsübersetzung). Es gibt aber auch Stellen, die auf eine Orientierung verweisen: "ebenso gaben die Männer den natürlichen Verkehr mit der Frau auf und entbrannten in Begierde zueinander" Röm. 1,27. Einheitsübersetzung).
Nur an einer Stelle geht die Bibel noch einen Schritt weiter - in Matthäus 19:12:
"Denn es ist so: Manche sind von Geburt an zur Ehe unfähig, manche sind von den Menschen dazu gemacht und manche haben sich selbst dazu gemacht - um des Himmelreiches willen. Wer das erfassen kann, der erfasse es." (Einheitsübersetzung. Betonung hinzugefügt)
Selbst wenn man also von einem "schwulen Gen" ausgeht, ist das noch lange kein Freibrief für sündhaftes Verhalten! Dieser Ver steht im Kontext der heterosexuellen Ehe zwischen Mann und Frau, die von Jesus hier nochmals ausdrücklich betont wird!

 







Mögliche Ursachen von Homosexualität:
  • Genetische oder hormonelle Einflüsse
  • Inzest
  • Experimentieren mit anderen Jungs oder Männern
  • Pornographie
  • Negative spirituelle Einflüsse
  • Medien
  • Personalität/Temperament
  • Negatives Verhältnis zum eigenen Körper
  • Diskriminierung durch Gleichaltrige
  • Furcht vor dem anderen Geschlecht oder Unfähigkeit, eine angemessene Beziehung herzustellen
  • Nicht funktionierende Familie
  • Schlechte Hand-Gehirn Koordination ("zwei linke Hände") und die daraus resultierende Verspottung durch Gleichaltrige.
  • Geringe Stress- und Frustrationstoleranz
  • Erhöhte Sensibilität
  • Soziale Phobie bzw. extreme Schüchternheit
  • Kein emotionaler Zugang zum Vater (der entweder gar nicht da war oder emotional nicht zugänglich bzw. sogar Alkoholiker, gewalttätig usw. Auf jeden Fall konnte er nicht mit den besonderen Talenten seines Sohnes umgehen). Entsprechendes gilt für Frauen und deren Mütter.
  • Eltern, die die Identifikation mit dem eigenen Geschlecht nicht unterstützt haben.
  • Eine Mutter, die ihren Sohn übertrieben verwöhnt und beschützt hat.
  • Eine Mutter, die ständig Forderungen and den Sohn gestellt hat (meist um ihre eigenen emotionalen Bedürfnisse damit zu befriedigen)
  • Das Fehlen von Spielen der härteren Gangart bei Jungs in deren Kindheit (Raufen, körperliche Spiele mit dem Vater usw.).
  • Den Kindern wurde kein natürliches Verhältnis zum eigenen Körper beigebracht
  • Fehlende Identifikation mit Gleichaltrigen.
  • Bei Jungs die Abneigung gegenüber Mannschaftssportarten.
  • Sexueller, emotionaler, physischer oder verbaler Missbrauch.
  • Verlust eines Elternteils durch Scheidung oder Tod.
  • Verlust eines Elternteils während wichtiger Entwicklungsphasen.
  • Fehlende Vorbilder in der Gesellschaft (heutzutage gelten bei Jungs eher androgyne Freaks als „in“ als aufrechte Männer mit Idealen und Glauben. Ähnliches gilt bei Frauen)


 



Einige der häufigsten authentischen Bedürfnisse, die hinter homosexuellen Sehnsüchten stehen:

Bedürfnisse

• nach Bestätigung, Aufmerksamkeit und Angenommenwerden von anderen Männern
• nach männlicher Gesellschaft und Gemeinschaft
• sich wie „einer von den Jungs“ zu fühlen
• nach gesunder, platonischer Berührung
• nach körperlicher Betätigung und Verbindung zum eigenen Körper
• zu „spielen“ – besonders in Gesellschaft anderer Männer
• eine authentische Verbindung zu seinen Gefühlen zu haben, besonders nach einem sicheren Ort, um seinen Ärger und Kummer loszuwerden
• authentisch mit anderen in Verbindung zu treten, besonders mit Männern, mit ihnen offen und ehrlich zu sein
• mit dem Heiligen Geist in Verbindung zu treten

• einen höheren  Sinn im Leben zu finden als nur für sich selbst zu leben und sorgen

 

Ursachen für männliche Sexualität

David Pickup, M.A. identifiziert zwei wesentliche Faktoren:

Zum einen eine aus einer Störung der Geschlechtsidentität ("Wer bin ich?") rührende Scham. Ein Mann schämt sich für das, was er ist. Er denkt, er sei nicht Mann genug und fühlt sich anderen Männern unterlegen.

Zweitens unbefriedigte männliche Bedürfnisse. Hierunter fallen zum einen die Anerkennung des Sohnes durch den Vater oder die Bestätigung der männlichen Identität. Weiterhin fallen hierunter die männliche körperliche Zuneigung - von Vater zum Sohn, zwischen Gleichaltrigen oder zwischen Männern im Allgemeinen.

Letztlich gibt es auch noch das, was man im weitesten Sinn als genetisch veranlagt bezeichnen kann. Das heisst nun nicht zwangsweise, dass es ein "schwules Gen" gibt (dieses wurde bisher nicht gefunden. Selbst wenn es so etwas aber geben sollte, ist das noch kein Kriterium für "moralisch akzeptabel", "normal" oder auch "gut" oder "schlecht", "natürlich" oder was auch immer. Auch würde dies keineswegs bedeuten, dass man zwangsweise so leben muss oder dass Gott einen so gemacht hat und man somit keine Wahl mehr hätte. Hat man sehr wohl). Genetisch veranlagt kann z.B. bedeuten, dass man bestimmte Charakterzüge oder Eigenschaften hat, die es einem erleichtern, unter bestimmten zusätzlichen gesellschaftlichen und/oder familiären Bedingungen gleichgeschlechtliche Neigungen zu entwickeln und/oder sie auszuleben. Ein Vergleich zur Verdeutlichung: Ein erfolgreicher Fussballer wird vielleicht mit bestimmten genetischen Voraussetzungen geboren, die es ihm ermöglichen, schnelle und geschickte Spielzüge zu machen. Das heisst aber nicht, dass es ein "Fußballgen" gibt!

(siehe auch: http://www.saintjoe.com/)

Gen-Faktoren?

Eine Nachricht macht zur Zeit die Runde: amerikanische Forscher hätten angeblich Gen-Faktoren entdeckt, die die männliche Sexualität mitbestimmen. Bestimmte Variationen traten bei homosexuellen Männern öfter auf als bei heterosexuellen (nachzulesen in der Zeitschrift "Human Genetics").

Und schon jubelt die schwule Welt. Emails werden an uns geschickt mit Kommentaren wie: "Wissenschaft statt Wunschdenken!"

Es bleibt die Frage, warum man hier eigentlich jubelt und ob das wirklich Sinn macht.

Jason hat von Anfang an darauf hingewiesen, dass die Ursachen von Homosexualität für einen Christen zwar wichtig, aber zweitrangig sind. Einige Punkte, die man in diesem Zusammenhang beachten sollte:

1) Wenn Gen-Faktoren männliche Sexualität mitbestimmen, heißt das nicht zwangsweise, dass man "homosexuell" geboren wird. Sexualität ist auf ein Bündel von Faktoren zurückzuführen, von denen Genetik nur ein Teil ist. Was ist mit dem Teil, der nicht von "genetischen Faktoren" bestimmt wird?

2) Und selbst wenn dem so wäre - selbst wenn es ein "schwules Gen" gäbe: zum einen sind wir nicht willenlose Sklaven eines Gencodes (was für eine Vorstellung!), zum anderen ist ein "Gen-Faktor, der Sexualität mitbestimmt" nicht gleichzusetzen mit moralisch richtigem Verhalten. Wir wollen an dieser Stelle nicht darauf hinweisen, was sonst noch alles genetische (Mit-)Ursachen haben mag. Wird etwas dadurch richtig, dass es von "genetischen Faktoren" "mitverursacht" wird?

3) Für uns als Christinnen und Christen heißt das einfach nur, wir müssen und werden auch in einem solchen Fall lernen, damit zu leben. Für uns bleibt auch weiterhin die Bibel - Gottes Wort - Maßstab unseres Verhaltens und unserer moralischen Grundwerte. Wir zwingen dies niemandem auf und denken nicht, dass wir damit bessere Menschen sind. Wir sind es durchaus gewohnt, deshalb verlacht und verspottet zu werden. Letztlich ist uns aber wichtiger, dass wir unserem Glauben treu bleiben. Wir verneigen uns in tiefem Respekt vor allen Menschen, die trotz aller Schwierigkeiten und Anfeindungen diesen Weg mit uns gehen.


Ältere Brüder?

Eine weitere Untersuchung, die zur Zeit die Runde macht: der kanadische Psychologe Anthony Bogaert hat 1.000 homo- und heterosexuelle Männer untersucht und ist zu dem Ergebnis gekommen, dass mit der Anzahl älterer leiblicher Brüder die Wahrscheinlichkeit eines Jungen steigt, homosexuell zu werden. Für Bogaert ein klarer Hinweis dafür, dass durch eine Immunreaktion im Mutterleib das Gehirn des Babys bereits dementsprechend beeinflusst wird.

Auch hier dürfen wir auf unsere Ausführungen zum Thema "Gen-Faktoren" verweisen. Wir sind keine Wissenschaftler und maßen uns nicht an, derartige Studien zu beurteilen (wir wundern uns oft nur, wie kritiklos Studien akzeptiert werden, wenn sie nur mit den eigenen Vorstellungen übereinstimmen).

Selbst wenn Herr Bogaert zu 100 % recht hätte, wäre das für uns kein Grund, von unseren moralischen Werten abzuweichen. Unser Glaube bedeutet uns mehr als Ergebnisse von irgendwelchen Studien. Wir sind keine Maschinen oder Roboter, die willenlos Hormonen, Genen, Gehirnstrukturen oder was auch immer ausgesetzt sind. Wir glauben an den dreifaltigen Gott und das, was Er uns in der Bibel mitteilt.

Jesus hat uns nie versprochen, dass es leicht sein würde. Er hatte nur gemeint, dass es sich lohnen wird. Er hat uns darauf hingewiesen, dass das Tor zum Himmel eng, der Weg dorthin schwer und voller Gefahren sein wird und nur wenige ihn gehen. Für uns ist es aber der EINZIGE Weg.

Nur mal so am Rande: gehen wir doch einmal - nur so,  der Diskussion willen - davon aus, dass die Bibel doch recht hat. Was dann?


It Doesn't "Feel So"

Hey,

you know, that's the thing with following Jesus: It sometimes does not "feel so". That's why gay activists usually say we should "go for it" and live out our desires. Because it "feels so". But there seems to be a basic misunderstanding. Nowhere does the Bible tell us thou shalt not do this and that - unless "it feels so". Quite on the contrary: we are told to deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow Jesus. Doesn't sound like all that much fun to me! I guess it didn't "feel so" for Jesus either when the nailed Him up high - for ME.

It doesn't have to feel so. The point is to follow Him and obey Him - no matter what. No matter how we feel, no matter whether or not we like it, no matter how hard it is and no matter if the whole world mocks at us.

Because someday - when we will be with Jesus - it will feel so.

Very much so.


Robert


Tim Staples - Why would God create someone with same-sex attraction?

Tierreich

Es ist doch inzwischen bewiesen, dass homosexuelles Verhalten sogar im Tierreich weit verbreitet ist. Was für ein Problem habt ihr also damit?

Nun, ich will mal nicht so sehr auf die wissenschaftliche Seite eingehen (meiner Kenntnis nach sind derartige Fälle bei weitem nicht so verbreitet wie angenommen und erst recht selten unter natürlichen Bedingungen anzutreffen. Aber dem mag jeder selbst nachgehen. Ich denke aber doch, dass man solchen Berichten einmal objektiv nachgehen sollte, anstatt etwas nachzuplappern, was man irgendwo aufgeschnappt hat).

Aber gehen wir doch um der Diskussion willen einmal davon aus: nehmen wir an, es gibt Fälle homosexuellen Verhaltens im Tierreich. NA UND?? Will man tatsächlich tierisches Verhalten dafür hernehmen, um menschliches Verhalten zu rechtfertigen? Würde dies unser eigenes Verhalten irgendwie "moralischer", "richtiger" oder "natürlicher" machen? Im Tierreich gibt es eine Menge von Verhaltensweisen, die nachzuvollziehen für Menschen wohl kaum annehmbar wäre.

Ist es nicht ein Armutszeugnis, wenn man derartige Vergleiche als Rechtfertigung seiner eigenen Position verwenden muss?


Links: The Animal Homosexuality Myth
So What If Animals Have Gay Sex?




APA

Two quotes from the American Psychiatric Association (taken from here: http://www.psychiatry.org/mental-health/people/lgbt-sexual-orientation. April 1st, 2013):

"In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association’s Board of Trustees removed homosexuality from its official diagnostic manual, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Second Edition (DSM II). The action was taken following a review of the scientific literature and consultation with experts in the field. The experts found that homosexuality does not meet the criteria to be considered a mental illness."

"No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality."

Let me get this straight: In 1973 they removed homesexuality from their diagnostic manual, after a "review" of "scientific" literature and consultation with "experts". It does not fit the criteria of a mental illness. To this day, however, they say that no one knows what causes homosexuality. In other words: Those "experts" have no idea what they are talking about, but it sure is no mental illness. And the "scientific" literature supports that view. I wonder what defines "scientific" then. I am just a simple dude from the country, but doesn't "scientific" refer to that what can be measured or watched or proven in some sort of way?

Could it be that even today they don't have the guts to say that it was not science, but political pressure that made them take it off the manual list?

Robert

Andere Völker

Ich habe gehört, dass Homosexualität bei Naturvölkern weit verbreitet ist. Es scheint dort ganz normal zu sein, dass etwa Männer mit Jungen Sex haben. Und deshalb werden dort auch nicht mehr Jungen homosexuell als anderswo.

Gleich zu Anfang: Hast du diese Fakten wirklich überprüft? Oder wird hier wieder kritiklos irgend etwas weiter gegeben, ohne sich von dessen Wahrheitsgehalt und vollem Hintergrund zu überzeugen?

Aber gehen wir der lieben Diskussion willen einmal davon aus, es sei wirklich so.

Was will man damit eigentlich rechtfertigen oder begründen/erklären? Was, wenn es für ein "Naturvolk" "normal" ist und das sie nichts Verwerfliches dabei finden, Angehörige des Nachbarstammes umzubringen? Heißt das dann, bei uns ist das auch in Ordnung?

Auch hier gilt: die Tatsache, dass "Naturvölker" etwas tun, macht etwas nicht "natürlich" im Sinne von "normal" oder gar "moralisch richtig" (siehe dazu auch unser Selbstverständnis). Wir haben unser eigenes Wertesystem, das sich - gerade in Europa - aus christlichen Traditionen und Moralvorstellungen entwickelt hat (was ja heute wieder sehr kritisiert wird. Nur was uns da als "Ersatz" präsentiert wird, ist in meinen Augen oft nicht akzeptierbar). Was für andere in Ordnung geht, muss für mich/uns noch lange nicht richtig sein.

Es kann auch nicht angehen, dass jeder für sich persönlich entscheidet, was gut, richtig, moralisch in Ordnung und sittlich richtig ist. Wenn dies eine individuelle Entscheidung sein soll und nicht ein gesellschaftlicher Konsens über das, was wahr und richtig ist, kann das nur den moralischen Untergang jeder Gesellschaftsordnung bedeuten.

Ganz abgesehen davon: was will man eigentlich mit solchen Aussagen ausdrücken? Dass Jungen doch einmal Sex  mit anderen Jungen oder gar Männern haben sollen - sie würden dadurch schon nicht schwul? Dass etwas dadurch richtig wird, dass es andere auch tun?

Als Christen gründet sich unsere Vorstellung von Werten und Moral zuallererst auf die Bibel. Wir wissen, dass Gott uns liebt - und wenn er uns sagt, wir sollten bestimmte Dinge tun oder uns im Gegenzug ausdrücklich davor warnt, andere zu tun, dann nicht, weil Er uns gerne herum kommandiert, sondern weil Er uns liebt und vor möglichen Konsequenzen unseres Handelns bewahren will.

Und im Zweifelsfall glauben und vertrauen wir doch eher dem Schöpfer des Universums als dem, was andere uns glauben machen wollen. Dies ist eine persönliche Entscheidung unsererseits und wir verlangen keineswegs, dass jeder so denkt. Aber es ist unsere Entscheidung. Wir stehen dazu und werden diese auch öffentlich vertreten.

Wir schämen uns nicht unserer Werte - egal, was andere tun, denken oder sagen.

Bisexualität?

In der August-Ausgabe der Zeitschrift "Psychological Science" heißt es, dass kanadische Forscher in einer Studie mit 100 Freiwilligen herausgefunden hätten, dass Bisexualität eher geistig als körperlich sei. Männer reagierten nie gleichzeitig auf männliche und weibliche Reize. Auch würde die subjektive Wahrnehmung, was sexuell attraktiv sei, von der körperlichen Reaktion abweichen. Als Erklärungsmodelle gibt es verschiedene Theorien: viele bisexuelle Männer seien eigentlich Homosexuelle und würden nur aus einem äußeren Zwang durch die Gesellschaft heraus behaupten, sie seien bisexuell. Woanders heißt es, Bisexualität sei nur eine Art Übergangsphase zu Homo- oder Heterosexualität.

Nun habe ich selbst viele Jahre lang meine Homosexualität ausgelebt. Und auch ich habe - wie viele andere damals - immer die These vertreten, dass alle Männer eigentlich bisexuell wären, also "schwule Anteile" hätten (was o.g. Studie gerade widerlegt!). Das aber ohne wissenschaftlichen Hintergrund. Damals war das einfach nur Wunschdenken. Wir WOLLTEN, dass es so ist, denn dann wäre jeder Mann ein potentieller Wunschpartner.

Was mich betrifft, so hatte ich keine großen Hemmschwellen, ob jemand verheiratet war oder eine Familie hatte. Hauptsache, ich hatte Sex mit ihm. Im Grunde war es mir völlig egal. ob der nun homo-, bi- oder heterosexuell ist. Ganz im Gegenteil: in vielen Kontaktanzeigen wurden "Hetero-" oder "Bi-Typen" gesucht.

Soll man derartige wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen wirklich zur Grundlage seiner moralischen Werte machen? Aufgrund derartiger Studien von seinem Glauben abweichen?

Wohl kaum.


Homosexualität und Evolution

Neue - in der Fachzeitschrift "Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences" veröffentlichte Ergebnisse italienischer Forscher:

Männliche Homosexualität wird von der Mutter vererbt und konnte sich deshalb in der Evolution behaupten, weil genau diese Gene auch die weibliche Verwandtschaft fruchtbarer machen würden.

Und wieder jubelt die schwule Welt und lacht uns hämisch zu. Warum aber? Nichts von all dem macht etwas "richtig" oder "falsch" in moralischer Sicht. Und erst recht hat dies keinen Einfluss auf unseren christlichen Glauben. Möge man uns auch für noch so rückständig, fanatisch oder einfach nur dumm und stur halten.

Was, wenn morgen selbiges von ganz anderen Erscheinungsformen menschlichen Verhaltens behauptet wird? Werden die dann auch dadurch "richtiger" oder "natürlicher" oder gar "normaler"?

Warum dieser ständige Drang, die Richtigkeit seines Verhaltens oder seiner Neigung mit Genen rechtfertigen zu wollen? Wenn ich davon ausgehe, dass mein Verhalten richtig ist, dann bitte schön. Was interessieren mich da meine Gene?

Und will man wirklich biochemische, hormonelle oder genetische Faktoren zur Grundlage seines Wertesystems machen? Wo hört das dann auf? Was, wenn morgen ganz andere gesellschaftliche Gruppen oder Einzelpersonen mit genau denselben Argumenten und demselben Anspruch - gegründet auf neue Studien - kommen?

Was wartet da schon hinter dem Vorhang?


Mögliche Konsequenzen von "Gen-Faktoren"

Homosexuelle Gruppen stürzen sich ja mit viel Eifer auf jede neue Veröffentlichung, die die Theorie vom "schwulen Gen" unterstützt.

Welche Auswirkungen könnte es haben, wenn morgen so ein Gen tatsächlich entdeckt würde?

Was Menschen betrifft, die Freiheit von der Homosexualität suchen und das Ausleben von gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen nicht mit ihrem christlichen Glauben vereinbaren können, würden sehr schwere Zeiten anbrechen.

Zum einen würden wir wohl von allen möglichen Menschen und Gruppierungen verhöhnt werden, wenn wir weiter an einem Leben festhalten, das den Wahrheiten der Bibel entspricht. Dem, was Gott uns vorgegeben hat. Man würde uns wohl erst recht als radikal, stur, dumm, verklemmt, prüde, uneinsichtig, rückständig und was nicht sonst noch alles bezeichnen. Verrückte, die trotz wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnisse immer noch nicht "ihre Sexualität ausleben" wollen.

Auch in uns selbst würde es rumoren. Satan würde sein Bestes geben, um uns davon zu überzeugen, dass wir all den Stimmen um uns herum doch nachgeben und "unsere Sexualität ausleben".

Auch Mitchristen, Ehepartner, Familienangehörige bekommen vielleicht Zweifel, was uns betrifft. Wenn es genetisch ist, dann bleibt der wohl immer schwul! Der kann uns viel erzählen von wegen keusch leben oder trotzdem eine Ehe eingehen - der ist und bleibt doch schwul!

In der Politik würden wir mit unseren Glaubenswerten wohl völlig untergehen. Allerdings wird das nicht bei uns aufhören - man darf gespannt sein, was nach uns als Ziel öffentlicher Angriffe erkannt wird...

In all dem können wir aber auch zeigen, wie ernst es uns ist mit unserem Glauben. Wie sehr wir Gott wirklich lieben. Jesus wurde verspottet und schließlich ans Kreuz geschlagen. Den Aposteln, den sonstigen Jüngern und den Propheten des Alten Testamentes ging es nicht viel besser.

In all dem Leid, das uns dann erwartet, nehmen wir am Leid Jesu' teil.

Aber irgendwann auch an seiner Glorie - wir werden mit Ihm an einem Tisch sitzen dürfen! Und das sollte uns all die Anfeindungen und den langen, harten Weg wert sein.

Was aber mit all den Homosexuellen, die erst mal überschwenglich jubeln werden, wenn eine solche Nachricht raus ist?

Nun, zunächst wird das als der große Sieg gefeiert werden. Was man in all dem Jubel vielleicht vergessen mag: wenn tatsächlich genetische Faktoren eine große Rolle bei der Entstehung der Homosexualität spielen, dürfte es nur eine Frage der Zeit sein, bis jemand eine entsprechende "Gentherapie" entwickelt, die einen dann tatsächlich davon "heilt". Bei uns dürfte derartiges wohl erst noch verboten sein, aber leider hat die Geschichte oft gezeigt, dass das, was möglich ist, oft auch getan wird. Wenn nicht bei uns, dann im Ausland.

"Schöne Neue Welt" - Eltern, die keine homosexuellen Kinder möchten, Homosexuelle, die trotz allem eine heterosexuelle Familie gründen möchten - die mögliche "Kundschaft" dürfte wohl da sein...

Auch hier darf man fragen: was kommt als nächstes?


Mögliche Konsequenzen von "Gen-Faktoren" - II

Bisher gab es ja einen erbitterten Streit zwischen schwulen Aktivisten und Christen, die der Ex-Gay Bewegung nahe stehen. Alles dreht sich letztendlich um die Frage, ob Homosexualität genetische Mitursachen hat oder nicht. Das Argument vieler Christen: nein, und somit ist Homosexualität eine "Wahl" und man kann sich auch ändern. Schwule Aktivisten hingegen gestanden auf der genetischen Theorie, da im Falle eines bewiesenen genetischen Hintergrunds eine Änderung nicht möglich sei und somit Homosexualität als natürlich und normal und eine Freiheit davon als unmöglich akzeptiert werden müsse.

Nun - beides ist falsch, zumindest aus christlicher Sicht.

Ex-Gays, die sich auf das Beweisen eines nicht vorhandenen genetischen Hintergrunds konzentrieren, kämpfen auf dem falschen Schlachtfeld. Wissenschaft kann sich ändern. Selbstverständlich haben die Gene einen gewissen Einfluss auf menschliche Sexualität. Eine "Wahl" ist Homosexualität nie - wir haben sie uns nicht einfach so ausgesucht. Kein Kind steht vor der Theke sexueller Neigungen und sucht sich ein wenig hiervon und ein wenig davon aus. Aus welchen Gründen auch immer - selbst wenn einige selbstverschuldet sind - wir haben heute gleichgeschlechtliche Neigungen. Aber ausgesucht haben wir uns diese wirklich nicht. Was wir uns eher "aussuchen" können: ob wir sie ausleben oder bewusst in Kauf nehmen (etwa durch das Ansehen von Pornos).

Schwule Aktivisten machen den großen Fehler, dass sie genetisch mitverursacht mit "normal", "natürlich" oder "moralisch richtig" gleichsetzen (wir verweisen an dieser Stelle auf unser Selbstverständnis). Wir sind nicht Sklaven unserer Gene und können sehr wohl entscheiden, welchen Weg wir gehen - selbst wenn genetische Faktoren eine bestimmte Tendenz erleichtern.

Als Christen zählt für uns alleine der Wille Gottes - und der wird die Bibel nicht für uns umschreiben. Nirgendwo in der Bibel steht: "Du sollst nicht dieses oder jenes tun - außer du hast eine genetische Veranlagung dazu."

Wir sollten also darauf achten, worum es in dieser ganzen Diskussion eigentlich wirklich geht.


Das Kind in uns

Ein wesentliches Chrakteristikum bei vielen Menschen mit gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen und möglicherweise einer der Faktoren, die zur Entwcklung von Homosexualität beitragen: das Kind in uns.

Vorab: Hierzu empfehlen wir ausdrücklich, die Werke von van den Aardweg, Joe Dallas und Joseph Nicolosi zu lesen. Männern empfehlen wir weiterhin besonders das Programm "Men's Fraternity" (www.mensfraternity.com oder www.freewebs.com/mensfraternity)

Um es mal kurz zusammen zu fassen: Theorien gehen in etwa dahin, dass vermutet wird, dass bei manchen Homosexuellen in der Kindheit Situationen eingetreten sind, die sie glauben ließen, sie werden nicht geliebt. Es kommt hierbei wohlgemerkt weniger darauf an, ob sie tatsächlich geliebt wurden oder nicht - wichtig ist, wie sie ihre Kindheit empfunden haben.

Es kommt nun zur Ausbildung und Entwicklung von Selbstmitleid - allerdings nicht nur im allseits bekannten Sinn, sondern tragischerweise als eine Form des Selbsttröstens und letztlich als ein Mittel, um emotional zu überleben. Das Kind sieht sich gleichsam von außen, bemitleidet sich selbst in seiner empfundenen lieblosen Situation (manchmalkommt hier auch noch verbaler, körperlicher, emotionaler, psychischer oder sexueller Missbrauch hinzu). Es tröstet sich gleichsam selbst, exs gibt sich selbst die Liebe, von dem es glaubt, sie nirgendwo sonst herbekommen zu können.

Irgendwann verselbständigt sich dieses Selbstmitleid - ohne dass es diesen Menschen bewusst wird oder dass sie dies wollen. Sie verfallen in eine Opferrolle, sehen alles nur mehr negativ und sehen sich ihr ganzes Leben lang als ungeliebt - und wohl auch nicht liebens-werte - Männer und Frauen. Ihre Grundstimmung ist traurig bis depressiv, "selbstmitleidig" (sie trösten sich weiterhin selbst), verzweifelt, hoffnungslos und manchmal sogar suizidal.

Hinzu kommt (vor allem bei Männern), dass sie es irgendwann - meist aufgrund eines körperlich oder emotional nicht anwesenden oder zugänglichen Vaters - aufgegeben haben, Anschluss an die gleichgeschlechtliche Welt (also in diesem Fall die Welt der Männer) zu finden. Sie lernen nie richtig, was es heißt, ein Mann zu sein und bleiben so gleichsam ewig ein Junge. Der "kleine Junge" in ihnen kommt immer wieder zum Vorschein - mit all seinen Bedürfnissen und Wünschen. Oft benimmt man sich dann auch wie ein "kleiner Junge": man reagiert nicht wie ein erwachsenen Mann, sondern eher sehr emotional und unvernünftig (eben wie ein "kleiner Junge"). Tragischerweise aber wie ein kleiner Junge, der geliebt werden will.

Hier ist es unerlässlich, dass die Betroffenen lernen, sich dessen bewusst zu sein, schrittweise gesunde gleichgeschlechtliche Beziehungen aufzubauen, aber ebenso, ihre eigene Identität als Mann oder Frau zu finden. Gerade bei Männern kommt es durchaus nicht selten vor, dass sie nie überhaupt gelernt haben, was das eigentlich heißt: ein Mann zu sein. Dies können sie aber nur in Kontakt mit anderen Männern lernen (siehe auch Sprüche 27,17).

Ebenso muss man sich der Bedürfnisse bewusst werden, die hinter den oft vehementen Reaktionen stehen. Die Bedürfnisse, die dieses "Kind in uns" hat. Nicht, um uns derer zu schämen, sondern um sie zu erkennen und erst einmal anzunehmen. Schließlich aber auch, um deren Befriedigung auf gesunde Art und Weise anzugehen und in den jeweiligen Situationen zu erkennen, dass das kleine Kind jetzt gerade zum Vorschein kommt - und dann den erwachsenen Mann / die erwachsene Frau die Kontrolle übernehmen zu lassen.

Bei Bedarf kann hierbei natürlich ein Psychotherapeut oder christlicher Seelsorger, eventuell auch eine Selbsthilfegruppe oder ein Programm wie "Men's Fraternity" behilflich sein.

(Anmerkung: dies sollen keine medizinisch-/therapeutischen Ratschläge sein. Es ist eine Zusammenfassung unserer eigenen Erfahrungen sowie von frei auf dem Markt erhältnlicher Literatur. Bei Bedarf weisen wir ausdrücklich darauf hin, Fachleute aufzusuchen).

 

Ist das "Warum" völlig egal?

Ist es wirklich völlig egal, warum man so ist, wie man eben jetzt ist? Warum man die Probleme hat, die man gerade hat? Ist das für die Seelsorge oder die eigene Identitätsfindung wirklich zweitrangig? Soll man nur von dem Ist-Zustand, also der aktuellen Situation ausgehen?

Nein. Wie Dr. Robert Lewis (www.mensfraternity.com) schon so schön gesagt hat, trägt jeder Mann einen nicht ausgepackten Koffer mit sich herum - manche ein ganzes Leben lang. Es ist aber ungemein wichtig, diesen Koffer einmal auszupacken und die darin befindlichen Sachen (Probleme mit dem Vater oder der Mutter usw.) einmal anzugehen - um ihn dann wieder für immer zurück zu stellen.

Oder mit den Worten von Joe Dallas (www.joedallas.com): Wenn du in den Ring steigst, musst du deinen Gegener kennen!

Ich kann erst wissen, wo ich jetzt bin, wer ich selbst bin und wo ich hin will, wenn ich weiß, wo ich hergekommen bin, wer meine Vorfahren waren und was mich zu dem gemacht hat, der ich jetzt bin.

Es kann z.B. für einen erwachsenen Mann, der sein Leben lang darunter gelitten hat, dass sein Vater für ihn in der Kindheit nicht da war (sei es nun, dass er überhaupt weg war oder emotional nicht zugänglich - dass er also seinem Sohn nie gesagt hat, dass er ihn liebt, dass er stolz auf ihn ist und dass er gut in irgendetwas ist), Zeit mit seinem Vater zusammen zu verbringen, ihn all das zu fragen, was er schon immer fragen wollte, ihn auch zu fragen, ob er ihn liebt (und ihm das umgekehrt sagen) usw. Hiermit kann sich nicht nur sein Blick auf die Vergangenheit ändern, sondern auch sein Blick auf die Gegenwart und Zukunft.

Wesentlich bei all dem ist aber, dass wir alle lernen müssen, Verantwortung für uns selbst zu übernehmen. Wir sind mittlerweile erwachsen und können nicht ständig anderen Menschen, der Vergangenheit, der Gesellschaft, den Genen oder sonst etwas die Schuld geben (selbst wenn wir tatsächlich unter all dem zu leiden hatten!). Wir sind heute für uns selbst verantwortlich. Dieser Schritt ist unerlässlich für jeden Menschen.

Manchmal wird in diesem Zusammenhang auf das Gleichnis mit dem Samariter hingewiesen: es sei ja da auch nicht wichtig gewesen, zu wissen, warum und wie lange der Mann schon dort lag, um zu helfen. Bleiben wir bei diesem Beispiel und übertragen wir es auf heute: Wenn auf der Straße ein Mensch liegt, ist es extrem wichtig, herauszubekommen, warum er da liegt, wie lange er da liegt und welche Beschwerden er genau hat, was seine Anamnese ist usw. - jeder Arzt oder Rettungssanitäter kann das bestimmt bestätigen!

Gerade im Zusammenhang mit Homosexualität, bei der ja ein Bündel von Ursachen mitspielt, ist es enorm wichtig, sich diese einzelnen Faktoren einmal vor Augen zu halten, um die Vergangenheit zu beleuchten, in der Gegenwart die  Basis für Veränderungungen zu schaffen und diese dann in der Zukunft durchzuführen!

Gleichwohl ist es aber durchaus wichtig, auch die Gegenwart zu untersuchen: Wie ist der augenblickliche Zustand? Wleche Reize führten oder führen zu diesem Zustand? Welche Assoziationen sind damit verbunden? Wodurch wird er verstärkt oder abgeschwächt? Spielen körperliche Faktoren eine Rolle? Werden Medikamente genommen? Wie sieht das Gottesbild aus? (vgl. www.bts-ips.de)

Eine Veränderung - wie auch immer man diese definieren will - bedeutet für die Betroffenen also ein aktives Mitwirken, den Willen, ein Ziel zu erreichen (auch wenn es schwierig wird und lange dauert), eine hohe Stress- und Frustrationstoleranz, die Fähigkeit, sich überhaupt erst selbst Ziele setzen zu können, einen starken Glauben - und auf Seiten des Seelsorgers eine qualifizierte Ausbildung und Erfahrung sowie die feste Verwurzelung im christlichen Glauben.

 

Kindheit

Bisher hat man sich immer gestritten, ob Homosexualität denn nun angeboren sei, biologische Ursachen habe oder ihre Wurzeln in der Kindheit hat (Beziehung zum gleichgeschlechtlichen Elternteil usw.) oder beides - oder ganz was anderes.

Nun hat man offensichtlich herausgefunden, dass es hier nicht nur ein "oder" sondern auch ein "und" geben kann.

So können kindliche Erfahrungen - vor allem traumatische Erfahrungen - offenbar biochemische Prozesse im Gehirn auslösen, also die Gehirnstruktur nachhaltig ändern. Ebenso scheinen kognitive Neubewertungen (man erkennt etwas verstandesmäßig und versucht daraufhin, Prozesse neu zu bewerten und Verhalten und Empfinden entprechend "umzuprogrammieren) wiederum rückwirkend Einflüsse auf die Emotionen zu haben!

Es gibt anscheinend ein engeres Band zwischen Körper und Geist/Emotionen, als man bisher dachte!

 

The Guardian: Male sexual orientation influenced by genes, study shows

FOR IMMEDIATE NOTICE - We want to jump on this new hack article right away because we've been down the Xq28 road before and you know you will be brow beaten with these "facts" ad nauseum. For anyone literate - we've highlighted the laughable holes for you:

"A region of the X chromosome called Xq28 had some impact on men's sexual behaviour – though scientists have no idea which of the many genes in the region are involved, nor how many lie elsewhere in the genome.

Another stretch of DNA on chromosome 8 also played a role in male sexual orientation – though again the precise mechanism is unclear.

Researchers have "speculated" in the past that genes linked to homosexuality in men "may" have survived evolution because they happened to make women who carried them more fertile. This "may" be the case for genes in the Xq28 region, as the X chromosome is passed down to men exclusively from their mothers.

"The work has yet to be published..."

...he found that [only] 33 out of 40 gay brothers inherited similar genetic markers...

The gene or genes in the Xq28 region that influence sexual orientation have a limited and variable impact. Not all of the gay men in Bailey's study inherited the same Xq28 region. -->The genes were neither sufficient, nor necessary, to make any of the men gay.<--

The flawed thinking behind a genetic test for sexual orientation is clear from studies of twins, which show that the identical twin of a gay man, who carries an -->exact<-- replica of his brother's DNA, is more likely to be straight than gay. That means even a perfect genetic test that picked up every gene linked to sexual orientation would still be less effective than flipping a coin.

However, we don't know where these genetic factors are located in the genome.

"We found evidence for two sets [of genes] that affect whether a man is gay or straight. But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved." [Women must simply just be of some other species or don't have genes.]

13 February 2014

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/14/genes-influence-male-sexual-orientation-study

Sickos?

Brothers,

some things have been going on and around in my head for quite some time now...

I've been involved in "ex-gay ministry" for a couple of years now and had my share of good reading, seminars, public appearances, meeting many people from all over the globe, ministering to those in need and so on.

Now something I really need to get off my chest: the way we are sometimes seen and might even see ourselves.

I have been reading lots of books & articles and I've watched people live or listened to them on cd and something strikes me to a point that I begin to not being even able to listen to it anymore (which is unreasonable, I admit):

If you read the ex-gay literature, the points that are usually stressed might sound like this:

- We had a problem with our fathers (either he was not there all together or emotionally not accessible)
- We have a bad brain/hand coordination
- Our mothers were dominant
- We have a problem building up healthy relationships (both same-sex and opposite-sex)
- We have a broken relationship with the Lord
- We have emotional problems (anxieties, depression...)
- We might have been sexually abused in our childhood
- We lost the contact to the male world and by having sex with other men, we try to make up for it and like this get back from those who we perceive as "different" than us ("real men"), what we believe we do not have
- We have a "gender identity disorder"
- We are way too impulsive
- We have a hard time concentrating on a goal and pursuing it no matter what (no matter how long it takes and how hard it will be to get there)
- Somehow we are still littel boys (the little kid in us keeps on popping up and the big dude fails to take over)
- We are confused as to our masulinity
- We need healthy heterosexual male mentors
- We have a big problem pitying ourselves
- We are wimps
- We are way too feminine and need to learn what being a man is all about
- We have a problem with porn, masturbation, sex...
- We are suicidal
- We don't have stress resistance
- and so on and so forth...

Does that sound familiar?

Now you tell me how that sounds like.

First of all: all of that sure is true (even though not for everyone of us - another thing people tend to forget at times!), no doubt about that. And people like Satinover, Aardweg, Nicolosi and so on have done a great job teaching us all of that. Also: if you want to enter the ring, you need to know your opponent - both spiritually and scientifically.

BUT:

Doesn't that make us look like real sickos? I mean, really: if you read all of that and if you haven't felt bad about yourself, now would be the perfect time time to start!

Do people really think it helps us to make us look like psychos, like poor little things that are somehow mentally handicapped and need pity?

Healing? Like from a contagious disease?

Sure - we need to heal, but that ain't the way to start, even though each or those issues might have to be dealt with on the way.

First of all - and most of all - we need to love and accept us JUST THE WAY WE ARE.

If we can't get to that point, it hepls us nothing to get on the therapy train. If we don't learn to love ourselves, we cannot love God or others either.

And P-L-E-A-S-E don't come up with commonplaces now like "God loves you just the way you are - but He loves you way too much to let you stay that way!"! Of course, it is basically true - but the intention behind it somehow sounds shallow and hypocrite to me.

God loves us the way we are and so should we. Period. The fact that "those feelings" are there, is by itself not something bad. It is the acting out part that gets you in trouble.

Now of course, we need to change things in our lives - according to all the points mentioned above. Like every other Christian does (yes, another thing people tend to forget).

As I said: I've read and heard lots of that ex-gay stuff - and it was extremely helpful on the way. No question about that. But it doesn't reach the heart, and that's where it has to sink in. That's why we need those "healthy male relationships". And - contrary to some assumptions - you cannot classify the men we should reach out to as to "better" or "worse". Heterosexual mentors are needed just as much as fellow strugglers. Also regarding the therapists: There are some out there who look at the whole thing from the outside - as scientists. Whcih is basically not a bad thing. They can produce valuable results - and they do - but sometimes you need people who know how that feels, because they have "those feelings", too. Some might tell me now that oyu don't have to be alcoholic either to treat one. Whereas I respond that sarcasm like this gets you nowhere fast. Alcoholism and same-sex attractions are in no way comparable - even if some things in the lives of those people might look familiar.

Think about it: As a man, I could spend my whole life watching women and make scientific studies about them and write one book after the other about women. Cool. Nothing to be said against that. But sometimes it does take a woman to understand how a woman really feels!

To cut it short: it is the mixture that counts.

As to masculinity that's definitely an extremely important issue - FOR EVERY MAN OUT THERE (for more info, watch www.mensfraternity.com). We are different, no doubt, but that is not a bad thing. Even though we need to work on becoming a man (by being shaped by other men, like every other dude out there!), there is no need to become a copycat. You don't have to imitate someone to become a man. One trait of masculinity is being authentic - and trying to look and act like someone else sure ain't authentic.

As to myself: I've gone along way and many people helped me during the last couple of years - for which I am deeply thankful. But at some point it is important to close a chapter of the book of your life to start a new one. I do not want to live in the past anymore.

Does that mean I quit ministering to people who seek freedom from same-sex attractions? No.

But it sure means that I discovered other things that are important to me. That I have found peace with my past and the people involved - and do not need to give testimony all the time. That I have rediscovered my masculinity and my true self. That I do not have to deal with ex-gay issues 24/7 anymore.

Yes, I realize that I have to be on guard for the rest of my days, being fully aware that sin is always but a step away. But again: that ain't no different from any other man.

And this is what I am:: a totally normal heterosexual man - who happens to have same-sex feelings at times.

I have come to love myself - and starting from there I can reach out to others, trying to pass on some of all that love the Lord has given me.

Think about it.

Robert

Why did God Give Me These Feelings? A New Approach on Same-Sex Attractions



If you experience same-sex attractions, have you ever asked yourself why this is the case?

For those who fully embrace the “gay live”, this question either does not even come up or will be answered by a “gay gene”, hormonal predispositions, the brain structure, society – or altogether. Either way those who live out their same-sex attractions might not even waste a thought on that or see it as something beautiful and lots of fun as well. Well, sort of – at least for a while. Also acting out upon them could help you cope with inner pain, loneliness, anxieties, feelings of not being the man you want to be and the like.

For many Christians, however, things are not so easy. They know what the Bible says and even though there are people these days who try to twist that and make a “yes” or a “maybe” out of a clear “no”, someone who is deeply rooted in the faith and in the Bible will have a hard time believing that. They know that we have a loving Father who does not tell us to do or not to do something because He loves to boss us around, but because He loves us and knows where this would lead us to if we do not follow His ways. They might have also read books about the psychological background of same-sex attractions, the broken relationship that boys had with their father, a dominant or over-protective mother and all the rest. You have heard it before I guess.

Not that there is anything wrong with that approach. Often men with same-sex attractions had a broken relationship with their father that needs to be addressed. Also to know about all the different factors that played a role in our sexual and emotional development is crucial if we want to understand who we are and why we are what we are.

Some might describe same-sex attractions as temptations or as a “gender identity disorder”, maybe also as a sort of misled way of dealing hurts or legitimate needs. Again: there is some truth in that – no doubt about it. Some people even think it is a mere choice to feel that way (which is incorrect to say the least).

Most Christian ex-gay ministries or purity organizations would explain same-sex attractions that way: a gender identity disorder based on a broken relationship with the Lord.

Now think about it. Think about how you describe other people and how you see yourself if you share that view, either based on your faith (temptations) or on psychology (disorder) or both.

You give people the impression they are sort of “disordered”, confused, fallen, broken, helpless. They did not manage to connect with their own gender in childhood and puberty. They are hurting on the inside and have unmet needs that they try to heal with sex and/or same-sex love.

Of course, in many cases, that’s how it is. Or is it not? Is there maybe more to it? Have we seen only a small spot of a much bigger and richer painting?

God did not make me this way!, many Christians might say. Depends on what you mean by “this way”. He sure did not make you “gay”. Other will say now that we are born this way. I do not want to focus on that discussion now. As of this day, there is no prove for this “born gay” theory, nor for any other theory (hormonal causes, different structure of the brain and the like) to explain same-sex attractions. They are probably caused by a whole range of different factors. Even a “gay gene” cannot force you to act upon your attractions nor is it a reason to believe that this would be morally acceptable. We cannot blame God for the way we act, talk and have sexual relations with others.

So what about it? What’s wrong with the way ex-gay groups and Christians deal with that subject? Well, there is nothing “wrong” with it. However, it might be seen from the wrong perspective and so show only a small part of a much bigger painting.

What if God gave us these attractions for a reason?

W-H-A-T???

For many, this seems unthinkable. God might have given us same-sex attractions for a reason?

Yet think about it. Take something like anger: anger can destroy like with an axe or it can correct. Most everything that is in us has both sides: the one that it is intended for and what we have made out of it in our fallen state.

What if this is not so much different with same-sex attractions? When we think of hem, we only see a negative side – either the causes thereof or the consequences if we act upon them. We try to change or want to let God change us – either altogether from “gay” to “straight” or at least as to the frequency and/or intensity of our feelings. We try to understand how our past distorted our identity and our relationship with God and seek to heal that. Nothing wrong with any of that. Except that this might only be part of a much bigger picture.

What reason could God possibly have to give us same-sex attractions?

Maybe those same-sex attractions allow us to communicate with people on a level and in a depth that other people do not have. Note that this has nothing to do with “better” or “worse” – just with being different. Maybe God wanted us to be “different”, because with our same-sex attractions we have the key to the hearts of those that nobody else can reach. Those who have been tremendously hurt, rejected and dumped like garbage for instance. Those society has given up on and that have given up on themselves as well. How about our same-sex attractions help reaching their hearts and unlock them so the love of others and of God Himself can pour in?

Maybe you are an elderly man who is attracted by younger men. You can “go for it”, have sex with them and/or fantasize about them in an inappropriate way. Or you can use your attractions to get through to them, love them as Christ would, guide and nurture them as Christ would. Maybe your same-sex attractions allow you to make true disciples out of them. And maybe God does not want you to change, but to use those attractions for His glory!

Think about the two radical approaches:

Instead of considering yourself a sick and disordered person, whose every thought is sinful and who is constantly struggling against what he or she wants and yearns for most in life, you can see your attractions as a God-given gift, something that might bless many other people and allow you to go new ways in all areas of your life. These attractions might be both a “curse” and a responsibility. God does not want you to use them to lust after your own sex or for your personal pleasure, but to reach out to those nobody else gets through.

What a completely different way of looking at the same subject this would and could be!

Think about Jesus and John. The Bible mentions every detail for a reason. Remember when John leaned against Jesus’ breast and also how John is called the apostle Jesus loved? No, they did not have a “gay relationship’ or anything like that. Also remember  how John is said to be the apostle Jesus loved? I am NOT saying any of them had same-sex attractions, but why is it mentioned there? I would say because it should point out some things to us. We see things sometimes in a very distorted and fallen way. God sees it His way and also can tell what a person really could be like if he walked the right path. So when the Bible talks about deep and strong relationships between two men (look also at David and Jonathan!), this has nothing to do wit something “gay”. The Lord made people with same-sex attractions very special and He wants them to bless many others.

Think about it.

Let’s go back to David and Jonathan: I never really knew what this is all about. Even as a Christian this sounded kind of strange to me – until the Lord brought men into my life that bonded with me the way David bonded with Jonathan. Only then I understood what this true love was all about. It is our fallen state that sometimes lets us see something homoerotic in it. However, David was a man who ran after the women like few others – and yet he managed to relate to Jonathan in a way that led him to say that this love was more important to him than the love of women!

I guess what I am trying to tell you is that we need to stop seeing same-sex attractions as only negative. If you do that, you might come to the conclusion that your every thought and desire is sinful, that you are only bad on the inside and that your inner struggle will go on till the day you die. As a Christian, you will have to fight against these temptations, but it also means that your life is a constant inner struggle which leads some to unhappiness, loneliness or worse.

Now there is some truth in the above. Of course, we are all fallen people and our lives definitely are long inner struggles against temptations. Jesus Himself told us to deny ourselves, take our cross upon ourselves daily and follow Him. Also a feeling of “happiness” is in no way a sure sign that we are on the right path. Yet if we only see ourselves as completely messed up, as sort of “sick” or “disordered”, we might completely miss God’s plan for us – and that could lead to emotional and spiritual pain and confusion.

If we see same-sex attractions only as some sort of a “curse” or at least as something gone wrong that we have to constantly fight against, try to change or at least put up with, then we only look at them from our perspective. We only see the sinful, disordered aspect of them that leads us to lust after people of our own sex or even start inappropriate relationships with them.

Maybe we need to see same-sex attractions the way God sees them and like that turn a “curse”, a temptation or pain into a blessing.

Think about the potential of this radically new approach! Think about the many good things that the Lord could then do with your life and the different way you might look at yourself then!

Yes, we always need to watch our heart, mind and flesh when we use those attractions for His glory, as satan will not miss his chance to tempt us. There is nothing worse than becoming the stumbling block for those we are responsible for, those who trust us, look up to us for guidance and rely on us. But with a daily spiritual and relational structure (like what we are doing in Homosexuals Anonymous or in JASON) that can be done!

I just returned from the local prison where I serve as a volunteer. None of the inmates that I have been allowed to take care of myself knows of my same-sex attractions. However, it looks like I can get through to them. They open up to me and we bond and connect on another level than maybe other volunteers might connect. This is not about “better” or “worse”, but about using your gifts for His glory.

Do I think that there is no need for “change” or that we all should stay the way we are? Not at all. Our sexual and emotional attractions are shaped by many different factors and so is our identity – the way we see ourselves. We need to address every one of those factors a different way. However, this approach will be much different if you do not simply follow set commonplaces or simple (however well-intentioned!) explanations, but let God show you your personal design and His call for your life. God has given each one of us different gifts and talents. Yes, some have become disordered in the course of time, but this does not take away from God’s original plan.

We are different, that’s for sure, but this does not have to be all bad! If we understand those parts of our gifts that have gone astray and ask the Holy Spirit to change our hearts in that, then we open ourselves for God’s vision for us and become all His. Then we can leave everything behind and give Him our all – and let our gifts bear rich fruit.

May the Lord lead us to a deeper understanding for how He shaped us and what He blessed us with – and how we can use those blessings to bless others in return.

I realize this is a completely different and radically new approach to same-sex attractions. However, I would ask everyone that feels that way to meditate and pray upon that.

Again:

THINK ABOUT THE POTENTIAL!


May the Lord continue to guide and bless us always,

Rob

 

Excerpt from Freud's study of Leonardo Da Vinci

Homosexual men who have started in our times an energetic action against the legal restrictions of their sexual activity are fond of representing themselves through theoretical spokesmen as evincing a sexual variation, which may be distinguished from the very beginning, as an intermediate stage of sex or as a "third sex". In other words they maintain that they are men who are forced by organic determinants originating in the germ, to find that pleasure in the man which they cannot feel in the woman.

"As much as one would wish to subscribe to their demands out of humane considerations, one must nevertheless exercise reserve regarding their theories, which were formulated without regard for the psychogenesis of homosexuality. Psychoanalysis offers the means to fill this gap and to put to the test the assertions of homosexuals.

"It is true that psychoanalysis fulfilled this task in only a small number of people, but all investigations thus far undertaken brought the same surprising results. In all our male homosexuals there was a very intense erotic attachment to a feminine person, as a rule to the mother, which was manifest in the very first period of childhood and later entirely forgotten by the individual. This attachment was produced or favored by too much love from the mother herself, but was also furthered by the retirement or absence of the father himself during the childhood period…

"It seems almost that the presence of a strong father would assure for the son the proper decision in the selection of his object from the opposite sex.

HOMOSEXUALITY AND BIOLOGICAL FACTORS

Written By Dr. Gerard van den Aardweg


Dr. van den Aardweg explains why he believes the claims for a biological basis for SSA have little merit.

( Permission to reprint this article was graciously given to JONAH from Dr. van den Aardweg and NARTH, the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. This article was originally published in The NARTH Bulletin, Winter 2005, 13,3,19-28.)

In 1898, the Austrian empress Elizabeth was stabbed to death in Genova by 25-year-old Luigi Lucheni. The murderer was proud of his act, which he declared was “revenge for my life.” After turbulent years in prison, Lucheni hanged himself in 1910. A typical representative of the prevailing 19th century thinking on abnormal behavior, professor Mége-vant performed an autopsy, investigating the brain to uncover the anomalies that were supposed to underlie the murderer’s “psychopathic disposition.” However, nothing out of the ordinary could be found; even Lucheni’s brain weight was standard. Disappointed, the professor put the head in a jar with formaldehyde and stored it in the cellar of the Institute for Forensic Medicine. A neuroanatomically normal psychopath, what a scientific riddle!

Yet the explanation of this criminal’s arrogant, merciless, and abnormally hostile personality was close at hand, provided one would pay attention to what he had to say himself about his psychological history. An illegitimate child, abandoned and cruelly abused and exploited by several foster “parents,” he was driven by frustration and embitterment. But psychogenesis had not been discovered by then, so to speak, and psychiatry was dominated by Kraepelin’s postulate: mental aberrations stem from abnormalities in the brain, which moreover are inherited. For criminal behavior, the variant was Lombroso’s theory of the deliquente nato, the born-that-way delinquent.

Perusing the research literature on homosexuality of the last 15-20 years, one recognizes the same 19th century mentality. The nonprofessional reader who is not able to read the rules will get the impression that there is no scientific doubt with respect to homosexuality’s biological causation; at least, that powerful constitutional predispositions have been ascertained. If you are not precisely born a homosexual, you will in any case possess some biological homosexual disposition, which in practice amounts to the same. And if science has not yet unearthed the definitive biological causes, it is in the process of doing so, because the experimental indications are piling up. So science would seem to support the notion of the omosessuale nato. [1]

By and large, this is the message conveyed by the majority of the reports in the professional magazines. If developmental-psychological factors are given some attention they are played down as of secondary importance at most; often no mention is made of them at all. Now what is the truth? First, that not a single genetic, physiological, anatomical, or neuroanatomical correlate of homosexuality has been demonstrated. Secondly, that contrary to the impression they confer, precisely the studies of the last 15-20 years have made the existence of such correlates more unlikely than before. Thirdly, that these realities are either not perceived or purposely kept out of awareness because most academic publications on homosexuality are influenced or determined by the predominant gay ideology.

No Hormonal Correlates

The conclusion arrived at by Perloff in 1965 that no hormonal peculiarities had been demonstrated in homosexuals still holds today. In 1993, Byne and Parsons thus summarized their thorough expert analysis of the investigations on homosexuality and biologic factors, including hormones: “There is no evidence ... to substantiate a biologic theory.” [2] And after 1993? Nothing remotely resembling proof of hormonal influences on homosexuality either. Yet a warmed-up version of the intersex (Zwischenstufen) theory of Magnus Hirschfeld, according to which male homosexuals have a hormone-induced feminized brain and lesbians a masculinized, continues being dished up as if founded in scientific fact. Prenatal androgen deficiency and excess (in homosexual men and women, respectively) are held responsible. [3] This view is however an undifferentiated programmatic sketch more than a testable theory. For what is meant, for instance, by a “feminized” male brain?

Does it mean that in some, as yet postulated, brain structure, the perceptual recognition center of “the feminine,” the “image” of the female Gestalt has been substituted by the Gestalt of “the masculine”? That sounds rather fanciful (and what then caused the picture of the feminine in the homosexual pedophile to be substituted by that of “the boyish”? And so on for the other sexual “orientations”). Or does a “feminized” male brain mean that the boy’s behavior is becoming feminized; or rather, that the boy’s aggression drive is reduced, because lack of daring and of physical fighting spirit is much more tied to homosexuality than “femininity”? [4] In the latter case, the supposed brain anomaly contains nothing that spontaneously generates or inherently predisposes to homosexual desires. Reduced male aggression (and its counterpart, enhanced female aggression/tomboyishness) as a temperamental trait (the current term is “gender nonconformity”) might then be considered at most an “indirectly predisposing,” better still, a “pseudo-predisposing” factor. In fact, it is the environment and the child’s self-view which determine if such temperament plays a role in the genesis of homosexuality. In this variant of the sex-atypical brain theory, the origin of homosexuality itself is not accounted for; in principle it may be easily incorporated in a developmental-psychological view. It certainly does not justify the horrible notion of “gay children.”

There would merely be temperamentally placid boys and “wild” girls, the vast majority of them growing up as normal heterosexuals.

The crucial question however is: What is the evidence for a link between this (or other) behavioral traits and prenatal, or whichever other, hormonal or brain irregularities? The alternative explanation, habit formation and self-view by rearing and other social influences, is certainly not less likely. Mama’s boys and/or boys with “psychologically absent” fathers tend to be over-domesticated, so to speak, and it is precisely these parent-child factors that have incontestably been shown to be associated with male homosexuality. [5]

Fathers’ girls and girls whose personality was not much shaped by their mother, and girls with other defeminizing childhood background factors may adopt more “masculine” or boy-like attitudes and habits. Anyhow, specific parent-child and peer group interactions have been amply demonstrated, while the hormonal-neuronal explanation has precious little to offer but speculations. There are no indications that homosexuals have suffered hormonal deviations before or after birth, their hormonal system is normal and in agreement with their biologic sex.

The evidence proposed by the proponents of the feminized/masculinized brain theory is limited to a few hardly relevant observations: the female lordosis reflex in male rats after testosterone deprivation (which reflex however is not indicative of their sexual drive); the possibly enhanced prevalence of lesbian tendencies in women suffering from congenital adrenal hyperplasia or CAH (who have been exposed to prenatal androgen hormones) [6]; and a few contradictory data regarding finger length ratios.

Regarding CAH, the majority of these women are heterosexual, so that their supposed brain masculinization would affect only a minority. If lesbianism would indeed be relatively frequent among these patients (the data are not conclusive [7] ), it is hard to see why that would argue for a hormonal cause or even predisposition in healthy lesbians who are hormonally normal and whose genitals are not semi-masculinized like in these CAH patients. A psychological explanation of lesbianism in girls with “unfeminine” genitals and the various traumatic experiences associated with it is more realistic than a physiological explanation. For feelings of feminine inferiority are practically inevitable in girls who suffer from such a condition, and that is how a lesbian development often starts.

With respect to men with disturbances leading to prenatal androgen insensitivity or deficiency (and who are therefore believed to possess “feminized” brain centers), no connection with homosexuality has been found. [8] This has been the usual outcome of the older studies on homosexuality in persons who really have some aberration of the sex hormones or sex-chromosomes, too: they do not become psychosexually aberrant. According to some authors their sexuality may be somewhat rudimentary, “infantile,” underdeveloped, though, and this is understandable. [10]

Do homosexuals have a 2D:4D (index finger: ring finger) ratio like the one typical of the opposite sex? It has been declared this “suggests” sex-atypical prenatal hormones and brain formation. But the phenomenon is in all likelihood no more than a peculiar artifact, like others of that kind, [11] so we had better forget about it.

In all, the periodically launched “promising” leads of hormonal correlates of homosexuality have invariably proven dead ends; there is a history of nearly 90 years to illustrate this point. It is at odds with scientific prudence to make the gigantic leap from (otherwise, not sufficiently studied) observations with rats to the complicated level of human sexuality. It is time the criticism of Byne (1995, p. 337) gets through to psychiatrists, psychologists and other professionals who sometimes tend to be overly impressed with reported biologic indications. Byne says there are too many

“...hasty interpretations, based on limited sample sizes, shaky methodologies, and extremely limited knowledge about functions of particular brain structures and even less knowledge about the biological substrates of the mind.”

In other words, there is much amateur speculation instead of serious science. He explains:

“Attempts to prove that gay men have feminized gonatropin responses [12] were made decades after strong evidence suggested that the brain mechanism regulating the response does not differ between men and women” and “It required 25 studies to convince some that testosterone levels in adulthood do not reveal sexual orientation” (p. 336; see also Byne, 1997).

As long as a suspect’s guilt has not been proven, he must be treated as innocent. One may personally believe homosexual persons must have hormonal or neuroanatomical peculiarities, but scientifically there is no reason not to consider them physically normal and healthy (brain evidence: below).

No Genetic Proof

Despite numerous suggestions to the contrary, the last fifteen years of renewed research led even behavioral geneticists in favor of a genetic explanation of homosexuality to the conclusion that genetic factors for homosexual inclinations as such do not exist. This interesting fact hardly gets the attention it deserves. The other remarkable point is that in consequence, current genetic speculations focus on predisposing factors of a non-sexual nature. As a result, it is implicitly admitted that the prime and decisive causes lie in the person’s life history. The indirect evidence for these conclusions has come from twin studies, the direct from the exploration of genetic linkage.

Concordance percentages in volunteer studies vary from 25-66 for monozygotic (MZ) twins, roughly two times the percentages for dizygotics (DZ). [13] This is quite dissimilar from the picture in the case of uncontested genetic factors like the color of the eyes, certain diseases, etc. Apart from the fact that volunteer studies do not adequately represent the total population of homosexuals with twins (see further on), these results are not proof of the genetic determination of homosexuality. First, because only half of the co-twins of the MZ homosexual index persons in these groups were also homosexual. Secondly, because the average concordance of DZ male homosexuals in volunteer studies is 20%, whereas the rate of homosexuality among non-twin brothers of male homosexuals “hovered closely around 9%.” [14] DZ twin brothers of homosexuals are genetically not more similar than other brothers, so the finding that DZ twins of male homosexuals are twice as often homosexual as the average brother of a homosexual man challenges a genetic explanation. Both the higher concordance in MZ than in DZ pairs and the higher incidence in DZ twins as compared with non-twin siblings point to a psychological (environmental) explanation. Very regrettably, the psychological dimension has been virtually neglected in all of these studies, except for an occasional observation like the footnote by Bailey and Pillard (1995, note 34):

We found in both our male and female studies that discordant MZ twins also reported quite different childhood experiences. ... the homosexual twins reported more sex-atypical behavior....

(“Sex-atypical behavior” is the concept of gender nonconformity we dealt with above).

Why did an observation like that did not lead to collecting detailed developmental-psychological data of these subjects of identical genetic make-up regarding their relationships with parents and peers and self-image in relation to their co-twin? Anyhow, the observation of Bailey and Pillard is satisfactorily explained by the psychology of twins. Their self-view is shaped by intense comparison with their co-twin (and by their being compared to each other by their environment); either they feel “identical” (want to be and act like their alter ego) or they overemphasize their differences, e.g., with respect to their virility or femininity. [15] Thirdly, 11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual males are reported to be homosexual, too. [16] This finding, which neither genetic nor perinatal hormones can account for, casts more than a little doubt on the genetic explanation of the homosexuality of the biological sons, thus on the whole genetic hypothesis.

However, concordance rates in volunteer samples appear to be inflated, since homosexuality-concordant twins, especially MZ twins, are as a rule overrepresented. [17] Therefore, samples from twin registers are considered more representative. [18] Bailey et al. (2000) found 3 out of 27 MZ male homosexuals from the Australian twin register to be concordant (11%), versus 0 out of 16 same-sex dizygotics (0%) and 2 of 19 opposite-sex dizygotics (12%). Of 22 female MZ twins, 3 (14%) were concordant, versus 0 of 16 same-sex dizygotics (0%) and 2 of 19 opposite-sex dizygotics (12%). This was not “statistically significant support for the importance of genetic factors,” which the reader who inspects the simple numbers given above may readily see. Significantly, though, it has subsequently been attempted to squeeze as much “heredity” as possible out of these obvious data by applying more “flexible” (and thus more debatable) criteria for “homosexuality” and using a “hereditability” formula.

And, lo!, the magic formula turns the defeat for the genetic explanation into a victory so that henceforth what was evidently “no support for genetic factors” can be sold as modest “support” (Kirk et al., 2000)! Such handling of the raw numbers borders on what the French call “statistical massage”; it is at any rate no test of the power of a genetic versus a non-genetic model. [19] The same is true of the interpretation in a similar study that the “[homo] sexual orientation was substantially influenced by genetic factors.” [20]

In this case too, the simple numbers tell the tale better than sophisticated calculations based on a speculative model [21]: Two of 10 MZ homosexual men had a homosexual twin brother (20%) vs. 4 of a combined group of 28 male DZ twin pairs and pairs of non-twin brothers one of whom was a homosexual (14%). Four of 9 female MZ pairs were concordant (44%) vs. 8 of a combined group of 28 female DZ twins plus non-twin sisters one of whom was a lesbian (29%). This indicates a slight preponderance of MZ concordance, not significant statistically though. In a non-random sample of never-married twins from the Minnesota Twin Registry, which seems to contain the majority of the twins of this State, Hershberger (1997) found hereditability coefficients that were mildly consistent with genetic influences for lesbians, not for male homosexuals. [22]

In sum, MZ concordance becomes lower the more representative the samples; at the same time, the difference between MZ and DZ concordances becomes less convincing. [23] The more important conclusion, however, is that the genetic hypothesis has become increasingly less plausible and seems engaged in a rearguard action. For no theorists of genetic influences can be found any more who believe in the existence of a “gay gene” proper. The view of the role of genes underwent a silent, but very significant change: no longer the prime determinants, they now function at most as predisposing factors. In short, the decisive cause(s) of homosexuality are not hereditary. Even Hamer, the man who in 1993 caused the media stir with his “near-discovery” of the gay gene [24] admits:

We do not expect to find (in the future) a gene that is the same in every gay man ... just one that is correlated to sexual orientation. [25]

Unclearly as it is worded, he seems to hint at predisposing factors. Bailey theorizes in the same direction after finding that childhood gender nonconformity was (to a degree) compatible with a genetic statistical model while homosexual feelings were not. [26] But the case for the genetic origin of gender nonconformity is far from strong either. Wasn’t it Bailey himself who previously had noticed that it was this very item of gender nonconformity which distinguished the homosexual from the heterosexual twin in MZ pairs discordant for homosexuality? [27]

Dramatically decreasing genetic evidence from modern twin research was on the one side, while on the other, the search for a genetic linkage came to a dead end. The well-known 1993 finding of Hamer, et al., did indeed not demonstrate the existence of a single gene, because it was not shown that the highly selective group of homosexual men showing a moderate correlation between DNA markers and a region of the X chromosome shared a particular molecular sequence. [28] The supposed genetic factor thus might have been any physical or temperamental resemblance with the mother (from whom the X chromosome is inherited). The whole thing was, after all, a storm in a tea cup. Subsequent analysis and research vindicated the verdict by the famous French authority in the field, Jerome Lejeune, that the methodological defects of the investigation were so serious that “were it not for the fact that this study is about homosexuality, it would probably never have been accepted for publication.” [29]

A first replication by the same team with a small group reported a barely significant confirmation for homosexual men, not for lesbians [30]; the calculations of the team were, however, rejected by the statistician experts. [31] And an independent Canadian team failed to uncover a link between male homosexuality and the X chromosome in a larger sample. [32] So much for the direct exploration of the genes. Circumstantial evidence is sometimes deduced from familial and pedigree findings. It has long been known that homosexuality occurs relatively more frequently in certain families and pedigrees, but genetic explanations are implausible in view of the erratic way it is distributed within these families and pedigrees: “We never found a single family in which homosexuality was distributed in the obvious pattern that Mendel observed.” [33]

And this statement by Hamer is even an understatement. On the aforementioned higher correlation in lesbian propensities between lesbians and their mothers than between them and their sisters, [34] he comments: “The rate was a whopping 33 percent, meaning that the daughter of a lesbian had a one-in-three chance of also being a lesbian. Genetically speaking, this result was impossible.” [35] Psychologically not so, however. [36] Many specific personality-shaping habits are transmitted from one generation to the next by learning. This may explain varied familial phenomena a genetic hypothesis cannot. It is therefore arbitrary to present a possibly somewhat elevated occurrence of male homosexuality among maternal relatives as evidence for genetic influences, as has been done in a recent publication [37] (Fortunately the authors admit that it is “still possible” to attribute their data to “culturally, rather than genetically, inherited traits”). [38]

In an attempt to present the long known [39] and recently well-replicated [40] phenomenon that homosexual men (not women) have relatively more older brothers than heterosexual men as an indication of the biological cause of male homosexuality, a far-fetched theory has been invented. Mothers of male homosexuals might progressively produce an “antibody” to male fetuses every time they are pregnant with a boy, which in turn would eventually feminize the developing brain of the younger male embryos (The theory has only relevance for 15% of the male homosexuals, viz., those with more older brothers). [41] Physiological anti-boy mechanisms have never been demonstrated, however, and the fully speculative status of the feminized male brain has already been described. Why not try a psychological explanation? Already in 1937 psychiatry professor Schultz pointed to the impact of the position of the “nice little brother” (liebe Brüderchen) among his older brothers on his psychosexual development. [42]

No Neuroanatomical Correlates

Like professor Mégevant a century ago, present-time brain researchers have never really been awarded in their quest for unambiguous brain anomalies in homosexuals. E.g., an initial report of larger inter-hemispheric fiber bundles in homosexual men could not be replicated. [43] Nor was there a convincing reason to explain LeVay’s 1991 over-publicized observation of a smaller hypothalamic nucleus (INAH3) in some homosexual men who had died of AIDS in comparison with heterosexual intravenous drug users as evidence of a feminized brain center. Differences between the groups other than the homosexuality variable might have caused the effect: procedures of tissue preparation, length of the disease period, previous occurrence of other venereal diseases, or medication. A replication by Byne et al. (2001), hailed by some as “proof” of a “homosexual brain center” [44] has in fact made that explanation even more unlikely. In a small group of homosexual men who had died of AIDS they found a trend for the ratio of INAH3-volume to brain weight to be smaller than that ratio for deceased heterosexual men who were drug users. The trend was not significant statistically, hence strictly speaking, the difference is not uncontestable. Byne suspects that since the brain weights of the heterosexual men with AIDS were much lower than both those of the HIV-negative heterosexual men and the homosexuals with AIDS, the trend,

“... may reflect the superior health care received by the homosexual male group compared to the heterosexual male group with AIDS, all of whom were intravenous drug users.” [45]

Nor does he exclude that histological preparation caused the relative shrinkage of INAH3 in the homosexuals:

“Since some New York hospitals have a preponderance of HIV+ patients who are gay men, while others have a preponderance of HIV+ patients who are drug users, the homosexual and heterosexual patients tended to come from different institutions, and therefore, there were likely variations in autopsy and fixation procedures that were confounded with sexual orientation.”

For these reasons, he believes his second finding is the more reliable and important one: the nuclei of the homosexuals contained as many neurons as those of the heterosexual men. That is, 60% more neurons than the female nucleus. This is the more interesting because INAH3 seems the only brain-anatomical structure which is sexually dimorphic. [46] In sum: no evidence for the “wrongly put on nerves” (like the strings of a guitar) the poet Dante ascribed to homosexuals! [47]

Conclusions

The main conclusion is obvious if we keep our eyes on the interesting factual observations in the reports of the last few decades and let our sight not be obscured by the biology-biased interpretations they are wrapped in. No bodily correlates of homosexuality have been demonstrated. Like with the monster of Loch Ness, there are periodic claims that a biologic factor has been spotted, but upon closer inspection, the claims evaporate. [48] This renders any discussion of whether a determinate correlate would be a cause, an effect, or an insignificant byproduct of another homosexuality-connected variable superfluous.

But there is more. Whereas constitutional theories seem increasingly speculative, they are only the psychological correlates of homosexuality that are well-established. The highest correlations have systematically been found for what is currently designated as childhood and adolescent gender nonconformity: lack of integration in the boyhood/girlhood world and feelings of not belonging to the same-sex world. [49]

This syndrome has been established in clinical as well as nonclinical samples, in various countries and over several generations. Significantly, it is also recognized by authors who prefer to believe in biological theories (Hamer, LeVay, Bailey). The second-highest correlations exist with the finding of defective relations with the same-sex parent; the third-highest with maternal dominance/overprotection for the homosexual man, and with varied father factors for the lesbian. [50] Empirically, then, a psychological explanation is the most realistic.

Furthermore, belief in a causal contribution of some (mostly unspecified) biologic variable, which is shared by many professionals who view homosexuality basically as a psychological phenomenon, is purely hypothetical. I think Schultz-Hencke, one of the coryphées of German psychiatry, was right when he wrote as far back as 1932: Homosexuality and every correlate of it is “psychologically explicable, without leaving a remainder.” [51] Even the unboyishness of many prehomosexual boys may rather be seen as an effect of intra-family factors, habit formation, and self-concept than as temperamental. [52] And certainly is all talk of “gay children” irresponsible, not only morally, but also scientifically. There is nothing intrinsically “gay” in either the biological or the psychological nature of children, nothing that spontaneously would push them to homoerotic feelings. The theoretical improbability of the existence of physiological correlates specific for homosexuality may appear more clearly if homosexual and heterosexual pedophilia, transvestism, exhibitionism etc. are taken into account (curiously, this is almost never done). For either specific hormonal, hormonal-brain or other factors are postulated for each of them, or they are regarded as “environmentally” caused. The first option is wild, the second challenges the biologic co-causation of homosexuality, because on what grounds should homosexuality be the exception, since the desires of pedophiles, etc. have the same characteristics as those of homosexuals (exclusiveness, obsessiveness)?

Proven Psychological Variables Ignored

Methodologically, it is a pity that most of the reviewed studies did not include the psychological variables of proven validity as to their relation with homosexuality. The more so since their results are mostly used as arguments for a (biologic) theory. But what is the value of a theory based on research which left out some of the most important variables? Notably the various collections of MZ and DZ twins might have yielded rich data had thorough psychological examinations been conducted of the childhood/ adolescence background, parental and peer factors, self-view, and neurotic emotionality. [53] That is equally true of studies on familial or pedigree clustering and the more-brothers phenomenon in a subgroup of male homosexuals. This missed opportunity points to either ignorance of the psychology of homosexuality or unwillingness to give it the credit it deserves (or both).

Gay Activists Dominate Research

Whence this 19th century step-motherly treatment of psychology by our present-day professors Mégevant? It is because with few exceptions they are gay persons wedded to the gay ideology. They are the Weinbergs, LeVays, Hamers, Baileys, Hershbergers etc., who openly admitted that biological roots of homosexuality favor social acceptance of the gay agenda (and right they are). It is in their interest to be single-mindedly biology-biased. And since the gay ideology has become the party line in the official establishment of the human sciences, inclusive of most professional journals, all findings “support” homosexuality’s biologic origin and mental normality or at least “suggest” it. Free research and free thinking is taboo as soon as it seems to threaten the gay cause. The ideologically distorted science thus produced and sponsored profoundly misleads the public. On a deeper level, it is often motivated not by thirst for the truth, but by the wish to rationalize or justify the normality sought by so many persons who are committed to a sexually abnormal lifestyle.

End Notes

1. This misrepresentation of the present state of research is imitated by not a few authors who apparently accept it without critical examination. A painful example is the contention of Serra (2004) that there would be “a coherent complex of observations indicating with sufficient strength that ... a (causal) biological component may not be excluded and which even suggest that this has an appreciable weight” (p. 232). That boils down to suggesting the existence of the omosessuale nato, though Serra’s formulation is vague. I mention this example because Father Serra is a retired professor of genetics of the Gregoriana University in Rome and a honorary member of the Papal Academy for Life. His misleading article in the Jesuit periodical La Civiltà Cattolica will probably make some impression in certain Catholic circles.

2. P. 228. Unlike the authors who blithely dream up physiological “explanations” without solid expertise in this area, Byne is an authority in the field of psychiatric neuroanatomy, Parsons in psychiatric genetics (both at the New York institute of Psychiatry).

3. E.g., Mustanski et al., 2002; Hershberger & Segal, 2004. They quote Meyer-Bahlburg (2001) although this author gives no evidence on hormonal or brain peculiarities of homosexuals, only on the psychosexual development of women with a chromosomal disturbance (classic CAH). According to some (not all) studies they manifest more lesbian inclinations than other women; yet their “prenatal hormonal milieu does not dictate a bisexual or lesbian outcome” and “few consider themselves lesbians” (p. 163).

4. Research data: van den Aardweg, 1986, chpt. 15; Freund & Blanchard, 1987; Hockenberry & Billingham, 1987.

5. As for the habit-formation explanation of boyish aggressiveness and daring or the lack of it, a comparison of the behavior of boys from families of working men with boys from academic families is instructive. Boys from the latter families are generally “softer,” more “feminine” if we prefer this psychological term, less physically aggressive. Also, compare boys from slums with boys from middle-class families.

6. Meyer-Bahlburg, 2001. Byne & Parsons (1993) make it clear how unconvincing the masculinized-brain hypothesis is to account for this otherwise not conclusively demonstrated phenomenon (p. 232).

7. See note 2, above.

8. Byne & Parsons, 1993, p. 232.

9. E.g., the older study of Raboch & Nedoma, 1958.

10. Züblin, 1957. Interestingly, Züblin remarked that the weak sexuality of these physically abnormal men seems strongly determined by their need to “behave like other men.” Meyer-Bahlburg (2001) points to the rudimentary sexual drive of women with CAH.

11. Mustanski et al., 2002.

12. Gonadotropins: hormones working on the sexual glands. Feminized gonadotropin responses: responses comparable to those of the female physiological cycle.

13. Of 56 American male MZ pairs, 59 (29%) were concordant, against 12 (22%) of 54 DZ pairs (Bailey & Pillard, 1991); of 20 British male and female MZ pairs, 5 (25%) were concordant, against 3 (12%) of 25 DZ pairs. The difference was not significant (King & McDonald, 1992). Of 38 American male MZ pairs, 25 (66%) were concordant, against 7 (30%) of 23 DZ pairs (Whitam et al., 1993). Of 71 American female MZ pairs, 34 (48%) were concordant, against 6 (16%) of 37 DZ pairs (Bailey et al., 1993).

14. Bailey & Pillard, 1995

15. I know a few such cases. The homosexual twin of these MZ pairs had viewed himself (and was seen by his parents) as the weaker of the two or was mother’s boy (the other one, father’s boy). Farber (1981) described two MZ sisters reared apart, one of whom a lesbian, the other heterosexual. In contrast with her co-twin, the lesbian had a conflict-ridden relation with her foster mother and a strong attachment to her foster-father, whom she imitated. Psychology give the clues!

16. Bailey & Pillard, 1995, note 30. Homosexuality seems to be relatively frequent in adoptive children in general, which has to do with many of those children’s liability to feeling not belonging (less valuable) in comparison with their biological siblings.

17. The phenomenon of “concordance-dependent ascertainment bias,” which was responsible for the suspect 100% MZ concordance (against 11.5% DZ concordance; or, under a broader definition of homosexuality, 42.3% DZ concordance) in the male group of Kallmann (1952). The figure of Kallmann raises some questions, by the way. A favorite disciple of psychiatrist Ernst Rüdin, the highest Nazi authority on the medical aspects of “racial hygiene” and a zealous advocate of forced sterilization of the mentally disturbed and “psychopaths,” Kallmann, like Rüdin, saw twin research as a means to improve the diagnosis of family members of “racially inferior” persons. He called for the sterilization of schizophrenics and many of their seemingly healthy family members who allegedly carried the postulated sick recessive gene, estimating that this made necessary the sterilization of about 5% of the population (!). Probably not by coincidence, he found extremely high concordance rates for MZ schizophrenics. What did he originally, before his flight to the U.S., have in mind for homosexuals? (Müller-Hill, 1984; Blondet, 1995).

18. It is not clear, though, how representative because the volunteer effect cannot be ruled out. Only about half of the twins invited for the study eventually participated. In addition, the register itself is a volunteer register which may contain no more than 10-20% of the Australian MZ and DZ twins (Kirk et al., 2000, note 39).

19. Hereditability formulas are statistics to estimate the part of score variance that might fit a proposed heredity model. Besides being based on assumptions which are susceptible of debate, hereditability coefficients are not measurements of genetic influence, merely quantifications of the degree obtained observations are compatible with a postulated genetic model. It does not really enhance the plausibility of heritability coefficients for personality traits that according to their reckonings viewpoints on the death penalty, abortion on demand, and even a virtue like “humility” are “50%” genetically determined (Excellent analyses: Whitehead & Whitehead, 1999). *Another source of confusion flows from the use of proband-wise concordance percentages in stead of the usual pair-wise percentages. The proband formula overestimates “real” concordance, yielding genetically-biased results. Proband-wise formula: 2(++): [2(++)+-] x 100%; pair-wise formula: (++) : N x 100%.

20. Kendler et al., 2000, p. 1843. The sample came from a U.S. national survey, but is not a representative of homosexuals with twins, nor can the volunteer factor be excluded.

21. The authors use the proband-wise concordance formula, overestimating MZ twin resemblance; in this text, pair-wise percentages are given.

22. With reference to this “moderate consistency” with a genetic model, see the contradictory finding of Pattatucci and Hamer (1995) that the highest correlation concerning lesbian interests was not between the lesbians and her sisters, but between the lesbians and their mothers. See also the failure of Hu et al. (1995) to find markers for a gene for lesbianism.

23. We cannot rule out the hypothesis that MZ concordance for homosexuality (and for other features) in former days was indeed higher than at present. It may be that the MZ children of former generations were more than at present reared and viewed as being identical, whereas MZ children of recent generations are more treated as distinctive individuals, their differences being emphasized in stead of their similarities. Examination of the relative proportions of MZ and DZ twins in non-Western cultures might help clarifying this issue.

24. Hamer et al.,1993.

25. Hamer & Copeland, 1994, p. 198.

26. Bailey et al., 2000.

27. Bailey & Pillard, 1995, footnote 34.

28. Byne, 1994.

29. Lejeune wrote this to me (1993) in response to my question about his opinion on Hamer’s article in Science. Lejeune was a great and erudite scientist, the discoverer of the gene causing Down syndrome.

30. Hu et al., 1995.

31. Risch et al., 1993.

32. Rice et al., 1999.

33. Hamer & Copeland, 1994, note 47.

34. Pattatucci & Hamer, 1995.

35. Hamer & Copeland, 1994, p. 191.

36. The finding must be repeated before it can be generalized. It is certainly relevant in connection with the debate on parenting and adoption by lesbian couples.

37. Camperio-Ciani et al., 2004. This is a rather shoddy study. “Measurement” of the homosexual inclinations of the relatives consisted in the opinion of the interviewed homosexuals themselves (The tendency of self-defensive homosexuals to project homosexuality in others is a well-known phenomenon). Besides, the informants were volunteers, so that the results may be an artifact. Otherwise, the authors emphasize that only 20% of the variance of pedigree sexual orientation could be accounted for by the genetic hypothesis.

38. Ibidem, p. 2220. “Culturally inherited” sounds strange. Why not: “Transferred by habits of rearing and education”? For example, male-female role imbalances which clearly stem from habit can be observed in certain families; maternal overprotection can sometimes be traced back for several generations, not to speak of personality shaping world views or beliefs.

39. E.g., the study of Lang, 1936.

40. Bogaert, 2003. Statistically, the probability that a boy in certain families with more brothers becomes a homosexual increases 38% with each older brother. In view of the increasing rarity of families with a series of brothers, this familial factor will have affected few future homosexuals in Western society.

41. Bogaert, 2003. Bogaert’s 15% nicely accords with that of Lang, 1936, who estimated 10-20%.

42. Homosexual men with more brothers not seldom felt inferior to them, were more overprotected, treated in a softer way.

43. Lasco et al., 2002.

44. In his book, Bailey (2003) misunderstood a communication of Byne to him as a confirmation of LeVay’s finding. He euphorically writes he would like to invest big money in Byne’s research (if he had it, of course), probably in the hope that this scientist will come up with the ardently desired biological proof. The scientific quality of Byne’s publications indicates that funding him is not a bad idea, indeed, but: will the outcome make Bailey cheerful?

45. Letter of July 20, 2005, to this author. The next quote is from this letter, too.

46. Byne et al., 2001, p. 90.

47. Inferno, XV, verse 114: li mal protesi nervi.

48. One of the recent one-day butterflies: the Swedish discovery of feminized body odor preferences of homosexual men. Evidence for a genetic cause of homosexuality, or for the sense of humor of the authors?

49. A survey of the studies until the eighties: van den Aardweg, 1986, Table 13.1; for later studies: e.g., Bem, 1996.

50. van den Aardweg, 1986, Table 15.1 and 27.5; Fisher & Greenberg, 1996, p. 137.

51. “restlos psychologisch erklärbar” (p. 300).

52. The analysis of the evidence concerning the specific “femininity” or nonaggressiveness in prehomosexual boys and “masculine” tendencies in some prelesbian girls is a chapter in itself. Here I can merely state my conclusion.

53. Earlier in the text I recalled Bailey’s observation that homosexuality-discordant MZ male twins differed in boyhood gender nonconformity.

Literature

Bailey, J.M. The man who would be queen. Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press, 2003

Bailey, J.M. & Pillard, R.C. A genetic study of male sexual orientation. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1991, 48, 1089-1096

Bailey, J.M. & Pillard, R.C. Genetics of human sexual orientation. Annual Review of Sex Research, 1995, 6, 126-150

Bailey, J.M. et al. Heritable factors influence sexual orientation in women. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1993, 50, 217-223

Bailey, J.M. et al. Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2000, 78, 3, 524-536

Bem, D.J. Exotic becomes erotic: A developmental theory of sexual orientation. Psychological Review, 1996, 103, 320-335

Blondet, M. La dottrina della razza nella scienza massonica. Studi Cattolici (Milano), 1995, 408, 130-133

Bogaert, A.F. Number of older brothers and sexual orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2003, 84, 3, 644-52

Byne, W. The biological evidence challenged. Scientific American, 1994, 270, 26-31

Byne, W. Science and belief: Psychobiological research on sexual orientation. Journal of Homosexuality, 1995, 28, 303-344

Byne, W. Why we cannot conclude that sexual orientation is primarily a biological phenomenon. Journal of Homosexuality, 1997, 34, 1, 73-80

Byne, W. & Parsons, B. Sexual orientation: The biological theories reappraised. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1993, 50, 228-239

Byne, W. et al. The interstitial nuclei of the human anterior hypothalamus: An investigation of variation with sex, sexual orientation, and HIV status. Hormones and Behavior, 2001, 40, 86-92

Camperio-Ciani, A. et al. Evidence for maternally inherited factors favoring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 2004, 271, 2217-2221

Farber, S.L. Identical twins reared apart: A re-analysis. New York: Basic Books, 1981

Fisher, S. & Greenberg, R.P. Freud scientifically reappraised. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1996

Freund, K. & Blanchard, R. Feminine gender identity and physical aggressiveness in heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 1987, 13, 1, 25-34

Hamer, D.H. & Copeland, P. Living with our genes. New York/London: Doubleday, 1994

Hamer, D.H. et al. A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. Science, 1993, 261, 321-327

Hershberger, S.L. A Twin Registry study of male and female sexual orientation. Journal of Sex Research, 1997, 34, 2, 21-222

Hershberger, S.L. & Segal, N.L. The cognitive, behavioral and personality profiles of a male monozygotic triplet set discordant for sexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2004, 33, 5, 497-514

Hockenberry, S.L. & Billingham, R.A. Sexual orientation and boyhood gender conformity: Development of the boyhood gender conformity scale. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1987, 16, 475-487

Hu, H.S. et al. Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females. Nature Genetics, 1995, 11, 248-256

Kallmann, F.J. Comparative twin studies on the genetic aspects of male homosexuality. Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, 1952, 115, 283-289

Kendler, K.S. et al. Sexual orientation in a U.S. national sample of twin and nontwin sibling pairs. American Journal of Psychiatry, 2000, 157, 1843-1846

King, M. & McDonald, E. Homosexuals who are twins: A study of 46 probands. British Journal of Psychiatry, 1992, 160, 407-409

Kirk, K.M. et al. Measurement models for sexual orientation in a community twin sample. Behavior Genetics, 2000, 30, 4, 345-356

Lang, Th. Beitrag zur Frage der genetischen Bedingtheit der Homosexualität. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Neurologie und Psychiatrie, 1936, 155, 702-713

Lasco, M.S. et al. A lack of dimorphism of sex or sexual orientation in the human anterior commissure. Brain Research, 2002, 963, 95-98

LeVay, S. A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men. Science, 1991, 253, 1034-1037

Meyer-Bahlburg, H.F.L. Gender and sexuality in classic congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinics of North America, 2001, 30, 1, 155-171

Müller-Hill, B. Tödliche Wissenschaft. Reinbeck b. Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1984

Mustanski, B.S. et al. A critical review of recent biological research on human sexual orientation. Annual Review of Sex Research, 2002, 12, 89-140

Pattatucci, A.M.L. & Hamer, D.H. Development and familiality of sexual orientation in females. Behavior Genetics, 1995, 25, 407-420

Perloff, W.H. Hormones and homosexuality. In: J. Marmor (Ed.), Sexual inversion. New York: Basic Books, 1965

Raboch, J. & Nedoma, K. Sex chromatin and sexual behavior. Psychosomatic Medicine, 1958, 20, 55-59

Rice, G. et al. Male homosexuality : Absence of linkage to microsatellite markers at Xq28. Science, 1999, 284, 665-667

Risch, N. et al. Male sexual orientation and genetic evidence. Science, 1993, 262, 2063-2064

Serra, A. Sessualità: Scienza, sapienza, società. La Civiltà Cattolica, 2004, 155, I, 220-234

van den Aardweg, G.J.M. On the origins and treatment of homosexuality. New York: Praeger, 1986

Whitam, F.L. et al. Homosexual orientation in twins: A report on 61 pairs and three triplet sets. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1993, 22, 187-202

Whitehead, N.E. & Whitehead, B.K. My genes made me do it! Lafayette LA: Huntington House, 1999

Züblin, W. Geschlechtschromosom, Geschlechtshormon und psychische Sexualität. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 1957, 16, 118-120

Feed design by pfalzonline.de

Resources

Catholic Medical Association: Homosexuality & Hope


Homosexuality & the Manly Experience:

Causes & Treatments of Homosexuality

Get it here: http://www.saintjoe.com/prodinfo.asp?number=8952

 

Is Homosexuality Genetic?
Author / Contributor :: Dr. Neil Whitehead

Twin Studies: Is Homosexuality Genetic?

Written By: Dr. Neil Whitehead ( http://www.mygenes.co.nz/ ) (Posted January 2008)

E-mail: [email protected]

The answer to all the alleged biological influences is conclusions from - Twin Studies.

In this paper I describe a very simple form, which avoids many complications and gives us the information we need. Usually identical twins are compared with non-identical twins. In the case of SSA this has given very ambiguous results, but we find if we only consider identical twins, the situation becomes much clearer.

We compare whether both identical twins have a given trait. Identical twins have identical genes. And they usually have identical womb environment. And they have virtually identical upbringing. So if they both have the same trait, probably some combination of common genes, prenatal factors and upbringing is responsible. So the critical question is – if one twin has SSA, does the other twin? And in what percentage of cases?


Look carefully at the next figure:

Figure 8. Pairwise concordance among identical twins for 1 Lung Cancer, 2 Criminality, 3 Stroke, 4 Breast Cancer, 5 Same Sex Attraction, 6 Leukemia, 7 Malformation, 8 Alzheimer's, 9 Ulcerative Colitis, 10 Rheumatoid Arthritis, 11 Alcoholism, 12 Schizophrenia, 13 Depression, 14 Suicide attempt, 15 Diabetes type I, 16 Divorce, 17 Crohn's disease, 18 Asthma, 19 Hypertension, 20 Co twin is best friend, 21 Diabetes type II, 22 Autism, 23 Opposite Sex Attraction, 24 Phenylketonuria

The top point, #24 is phenylketonuria, caused by a known gene defect. If one twin has it, the other twin almost always has it. #23 is OSA. The concordance is very high. If one twin is OSA the other is usually OSA as well. However we cannot tell from this whether it is caused by genes, upbringing, or some combination. The concordances decrease as we move to the left, until we reach SSA which has a concordance of 11%. The other points with that kind of value are the cancers, which all oncologists will tell you have a large element of chance involved. SSA has a large element of chance in it. In fact we have to say it has an unusually large element of chance in it compared to most traits. By change we mean non-shared events, which affect one twin and not the other.

This 11% is a terribly important statistic. All the common biological and social influences known and unknown and yet to be discovered, add up to 11% concordance for men and 14% for women twins. All that long list of biological influences previously given in this paper are included, and they only add up to 11-14%.

Four papers agree that SSA pairwise concordance has about this value. One of them, a paper on adolescent twins found an SSA concordance of 7% for men and 5% for women, which is even lower but in the same ballpark. So we have to take it the figure is accurate and not going to change. If one twin has SSA the other usually does not.

There is one complication. People may say to you “I thought the concordance figure was 30%” or they may say “52%”. It is a fact that the early studies had higher figures but are also now universally acknowledged (and by their authors) to be highly biased samples. It is also a fact that they were quoting a concordance called “probandwise concordance” which is more complex than the “pairwise” concordance I quoted to you, significantly higher, and used in later calculations that do not immediately concern us in this paper. The only important conclusion is that whichever form is used, SSA would still be clustered among the traits with a very high chance component. The irony is that far from being a trait with extremely high degree of dictation by genes, it is almost as far from that as it is possible to get. This is another sad example of the public tending to believe the exact opposite of the truth in scientific matters SSA dictated? The exact opposite. I hope that from now on you will not be disturbed into thinking the genes or prenatal conditions are overwhelmingly important, regardless of what new discoveries may emerge.

Four years ago I spoke at the annual NARTH conference, and used the higher probandwise concordance figures. At that stage I was too conservative. I said the genetic effect was small. Now I would say “unusually smallâ€.

The gay activist may say to you – “Oh SSA is still dictated by the genes, but they are not exerting their effects – this is a known genetic phenomenon called poor penetrance”. The answer is that you have to have a known gene or genes producing the trait before you can say that, and in this case there are no genes. You might say to such a person “Please come back when a gene is found!

Now I want to clarify some points because there is significant risk of misunderstanding. I am not saying 11% of all twins have SSA – only about 2-3% do. I am not saying when a twin has SSA that in their case there is genetic influence and in other cases no genetic influences – all of us are subjected to all the genetic and social influences.

Why twins might differ

Now this analysis I am presenting shows that chance – non-shared experience - is an unusually large factor and accounts for differences between identical twins. What would be examples of this?


One twin sees internet SSA porn and the other doesn't
One twin misperceives the father favoring the co-twin
One twin is unlucky in (heterosexual) love and thinks he is gay
One twin is sexually abused and the other is not


Chance events, non-shared circumstances can lead to very different endpoints.


Now a disturbing factor for some at this conference may be to hear that not only are genetics a minor factor but family circumstances are also. While this is generally true for the vast majority, there is a small minority for whom the family circumstances are vitally important. But if one twin rebels against the masculinity expressed by his father or peers, the other usually does not. This is a chance occurrence, and as a generalisation parents are mostly not to blame for the SSA of their children. Accidental misperception of parental motives is much more common.

Are same-sex attractions caused by an evil spirit?
There is no general answer to that question. Are evil spirits or is “the evil” still active today? Can people be “possessed”? Definitely yes. To say otherwise would be both naïve and dangerous. However, before we talk about evil spirits, we need to make sure that we are not confusing that with a mental disorder. Also let’s keep in mind that many different factors contribute to the development of human sexuality. Even in the very rare cases that there definitely is demonic activity involved, deliverance from evil through a deliverance prayer or in extreme cases through an exorcism would not solve all the other problems and it would certainly not meet the underlying relational, emotional and spiritual needs. You might chase the demon out, but the problem with your dad is still very much alive and kicking.
Some might also – consciously or subconsciously – take that as an excuse that keeps them from being active as to taking steps for recovery and being responsible for present thoughts and actions. It is so much easier to blame an evil spirit than to address the underlying core issues!
Others might seek the “quick fix” through deliverance instead of going the hard road of recovery and healing. In other words: We don’t have to beg God to “take it away from us” – we already free through Christ’s atoning death on the Cross that broke the power of sin! All that keeps us from true recovery is the belief that it can be done!
Looking back on those hard years since I left the gay life in 2004 there is one thing I can definitely confirm: If you gave me the choice between the “quick fix” (like through deliverance) and those years where I had to learn to trust and believe in Him, I would always go for the last one. Yes, there were hard and painful moments, but also moments of joy and true satisfaction of coming home to the One in whose image I was created! To compare it with an image: Think of a father that teaches his son how to ride a bike. First, the son will be scared when dad takes off the crutches. Dad will still hold his sonny at first to give him some confidence and courage, but step by step he will let him ride on his own. Little sonny might take the whole street trying to ride straight ahead and sometimes he will also fall and scratch his knee, but dad will always be there with him, teaching him everything he needs to know for riding his little bike. Imagine the joy the little boy will experience once he manages to handle his bike – and how proud his daddy will be of him! That was pretty much how God taught me to live another life. He also rewarded me with an extra: He brought many great friends into my life, godly men that stand with me in good and bad.
None of that I’d have ever gotten through a snip of the finger that turned me from gay to straight” in a second. And boy am I grateful it happened the way it did.
Robert
Homosexuality: Choice or Consequence?
Written By Ben Newman

Gay sympathizers insist that homosexuality is not a choice. On this point I completely agree. It is not a choice. No man I know or have heard of who deals with homosexuality, whether they reject and struggle against it or embrace it with pride, feels like they ever chose these desires.

It is not a choice, it is a consequence -- an unintended consequence of a lifetime of choices -- conscious, subconscious and unconscious. It is an unfortunate but natural consequence of choices made by a growing boy that were intended only to protect himself against rejection and hurt, to make himself feel safe, and to do what seemed most natural.

One can hardly fault a little boy for running away from male peers he felt were taunting and frightening and for preferring the company of girls he felt were accepting and easy-going. One can hardly fault a little boy for rejecting and protecting himself from a seemingly cold or harsh or absent or disinterested father, or for expressing his naturally artistic and sensitive talents while rejecting what for him are the frightening, unfamiliar and uncomfortable rough-and-tumble games of boyhood. After all, he is only trying to take care of himself, feel safe and be true to himself, as best as an innocent (and unguided) little boy knows how.

Little does he know that all of these perfectly understandable and innocent choices, in combination, and without intervention, can lead to horrendous unintended consequences. These choices can ultimately cause him to fail to discover his innate masculinity, fail to bond with his gender, and fail to develop a healthy gender identity as a man among men. And unable to find his own masculinity within, he can begin to seek it outside of himself, to envy it in other boys and men, and finally to lust for it sexually. His choices can have the
very unintended consequence of causing him to see himself as the opposite of men -- to see other men as the opposite sex. And so, being their opposite, he naturally feels drawn to them sexually to give himself that sense of completeness, wholeness, balance and
oneness that sexuality is designed to provide.

The problem is, many (perhaps most or even all?) men never really find in homosexual relationships that sense of completeness and balance that they long for, because in homosexuality they give away their masculinity to their partner. They turn to another man to fill the masculine emptiness within themselves. And though they may feel maleness for a moment outside of themselves, and revel in being able to touch it externally for a moment, they are left feeling even more detached from their own inner masculinity and void of a sense of maleness they have been craving all their lives.

The question to the now-grown man becomes, what will you do with this history of choices and their unintended but inextricably attached consequences? No one I have ever heard of has been able to simply choose to stop feeling homosexual desires -- after all, the desires
aren't chosen, they are the result of a web of other, more primal choices. You can't unchoose the consequences while continuing to make the same original choices.

Nor can you change past choices you have already made. That is your history and must be accepted. But that doesn't limit you to make the same choices now, in the present. This is the terrifying, thrilling, exciting and satisfying part of homosexual recovery -- learning to
make all-new choices about the kind of man you will be now, the way you see yourself as a man, the way you see other men, the way you relate to men in your life, the way you relate to the world of men, and the way you see women and relate to women.

Today, as a grown man with much greater understanding about choices and their consequence, as a grown man with many resources for support to turn to, and not as a hurt and needy little boy, you can make different choices. Healthy choices. Constructive choices. Empowering choices.

Perhaps you will choose to work on no longer rejecting your father outright and instead to find the good in him that you can embrace and, yes, even accept as a role model. Perhaps you will choose to work on no longer seeing heterosexual men as destructive and
frightening, or no longer rejecting the entire masculine realm out of hurt and spite. Perhaps you will choose to work on overcoming defensive detachment, or no longer running from meaningful relationships with heterosexual men. Perhaps you will choose to begin to focus on your similarities with other men instead of your differences.

These new attitudes and beliefs and ways of relating will take time to learn and to develop. This is a chosen path of careful and deliberate reconstruction of the inner self. You will be ridding yourself of the long-established and familiar attitudes and beliefs and character traits and ways of being with others that have had negative consequences in your life, or the outcomes you don't want, and instead embracing and developing those that have positive consequences in your life, or the outcomes you do want.

(By emphasizing that these things can be chosen, I don't mean to suggest that change is a moment in time. The decision to pursue change might be, but the change itself -- as anyone who has ever pursued personal growth or enlightenment knows -- can take months or years or a lifetime.)

Then, as real change begins to take effect, the consequences will inevitably follow: You will discover a sense of inner male power and innate masculinity you previously only saw in others. Men will eventually stop appearing to be the opposite sex from you. You will
begin to see heterosexual men as your peers and will begin to identify with them in a bond of brotherhood as you never have before. And as your masculine identity develops, your desire to connect sexually and romantically with your opposite will gradually, quietly begin to turn from the men you once saw as the opposite sex to the women (or a woman) that you, as a firmly grounded man, now recognize as your true opposite.

So as a man among men, what new choices will you begin to make today?

‘We don’t need psychotherapists to explain away our sins and tell us we’re sick. We need priests to remind us of our sinfulness and show us the way to our Redeemer’.
Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen

“What a waste to attempt to change behavior without truly understanding the driving needs that cause such behavior!”

― Robert S. McGee, The Search for Significance: Seeing Your True Worth Through God's Eyes

“Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat.”
― Mother Teresa

Things epigenetics taught us:

- Genes can be molded

- Environment and our actions, words and thoughts decide upon which genes will be activated or deactivated and in what form they will be activated (one gene can have totally different effects)

- Each second of our lives our brain structure and our genetic code is being changed through our actions, words and thoughts and through our environment - changes that can be passed on to future generations.

- Genes have a very complex interaction among one another and with external factors. To say that there is one gene that "makes you gay" and that there is nothing you can do about it is complete nonsense and has nothing at all to do with science, but rather with politics and wishful thinking.

“Because of justification, you are completely forgiven and fully pleasing to God. You no longer have to fear failure.     2. Because of reconciliation, you are totally accepted by God. You no longer have to fear rejection.     3. Because of propitiation, you are deeply loved by God. You no longer have to fear punishment, nor do you have to punish others.     4. Because of regeneration, you have been made brand-new, complete in Christ. You no longer need to experience the pain of shame.”

― Robert S. McGee, The Search for Significance: Seeing Your True Worth Through God's Eyes

Remember:

The only reason why people don't find freedom from same-sex attractions is because they don't believe it can be done!

HA: New Homepage!

Homosexuals Anonymous has a new homepage:

http://www.homosexuals-anonymous.com/

Joe Dallas

Feed design by pfalzonline.de

Is Change Possible?

To make it very clear: Yes, the Jason ministry definitely believes that change is possible. We believe in God and His power to change our hearts and minds.

Matthew 19:26 King James Version (KJV):

"26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."

"Whoever says that a person with SSA cannot change does not know my God."

Pastor Paul

Oceania and Africa

Thanks to the outstanding service and commitment of Pastor Paul, we were able to expand our ministry in Oceania, Africa and Asia. For more information please click here.

Was ist das eigentlich, "Homosexualitaet"?

Kurz gesagt, die Tatsache, dass sich jemand überwiegend und über einen längeren Zeitraum hinweg in sexueller und/oder emotionaler Hinsicht zum eigenen Geschlecht hingezogen fühlt. Wir bevorzugen aber den Begriff "gleichgeschlechtliche Neigungen". Zum einen ist der Begriff "Homosexualität" (als eigenständige Form der Sexualität) noch gar nicht so alt. In klinischer Hinsicht konzentriert er sich vor allem auf die sexuelle Anziehung, was jedoch zu kurz gegriffen ist, da man hier die emotionale Zuneigung außer Acht lässt. Zum anderen sind wir als Christen der Überzeugung, dass es nur eine Gott-gegebene Form der Sexualität gibt - und das ist die Heterosexualität. Ja, es gibt Menschen, die - aus welchen Gründen auch immer (und seien sie "genetisch") - gleichgeschlechtlich empfinden, wir sehen dies aber nicht als eine eigenständige Identität, sondern als Teil der Heterosexualität an. Dies bedeutet keine Abwertung von Menschen mit gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen oder eine Minder-Bewertung unseres Empfindens - ganz im Gegenteil. Wir sehen uns als Teil von etwas, das größer ist als wir (Gottes heterosexuelle Schöpfung) und sind weder besser noch schlechter als andere Menschen noch sehen wir uns als etwas Besonderes an und blicken auch nicht auf die herab, die ihre gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen ausleben. Auch konzentriert sich unser Leben nicht auf unser sexuelles und/oder emotionales Empfinden, sondern auf den, dem wir nachfolgen und der uns eine teuer erkaufte Freiheit geschenkt hat, damit auch wir frei sein können: Jesus Christus.

Homosexuals Anonymous

Jason is affiliated to Homosexuals Anonymous:

www.homosexuals-anonymous.com

 

Dr. med. R. Febres Landauro

http://dr-richi.com/german/index.php/de/

Kontaktdaten

Ich freue mich auf Ihren Anruf oder Ihre E-mail. Sie brauchen keine Überweisung.

In Österreich erreichen Sie meine Ordination unter +43 662 84 53 25.

In Deutschland erreichen Sie die Praxis unter +49 8651 979 38 29.

Nonntaler Hauptstraße 1

A-5020 Salzburg

Douglas McIntyre, Co-Founder of HA

Hinweis fuer Priester und Ordensangehoerige sowie Mitarbeiter in pastoralen Diensten:

Sie dürfen sich jederzeit - auf Wunsch auch anonym - an uns wenden. Sämtliche Anfragen werden vertraulich behandelt.

Kontakt-Telefonnummer: 089-78018960

Kontakt-Email: [email protected]

Wir freuen uns auf Sie!


The 14 Steps

1. We admitted that we were powerless over our homosexuality and that our emotional lives were unmanageable.

2. We came to believe the love of God, who forgave us and accepted us in spite of all that we are and have done.

3. We learned to see purpose in our suffering, that our failed lives were under God's control, who is able to bring good out of trouble.

4. We came to believe that God had already broken the power of homosexuality and that He could therefore restore our true personhood.

5. We came to perceive that we had accepted a lie about ourselves, an illusion that had trapped us in a false identity.

6. We learned to claim our true reality that as humankind, we are part of God's heterosexual creation and that God calls us to rediscover that identity in Him through Jesus Christ, as our faith perceives Him.

7. We resolved to entrust our lives to our loving God and to live by faith, praising Him for our new unseen identity, confident that it would become visible to us in God's good time.

8. As forgiven people free from condemnation, we made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves, determined to root out fear, hidden hostility, and contempt for the world.

9. We admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs and humbly asked God to remove our defects of character.

10. We willingly made direct amends wherever wise and possible to all people we had harmed.

11. We determined to live no longer in fear of the world, believing that God's victorious control turns all that is against us into our favor, bringing advantage out of sorrow and order from disaster.

12. We determined to mature in our relationships with men and women, learning the meaning of a partnership of equals, seeking neither dominance over people nor servile dependency on them.

13. We sought through confident praying, and the wisdom of Scripture for an ongoing growth in our relationship with God and a humble acceptance of His guidance for our lives.

14. Having had a spiritual awakening, we tried to carry this message to homosexual people with a love that demands nothing and to practice these steps in all our lives' activities, as far as lies within us.

While the Homosexuals Anonymous Fellowship was inspired by the Twelve Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous, they are not really an adaptation. Rather, they were created specifically for this Fellowship, and should not be construed otherwise. AA, which is a program concerned only with recovery from alcoholism, and is not in any way affiliated with this Fellowship.

Homosexuals Anonymous

Arthur Goldberg

New Homepage: Voices of Change!

Click here for more info.

If

If you were a Facebook member, and if you received a message to accept Jesus as your friend, would you?

If you received Him as a friend and you had the opportunity to say Like Him, would you share Him with your friends?

If He shared some awesome messages on Facebook with you, that could save lives, would you tell your other Facebook friends?

If Jesus asked you to tell your Facebook friends about Him, would you be to ashamed to do so?

If Jesus came to your door today, would you let Him in?

If Jesus walked into your door, would you let Him be your friend?

If Jesus shared a life altering message with you, that could save lives, would you tell your friends?

If you had the opportunity to tell others about Him, would you be too ashamed to do so?

If Jesus allows you a glimpse of Heaven, would He be ashamed of you?

If Jesus opened the door for you to see the Father, would He be your friend?

If Jesus asked the Father to be your friend, would He be ashamed of you?

André

www.thewordswithin.org

 

Homosexuals Anonymous Fellowship Services

www.homosexuals-anonymous.com

USA

Homosexuals Anonymous is an international organization dedicated to serving the recovery needs of men and women who struggle with unwanted same sex attraction.

This fellowship of men and women, who through their common spiritual, intellectual and emotional experiences have chosen to help each other live in freedom from homosexuality.

Welcome to our website

If you are a person who struggles with unwanted same sex attraction, you are not alone Homosexuals Anonymous and many other related ministries, counselors and therapists provide valuable resources that can be of great use to you.

Remember always that while no one chooses to have same sex attraction, many do choose to diminish and eliminate those feelings of attraction. All people have the right to self determination, the right to choose for themselves the aspects that comprise their identity. Through HA, you will meet many people who see their identity as being rooted in their faith and not in their unwanted desires and behaviors.

If you are a parent, relative or friend of someone who struggles with unwanted same sex attraction, you can find helpful resources they will appreciate.

If you are a parent, friend or relative of someone who embraces and lives a gay lifestyle, you can find support, encouragement and hope in the material you will find available to you in website. If you are interested in online support groups or forming a local parents support group, please contact us and let us know how we can serve you.

If you are a minister, counselor or therapist looking for a support group and other resources to serve the needs of a counselee wanting freedom from homosexuality, then please read through our website. In your exploration you will learn who we are and how we can help you.

New Book by Dr. Douglas McIntyre!

Broken Chains: A journey of recovery from ssa, anger, addiction and child abuse

Dr. Douglas E. McIntyre (Author)

Paperback: 80 pages

Publisher: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (December 19, 2012)

Language: English

ISBN-10: 1481265334

ISBN-13: 978-1481265331

Get it here: http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Chains-journey-recovery-addiction/dp/1481265334/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1356982439&sr=1-1&keywords=broken+chains+douglas+mcintyre

Unwanted same-sex attractions: Stereotypes & other erroneous beliefs

When it comes to unwanted same-sex attractions, often times a set program loads up when certain buttons are pushed, especially when we are talking about men. You get to hear the story of the little boy who did not have a good relationship with his father and thus resulted in developing a gender-identity disorder. Or the adult man who admires in other men what he lacks in himself – the masculine traits. Other examples: A life in the gay scene that resulted in hitting rock bottom (like mental, social, professional, relational and/or health problems or disillusions), shame and guilt all along the way or broken families.
All of that could be the case. Note: it could be – but it does not necessarily have to be the case. Human sexuality is caused by a whole bunch of different factors and the mixture thereof. Also the human brain keeps on changing every minute of the day by our actions, words and deeds – all of that leaves traces. To put up one stereotyped and simplified scenario and generalize that for everyone might lead to wrong conclusions and perceptions. Not every boy who later on developed same-sex attractions had a bad or missing relationship with his father – or was sexually, emotionally, verbally or physically abused. And from those who were not everyone developed same-sex attractions. Also you cannot simplify those attractions as a “gender-identity disorder”. That definition would only cover part of it – and only for a part of those who have those attractions. People with same-sex attractions are not just “sick”. They don’t necessarily need our pity because they had a bad childhood. They are not simply “messed up”.
Also not every man with same-sex attractions ended up in the gay scene – and did not necessarily end up with many different sex partners, practicing extreme forms of sexuality, not finding a long-term monogamous relationship. Yes, all of that happens quite often – but setting up a simple pattern that makes things easy to explain and forcing them on all those who have same-sex attractions is simply not acceptable.
Not every man with same-sex attractions is desiring men who have what he thinks he does not have (for example a physically weak man with a low self-esteem that desired strong and assertive men). Some men look for similar men (even though those who tend to look and act similar from the outside are not so similar if you take a closer look). Others look for younger, tender men.
Yes, many men with same-sex attractions have a gender-identity disorder, but is this a must? Aside from that: A gender-identity disorder only covers a small part of the human being. Humans according to the Bible are an entity of body, psyche and soul. A GID only refers to the psyche (with implications on the other two though).
So what should we do? As much as patterns can be useful to describe what we experience, see and feel, we need to keep in mind that human beings don’t always follow patterns. Each person is different and needs to be seen as individual. Also those who have same-sex attractions should not just accept other people’s labels for them and see themselves as “sick” or “disordered” or try to explain their own attractions in simplified patterns. Those who try to assist people with unwanted same-sex attractions on their way to freedom should keep in mind that there is no simple system with simple rules for stereotyped persons. It just does not work that way. If you try to do that, you might become disillusioned in no time and might also disillusion those you try to help – and in the end things could be a lot worse than ever before.
For everyone involved: Get information, talk to others, find out about the true and legitimate emotional and relational needs of the person with same-sex attractions and listen closely his or her story. Find out in which areas the inner struggle lies and seek help there. If your tooth aches you wouldn’t call the pastor, right? Same with same-sex attractions: If your problem is a relational one, you can’t just “pray away the gay”. Most of all, however, we need to rely on God and trust in Him – especially in those situations where we do not see any sense or purpose, where we are scared and have no clue where this is leading us, where it all looks dark with no light in sight. Put your last bit of trust in Him. He created you and He will call you home one day – and He is the one who will never ever let you down, who can bring good out of all that trouble you might have gone through, who can heal you and whose love will never fail. Jesus died for us so the power of sin is broken. We are free!!
Robert

Alliance Defending Freedom

Feed design by pfalzonline.de

The Christian Post

Feed design by pfalzonline.de

Radical | A book by David Platt

Radical | A book by David Platt

Radical | A book by David Platt

Seek Me!

Jeremiah 29:13

King James Version (KJV)

"And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart."

 

My King

Funny thing, if I remember correctly there once used to be a rabbi who did not have any business plan for church mega-growth. No publicity department. No homepage. No emails. No money. Even those He chose as followers were - theologically speaking - illiterates. A handful of dudes, and one even was a bum.

What was He thinking?

When He preached, He used words that drove people away from Him. He couldn't care less. He even asked the remaining rest if they wanted to leave, too. No political correctness here.

Again: What was He thinking?

He could have used other means. He could have been the kind of leader that people back then (and today?) were waiting for. The mighty warlord. The knight in shining armour. The one that kicks some .... and throws those Romans out.

Yes, He could have. He had all the power to do that - and more than that. And what did He do? He dealt with the lowest of the lowest and humbled Himself to their level. He loved people in a way unknown before. With a love that asked for nothing and gave everything. With a love that puts us to shame even today.

He did not fulfill people's expectations. He did not give them what they wanted. He gave them what they truly needed. And to do so, He gave His utmost: He sacrificed Himself and gave His life so we can live. He came down on earth to become man so men could become sons of God. Dying on the cross like a criminal, He even prayed for those who helped nailing Him up there.

And what's worst: He even asked everything of His disciples. They were told to give - no: to sacrifice! - everything they have. To sell all of their possessions, give their money to the poor and follow Him without even looking back. They were even told to give their own lives!

I guess He would still be sort of out of place in some of the churches today.

If I remember correctly, His name was Jesus.

Anybody by chance remember Him?

He is the ruler of my life. He is the one I love and follow.

He is my king.

My saviour.

Rob

theWord Bible Software

Wegweiser Gottesdienst

I Have Decided to Follow Jesus

"I have decided to follow Jesus. Though no one joins me, still I will follow."

Assam, north-east India, who held on to Jesus when being told to recounce his faith by the village chief. His wife was killed and Assam as well - while he was singing these words: "The cross before me, the world behind me." His strong faith kept on shining: The village chief and others in the village converted afterwards. (see: Wikipedia)

Freedom from SSA

Guys,

there are many professionals who are able to scientifically explain to you how to find freedom from same-sex attractions.

I am a simple man so I will try to tell you in simple terms.

Imagine a father who wants to teach his son how to ride a bike. He will not give him a lesson on the functioning of each single part, where it came from and what it is made of. Nor will he lecture on how the human body works and how the mind coordinates things. He loves his sonny and wants him to be able to ride that bike on his own.

Of course, he could let him continue to ride with additional wheels, but this is not what the father wants. Daddy knows that his son will likely fall a couple of times. There will be tears and some pain as well. But as a loving father he buys his son a bike and takes him out to teach him how to ride.

Now the son does not expect a big lesson or a manual to start with. Yes, he might be somewhat scared as he does not know what to expect and how to handle this bike without additional wheels that keep it stable. But he knows that he can fully trust his father. He loves his daddy more than anything - and daddy loves him. So he takes a courageous first step and lets daddy show him how to do it.

Daddy will fist be there all the time to hold his son while he rides. However, step by step he will let him run a little bit on his own.

Sonny will ride this first bits all shaky and insecure, but then again he trusts his daddy, so he manages to do it - sort of.

Sometimes he will fall and have his knee scratched. Tears will roll down his cheek, but daddy will hold him im his arms and encourage him to take another effort.

Day by day little sonny will drive a little longer all by himself, until he finally manages to ride that bike completely alone. Daddy will be so proud of his son and his son will come running into his arms, thanking his beloved daddy for keeping his promise to be there all the time when things were getting rough on him. Daddy told him that he will ride that bike and all his little son had to do is to trust him just enough that he goes for it.

Sometimes all that keeps us from succeeding is the lack of belief that it can be done.

Rob

Americans for Truth about Homosexuality

Feed design by pfalzonline.de

Janelle Hallman

Feed design by pfalzonline.de