Jason

Christian Ex-Gay Ministry

Wissenschaft

Dr. med. R. Febres Landauro:

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


"Sechs Jahre STD-Sentinel-Surveillance in Deutschland – Zahlen und Fakten

Chlamydien- und humane Papillomviren-Infektionen zählen in Deutschland zu den häufigsten sexuell übertragbaren Infektionen (STIs). Bis zum Jahr 2000 regelte das „Gesetz zur Bekämpfung der Geschlechtskrankheiten“ die Meldepflicht der STIs: Syphilis, Gonorrhö, Ulcus molle und Lympho granuloma venereum. Seit Einführung des Infektionsschutzgesetzes 2001 sind jedoch nur noch Syphilis und HIV meldepflichtig. Um trotzdem einen Überblick über die epidemiologische Situation der STIs in Deutschland zu behalten, wurde Ende 2002 mit der Einrichtung eines Sentinel-Surveillance-Systems begonnen. In allen Regionen Deutschlands wurden Gesundheitseinrichtungen ausgewählt, die seit her kontinuierlich Daten zu STIs berichten.
Gerade bei Frauen stellen STIs durch Chlamydien häufig ein Problem dar, denn sie können in bis zu 80 % der Fälle asymptomatisch verlaufen und unbehandelt schwerwiegende gesundheitliche Folgen hervorrufen. Aus diesem Grund wurde zum
1.1.2008 für alle sexuell aktiven Frauen unter 25 Jahren ein nationales Chlamydien-Screeningprogramm eingeführt.
In vielen europäischen Ländern wurde in den letzten Jahren, ca. seit dem Jahr 2000, über eine Zunahme von STIs berichtet. Die Infektionszahlen aus den deutschen Melde aten für Syphilis und HIV zeigen insbesondere bei Män nern, die Sex mit Männern haben (MSM), einen Anstieg in den letzten Jahren.

(...) Bei den Männern hatten insgesamt 90 % Kontakte mit ihrem festen Partner oder ihrer festen Partnerin, aber 58 % hatten auch zusätzlich Kontakte mit „anderen Partnern“.
Sieht man sich jetzt noch einmal heterosexuelle Männer und Männer, die (auch) Sex mit Männern hatten (MSM), getrennt an, so hatten 61 % der MSM zusätzlich Kontakte außerhalb ihrer Beziehung, verglichen mit 43 % der hetero sexuellen Männer. 7 % der heterosexuellen Männer hatten Kontakte mit Prostituierten, während 2 % der MSM Kontakte mit Freiern angaben, also in der Sexarbeit tätig waren. (...) 50 % der männlichen Sentinel-Patienten, die seit mindestens 6 Monaten in einer festen Beziehung lebten, waren MSM. Verglichen mit heterosexuellen Männern, hat ten MSM erwartungsgemäß auch in festen Beziehungen höhere Partnerzahlen, Median 3 zu 1 Partner in den letzten 6 Monaten. (...) 16 % der MSM verwendeten keine Kondome mit Prostituierten, Strichern oder Freiern. (...) 1 % aller MSM gaben auch an, nie Kondome mit „anderen Partnern“ zu verwenden. (...) 70 % aller männlichen Patienten hatten Sex mit Männern, was die bereits bekannte STI-Risikogruppe MSM auch von den Sentineldaten her bestätigt."
(Robert Koch Institut)


Sexual Attraction Fluidity Exploration in Therapy (SAFE-T):
Creating a clearer impression of professional therapies that allow for change
Christopher Rosik, Ph.D.

During its May 27th, 2016, meeting, the board of the Alliance
for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity (ATCSI) voted unanimously to endorse new terminology that more accurately and effectively represents the work of Alliance therapists who see clients with unwanted same-sex attractions. The board has come to
believe that terms such as reorientation therapy, conversion therapy, and even sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) are no longer scientifically or politically tenable. Among the many reasons the board felt it time to retire these older terms as much as possible were the following:
1. These terms imply that categorical change (from exclusive SSA to exclusive OSA) is the goal. This is a degree of change that is
statistically rare and not demanded of any other psychological experience as a condition of legitimate psychological care.
2. The current terms imply there is a specific and exotic form of therapy that is being conducted (not standard therapeutic modalities)
3. These terms imply that sexual orientation is an actual entity (i.e., the terms all reify sexual orientation as immutable).
4. The terms imply that change is the therapist’s goal and not that of the clients (i.e., it’s coercive rather than self-determined).
5. These terms (especially SOCE) do not differentiate between professional conducted psychotherapy and religious or other forms of counseling practice.
6. These terms have been demonized and/or developed by professionals completely unsympathetic to therapies that allow for change in same-sex attractions and behaviors.

This means that Alliance clinicians are immediately on the defensive as soon as they reference their therapeutic work in these terms.
For all these reasons and more, first the Alliance Executive Committee and then the Alliance Board discussed potential new terminology and finally settled upon the name "Sexual Attraction Fluidity Exploration in Therapy" (the acronym of which is SAFE-T). The Board believes this term has many advantages that commend its usage. First, it addresses all of the concerns noted above. It does not imply that categorical change is the goal and in so doing
create unrealistic expectations for many clients. Nor does it imply that change which is less than categorical in nature cannot be meaningful and satisfying to clients. It also makes clear that
SAFE can occur in any number of mainstream therapeutic modalities. Furthermore, by focusing on sexual attractions it avoids the implicit assertion that orientation changes or that orientation as
an immutable reality even exists. By stressing therapeutic exploration, the new term accurately conveys that the therapist is not being coercive but merely assisting individuals in a client-centered examination of their sexual attractions. The Board also appreciated the fact that the acronym SAFE-T immediately challenges portrayals of the professional therapy utilized by
Alliance clinicians as harmful.
Scientifically, the fluidity of sexual orientation (and, for our purposes, especially same-sex attractions) for many women and men is now beyond question (Diamond & Rosky, 2016; Katz-Wise, 2015; Katz-Wise & Hyde, 2015). The language of SAFE-T highlights this reality and points to human experience that cannot be denied, again without the complicating focus on orientation. The only counterarguments to SAFE-T on fluidity grounds might be that therapy-assisted fluidity has not been proven to occur and such efforts could be harmful. These arguments are much easier to defend against with SAFE-T than when one is trying to defend implications of complete orientation change. First, we know that sexual attraction fluidity occurs in response to relational and environmental contexts, the very factors that therapists routinely
address in their work (Manley, Diamond, & van Anders, 2015).
Second, there is research in progress to support the occurr
ence of therapy-assisted sexual attraction fluidity (Santero,
Whitehead, & Ballesteros, 2016; Pela & Nicolosi, 2016), not to mention a rich history of past research, as good as any research of its era (Phelan, Whitehead, & Sutton, 2009). Finally, recent research on “ex-ex-gays” (e.g., Bradshaw, Dehlin, Crowell, & Bradshaw, 2015; Flentje, Heck, & Cochran, 2013) tells us no more about SAFE-T than research focused on divorced consumers of
marital therapy would tell us about its safety and efficacy. While it
is reasonable to conclude that more research is needed to better comprehend the extent of therapy-assisted sexual attraction
fluidity, denying the potential for such a therapeutic process
would seem to be much more a matter of ideological compulsion than it is one of theoretical or scientific implausibility.
Due to all of these important considerations, the ATSCI Board encourages Alliance members and supporters to join them in employing the terminology of SAFE-T in their professional work. One might say, for example, “I practice a cognitive form of SAFE-T” or “I practice SAFE-T from an interpersonal perspective” or “There is no scientific basis for banning any form of SAFE-T” or even “I don’t do SOCE, I only practice SAFE-T.” Because this term
represents what Alliance clinicians actually do in a scientifically accurate and defensible manner, the Board anticipates that the professional interests of these therapists and the public policy
interests of supporters will be much better served by SAFE-T.

References
Bradshaw, K., Dehlin, J. P., Crowell, K. A., & Bradshaw, W. S. (2014).
Sexual orientation change efforts through psychotherapy for LGBQ individuals affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy.
Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/0092623X.2014.915907
Diamond, L. M., & Rosky, C. (2016). Scrutinizing immutability: Research on sexual orientation and its role in U. S. legal advocacy for the rights of sexual minorities.
The Journal of Sex Research. Advance online publication. doi: 10:1080/00224499.2016.1139665
Flentje, A., Heck, N. C., Cochran, B. N. (2013). Sexual reorientation therapy interventions: Perspectives of ex-ex-gay individuals.
Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 17, 256-277. doi: 10.1080/19359705.2013.773268.
Katz-Wise, S. L. (2015). Sexual fluidity in young adult women and men: Associations with sexual orientation and sexual identity development.
Psychology & Sexuality, 6, 189-208.
doi: 10.1080/19419899.2013.876445
Katz-Wise, S. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2015). Sexual fluidity and related attitudes and beliefs among young adults with a same-gender orientation.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 1459-1470. doi: 10.1007/s10508-
014-0420-1
Manley, M. H., Diamond, L. M., & van Anders, S. M. (2015). Polyamory, monoamory, and sexual fluidity: A longitudinal study of identity and sexual trajectories.
Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2, 168-180.
doi: 10.1037/sgd0000107
Pela, C., & Nicolosi, J. (2016, March).
Clinical outcomes for same-sex attraction distress: Well-being and change.
Paper presented at the Christian Association for Psychological
Studies conference, Pasadena, CA.
Phelan, J. E., Whitehead, N., & Sutton, P. M. (2009). What the research shows: NARTH’s response to the APA claims on homosexuality.
Journal of Human Sexuality, 1, 5-118.
Retrieved from , http://www.scribd.com/doc/115507777/Journal-of-
Human-Sexuality-Vol-1
Santero, P. L., Whitehead, N. E., & Ballesteros, D. (2016).
Effects of Therapy on U.S. Men who have Unwanted Same Sex Attraction. Manuscript submitted for publication.


"Chlamydia trachomatis Untersuchungen bei Männern

Ergebnisse des Laborsentinels für 2008 – 2013

(...) Insgesamt stellten wir einen Anteil von 10 % positiver Untersuchungen fest, wobei Sachsen mit 6 % den niedrigsten und Nordrhein-Westfalen mit 12 % den höchsten Positivenanteil aufweisen. Die beobachteten hohen Positivenanteile inProben von jungen Männern korrelieren mit dem Alter der größten sexuellen Aktivität, dem 2. und 3. Lebensjahrzehnt (...) Unter den angegebenen Probenarten hatten Rektalabstriche den höchsten Positivenanteil mit 12 %. Diese Proben
stammen alle aus Berlin und obwohl im Datensatz keine Angaben zu Sexualverhalten enthalten waren, sind sieMännern, die (rezeptiven) Sex mit Männern (MSM) haben,zuzuordnen, da ein anderer Transmissionsweg für eine rektale Infektion nahezu ausschließbar ist. Der festgestellte hohe Anteil positiver Untersuchungen liegt etwas höher als bei anderen Studien über MSM. Bei Ko-Infektionen mit anderen STI oder HIV kann der C.-trachomatis-Positivenanteil jedoch höher liegen. Da in unserem Datensatz keine Informationen dazu vorliegen, können wir hierzu keine Aussage treffen. Grundsätzlich allerdings erhöhen rektale bakterielle Infektionen das Risiko einer HIV-Infektion, wodurch diesem Ergebnis hohe Bedeutung zukommt.
Besonders erhöht (um das 8-fache) ist dieses Risiko bei einer Ko-Infektion mit Gonokokken. Aus dem untersuchten Datensatz ist jedoch nicht erkennbar, wie häufig positive Proben ebenfalls Gonokokken-positiv waren.
(...) Der zunehmende Trend im Positivenanteil von Abstrichen ohne weitere Spezifikation ist am stärksten, jedoch nicht einfach zu interpretieren. Da der Anstieg vor allem in Proben aus Berlin und Nordrhein-Westfalen zu beobachten ist, verbergen sich vermutlich viele positive Rektaltupfer von MSM dahinter.
Es sind nur wenige Informationsquellen zu Infektionen mit Chlamydia trachomatis bei Männern in Deutschland vorhanden. Mit dem Laborsentinel konnte ein großer Datensatz mit Ergebnissen von Untersuchungen von Männern aus unterschiedlichen Regionen Deutschlands analysiert werden. Die dargestellte Datenanalyse ist auf fünf Bundesländer mit repräsentativen Daten limitiert, unter denen sich zwei befinden, die sich durch einen hohen Anteil an MSM von den restlichen Bundesländern unterscheiden.
Daher sind generelle Ergebnisse über Positivenanteile und Trends trotz gegebener Repräsentativität vorsichtig zu interpretieren. Der Datensatz enthält keine Informationen zu sexuellem Verhalten oder Testgründen sowie keine Details zu Testmethoden. Dadurch sind die identifizierten Zusammenhänge, teilweise von theoretischem Charakter und könnten in der Realität anders aussehen. Dennoch konnten wir beobachten, dass eine vermehrte Testung von Urinproben bei jungen Männern insgesamt zu einem Abfall des Positivenanteils zwischen 2008 und 2013 geführt hat.
Eindeutigere Ergebnisse liefern die Untersuchungen von Rektalabstrichen von MSM aus Berlin. Der beobachtete hohe Anteil an Infektionen und das damit verbundene, erhöhte Risiko für eine HIV-Infektion stellen ein Problem mit Public-Health-Relevanz dar, an das Ärzte während der Gesundheitsversorgung von MSM denken sollten."
(Robert Koch Institut)

New Homepage: Voices of Change!

Click here for more info.

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.

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

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.

Gender Ideology Harms Children


March 21, 2016 – a temporary statement with references. A full statement will be published in summer 2016.


The American College of Pediatricians urges educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts – not ideology – determine reality.


1. Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: “XY” and “XX” are genetic markers of health – not genetic markers of a disorder. The norm for human design is to be conceived either male or female. Human sexuality is binary by design with the obvious purpose being the reproduction and flourishing of our species. This principle is self-evident. The exceedingly rare disorders of sex development (DSDs), including but not limited to testicular feminization and congenital adrenal hyperplasia, are all medically identifiable deviations from the sexual binary norm, and are rightly recognized as disorders of human design. Individuals with DSDs do not constitute a third sex.1


2. No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one. No one is born with an awareness of themselves as male or female; this awareness develops over time and, like all developmental processes, may be derailed by a child’s subjective perceptions, relationships, and adverse experiences from infancy forward. People who identify as “feeling like the opposite sex” or “somewhere in between” do not comprise a third sex. They remain biological men or biological women.2,3,4


3. A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking. When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such. These children suffer from gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria (GD), formerly listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V).5 The psychodynamic and social learning theories of GD/GID have never been disproved.2,4,5


4. Puberty is not a disease and puberty-blocking hormones can be dangerous. Reversible or not, puberty- blocking hormones induce a state of disease – the absence of puberty – and inhibit growth and fertility in a previously biologically healthy child.6


5. According to the DSM-V, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.5


6. Children who use puberty blockers to impersonate the opposite sex will require cross-sex hormones in late adolescence. Cross-sex hormones (testosterone and estrogen) are associated with dangerous health risks including but not limited to high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke and cancer.7,8,9,10


7. Rates of suicide are twenty times greater among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery, even in Sweden which is among the most LGBQT – affirming countries.11 What compassionate and reasonable person would condemn young children to this fate knowing that after puberty as many as 88% of girls and 98% of boys will eventually accept reality and achieve a state of mental and physical health?


8. Conditioning children into believing a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse. Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents, leading more children to present to “gender clinics” where they will be given puberty-blocking drugs. This, in turn, virtually ensures that they will “choose” a lifetime of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic cross-sex hormones, and likely consider unnecessary surgical mutilation of their healthy body parts as young adults.


Michelle A. Cretella, M.D.

President of the American College of Pediatricians


Quentin Van Meter, M.D.

Vice President of the American College of Pediatricians

Pediatric Endocrinologist


Paul McHugh, M.D.

University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School and the former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital


References:


1. Consortium on the Management of Disorders of Sex Development, “Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Disorders of Sex Development in Childhood.” Intersex Society of North America, March 25, 2006. Accessed 3/20/16 from http://www.dsdguidelines.org/files/clinical.pdf.


2. Zucker, Kenneth J. and Bradley Susan J. “Gender Identity and Psychosexual Disorders.” FOCUS: The Journal of Lifelong Learning in Psychiatry. Vol. III, No. 4, Fall 2005 (598-617).


3. Whitehead, Neil W. “Is Transsexuality biologically determined?” Triple Helix (UK), Autumn 2000, p6-8. accessed 3/20/16 from http://www.mygenes.co.nz/transsexuality.htm; see also Whitehead, Neil W. “Twin Studies of Transsexuals [Reveals Discordance]” accessed 3/20/16 from http://www.mygenes.co.nz/transs_stats.htm.


4. Jeffreys, Sheila. Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism. Routledge, New York, 2014 (pp.1-35).


5. American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Arlington, VA, American Psychiatric Association, 2013 (451-459). See page 455 re: rates of persistence of gender dysphoria.


6. Hembree, WC, et al. Endocrine treatment of transsexual persons: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009;94:3132-3154.


7. Olson-Kennedy, J and Forcier, M. “Overview of the management of gender nonconformity in children and adolescents.” UpToDate November 4, 2015. Accessed 3.20.16 from www.uptodate.com.


8. Moore, E., Wisniewski, & Dobs, A. “Endocrine treatment of transsexual people: A review of treatment regimens, outcomes, and adverse effects.” The Journal of Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2003; 88(9), pp3467-3473.


9. FDA Drug Safety Communication issued for Testosterone products accessed 3.20.16: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm161874.htm.


10. World Health Organization Classification of Estrogen as a Class I Carcinogen: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/ageing/cocs_hrt_statement.pdf.


11. Dhejne, C, et.al. “Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden.” PLoS ONE, 2011; 6(2). Affiliation: Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Psychiatry, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. Accessed 3.20.16 from http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885.


http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children?utm_source=email+marketing+Mailigen&utm_campaign=News+3.23.16&utm_medium=email


Every sick person deserves compassion and necessary care and treatment. This does not mean, however, that you cannot say an open word as to the causes for this sickness.
Men who have sex with men (MSM) are accountable for a high percentage of persons with sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). In Germany, you can check the numbers for yourself here: www.rki.de. Included are not even follow-up diseases like drug addictions, mental problems, physical diseases and so on that result from a high-risk lifestyle only all too common among some of the men with same-sex attractions ("homosexuals"). Obviously, safer-sex campaigns don't work as they should (aside the fact that they do not protect against all STDs, they also start at the end of the chain. Teaching the true meaning of love, marriage and sex might do a far better job). Society has to pay the high costs of the health treatments of those persons then. The same society that is usually blamed for as being "homophobic". However, it is not this society whom you can blame for when you become sick because of irresponsible sexual behavior. It is no other than yourself.
Bringing this up is politically not correct. I will even top it with this: Whoever lives in a monogamous, heterosexual, lifelong Christian marriage will not become HIV or any of the other health problems mentioned above. Some will not like that, but it definitely needs to be said.
We help financing gay public events and the gay movement in general, when the outcome is more than shocking - and oftentimes irresponsible.

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

Einführung

 

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.
 
(Quelle für unten stehendes Material: u.a. Joe Dallas)
 
 

Wissenschaft

(Quelle: u.a. Material von Joe Dallas, Dr. Joseph Nicolosi. Klicke hier für mehr Infos: Copyright)



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 wird von einigen Wissenschaftlern auch so gesehen: 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)




Mögliche Ursachen bzw. Charakteristika 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)


 




Man könnte sagen Homosexualität bedeutet, dass Männer von Männern und Frauen von Frauen sexuell angezogen werden. Das alleine wäre aber zuwenig. Wenn man die Wurzeln von Homosexualität betrachtet, merkt man schnell, dass dadurch legitime Bedürfnisse nach gleichgeschlechtlicher Nähe und Wärme auf die falsche Art und Weise befriedigt werden. Wir sind auch der festen Überzeugung, dass es Homosexualität nicht gibt. Diese Wortschöpfung ist noch relativ jung. Wir sind alle im Grunde heterosexuell - aber aus unterschiedlichen Gründen (und seien sie genetisch!) haben wir ein homosexuelles Problem.  Homosexualität ist aber nicht auf derselben Stufe von Heterosexualität. Die Amerikaner drücken das weitaus besser aus: "gender identity disorder" (GID) - Störung der Geschlechts-Identität. Das trifft es weitaus besser. Am besten wäre es, sich in der öffentlichen Diskussion auf den Begriff "gleichgeschlechtliche Neigungen" (same-sex attractions - ssa) zu einigen. Damit trifft man den Kern der Angelegenheit. Ein weiteres Problem: wer bestimmt eigentlich, ob ich diese habe? Nicht jede gleichgeschlechtliche sexuelle Erfahrung macht einen automatisch "homosexuell". Manche hatten noch nie gleichgeschlechtlichen Sex, bezeichnen sich aber trothdem als "schwul" oder "lesbisch", andere hatten ihn schon öfter, sehen sich aber als heterosexuell. Tatsächlich kann das nur jeder selbst bestimmen. Auch die Dauer gleichgeschlechtlicher Neigungen ist bei jedem unterschiedlich. Tatsächlich wird in der Jugend oft experimentiert - aber auch im Erwachsenenalter wechseln so manche noch "die Seiten". Bei Männern ist die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass sich dieser Zustand dauerhaft verfestigt aber weitaus höher als bei Frauen. (siehe auch Exodus)



 

Homosexualität ist also weitaus mehr als nur Sex zwischen Menschen desselben Geschlechts. Sie bezeichnet gleichgeschlechtliche Neigungen (ausschließlich oder überwiegend und vor allem andauernd). Wichtig zu wissen: niemand sucht sich seine Sexualität aus. Man kann aber sehr wohl wählen, ob man sie auch auslebt.






Wie entwickelt sich Homosexualität - ein mögliches Szenario

1) Ein Junge wird mit „typischen“ Wesenszügen geboren (genetisch/hormonell): Sensibilität, Kreativität... (später mit ursächlich für Verhalten). 

2) Er ist „anders“: unter Gleichaltrigen schüchtern. Fühlt sich unter Jungs unwohl. 

3) Vater ist distanziert. Enttäuscht zieht sich der Junge von ihm zurück (Verteidigung!). Er kommt mit Gleichaltrigen noch weniger zurecht. Später wird er sagen: „Ich war schon immer anders“ und denken, er sei so geboren worden. 

4) Junge sehnt sich trotzdem noch verzweifelt nach väterlicher Liebe. Bewundert als Kind ältere Jungs. In der Pubertät Vermischung mit sex. Gefühlen. Es entwickeln sich homos. Neigungen. Später wird er sagen: „Ich fühlte mich schon immer zu Jungs hingezogen“.. Wichtig: therap. Eingreifen mit Einbeziehung des Vaters! Ziel: beginnende weibl. Verhaltensmuster des Jungen ändern; Vater muss lernen, wie er mit seinem Sohn umzugehen hat. 

5) Mit fortschreitender Pubertät beginnt er, mit homos. Aktivitäten zu experimentieren. Bei manchen kommt es auch zum Missbrauch. Oder er versucht noch verzweifelt, gegen seine Neigungen anzukämpfen. Er hat sich seine Homosexualität nicht ausgesucht – er hatte keine Wahl! Einerseits hört er sehr negative Äußerungen über Homosexuelle und denkt er sei Abschaum, andererseits hört er die Parolen der Schwulenbewegung: du bist normal! Lebe deine Sexualität aus! 

6) Sehnsucht nach Liebe: erste homos. Erfahrungen. Sehnsüchte verschwinden zeitweise. Gefühl der Erleichterung / des Trostes. Homos. Erfahrungen werden häufiger.
 
7) Er entdeckt Sex als Mittel gegen Stress, Ängste und Probleme. Durch seine homos. Erfahrungen hat er bereits Tabus gebrochen. Nun weiterer Bruch: Sex mit mehreren Partnern, extremerer Sex... Homosexualität wird zum Zentrum des Lebens. 

8) Tatsächlich gibt es nun mehr Stress. Er stößt auf Ablehnung. Nur die gay community akzeptiert ihn. Er hat aber immer noch Schuld- und Schamgefühle (auch darüber, dass er keinen Kontakt zu Frauen herstellen kann). Die Gesellschaft redet ihm aber ein: Homosexualität ist ok. 

9) Er gibt den inneren Kampf auf. „Ich war schon immer anders. Ich kann mich nicht ändern, weil ich so geboren bin.“. Gefühl der Erleichterung / Befreiung. 

10) Wichtig jetzt: Einstellung der Gesellschaft. Begünstigend für Festsetzung der Homosexualität: Diskriminierung/Ablehnung oder allgemeine Akzeptanz der Homosexualität. 

11) Die wichtigste Botschaft, die er jetzt hören sollte: „Heilung ist möglich!“ 

12) Entscheidet er sich für den Weg der Heilung, wird er schnell merken, wie lange und schwierig das ist – aber auch erfüllend und befriedigend. Wichtig jetzt: Unterstützung durch Ex-Gays, Familie, (heteros.) Freunde, Kirche (Trost/Beistand, Vorbild, Helfen bei der Findung der Geschlechts-Identität, Geduld, Lenkung der Talente in angemessene Richtungen).

Achtung: Langer Lernprozess! Alte Wunden werden aufreißen! Erfordert viel Geduld!






Wie entwickelt sich Homosexualität?

Man geht heute davon aus, dass eine Vielzahl von Faktoren die (Homo-)Sexualität eines Menschen beeinflussen: eine genetisch vorbedingte Veranlagung sowie hormonelle Voraussetzungen, die ein zu bestimmten Verhalten fördern können - in Verbindung mit äußeren Einflüssen wie verbaler, körperlicher oder sexueller Missbrauch in der Kindheit, Inzest, Experimentieren mit anderen Frauen/Männern, Pornos, negative spirituelle Einflüsse, die Gesellschaft, Medien, Personalität/Temperament, negatives Verhältnis zum eigenen Körper, Diskriminierung durch Gleichaltrige, kein emotionaler Zugang zum gleichgeschlechtlichen Elternteil und damit kein Zugang zur gleichgeschlechtlichen Welt (und deren Ablehnung und spätere Erotisierung während der Pubertät) usw.

(siehe auch Buchliste)


 

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.


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.


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?


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.

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?


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!

 

Die Kirche muss Ergebnisse moderner Wissenschaft anerkennen und darf homosexuelles Verhalten nicht einfach ablehnen!


Ist dem wirklich so? Mal ganz abgesehen davon, dass es bisher nicht einen einzigen Beweis dafür gibt, woher homosexuelle Neigungen eigentlich kommen (wohl aber viele Hinweise auf die Bedeutung der Familie, Erziehung sowie eine genetische Veranlagung, die es uns unter bestimmten Bedingungen erleichtert, uns so und nicht anders zu verhalten. Allerdings gibt es bis heute keinen Hinweis auf ein „schwules Gen“. Selbst wenn es dieses aber geben würde, würde es dem Ganzen keinen Abbruch tun, da wir mehr sind als nur Sklaven eines Gencodes!), hätte die Kirche ein Problem, wenn sie ihre Grundsätze sowie die Bibel jedes Mal umschreiben müsste, wenn „neue wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse oder Theorien“ veröffentlicht werden. Die Kirche hat immer die enge Verbindung von Glaube und Vernunft betont. Glaube muss vernünftig sein, um ihn vor sich selbst und anderen begründen zu können, geht aber über rein menschliches Vernunftempfinden hinaus. Auch kann die Kirche kein Spielball von Wissenschaftlern sein – noch dazu, wenn sich diese gerade bei diesem Thema uneinig sind. Ein zeitgemäßer Glaube ist etwas anderes als ein Glaube, der sich dem Zeitgeist unterwirft. Eine Kirche, die klare biblische Aussagen „uminterpretiert“ oder gleich verwirft, hilft Menschen mit gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen nicht – ganz im Gegenteil. Homosexuelles Verhalten wurde in der überwiegenden Anzahl menschlicher Kulturen weltweit und zu allen Zeiten abgelehnt – und das lässt sich nicht alleine auf mangelndes Wissen oder die gesellschaftliche Diskriminierung schieben. Viele Menschen mit gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen berichten, wie sehr sich ihr Innerstes dagegen gesträubt hat, als sie diese Neigungen in ihrer frühen Jugend das erste Mal wahrgenommen haben. Und noch Jahre später berichten sie, dass dies unabhängig vom gesellschaftlichen Einfluss so war. Es scheint, als sei Heterosexualität als Standard von unserem Schöpfer so tief in unser Innerstes eingeschlossen worden, dass selbst hartnäckige Versuche, bereits Kinder und Jugendliche zu indoktrinieren und von der Attraktivität homosexuellen Verhaltens überzeugen zu wollen, nur sehr kurzfristige Erfolge haben, langfristig aber auf inneren Widerstand stoßen.

Menschen mit gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen ist mit Verständnis und Liebe zu begegnen. Es ist aber auch unsere Verantwortung als Christinnen und Christen, unsere Geschwister im Glauben zu ermahnen, wenn sie vom Weg abkommen und sich von Gott abwenden. Man kann nicht beides haben. Die Bibel sagt uns nicht: Du darfst nicht mit einem Mann liegen, wie man mit einer Frau liegt, außer du bist so geboren worden. Sie hat uns den Standard der heterosexuellen, monogamen Ehe vorgegeben – und diesen über Jahrtausende hinweg aufrecht erhalten. Es steht uns nicht zu, Gott spielen zu wollen und Seinen Willen eigenmächtig und willkürlich zu missachten oder nach Belieben umzuinterpretieren, wenn wir ihn nicht mehr als „zeitgemäߓ ansehen.



Alle Unterstützung für aktive Schwule, aber keine für die, die erst gar nicht dorthin wollen?

Menschen mit gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen haben in der Regel ein breites Angebot an Beratungs- und sonstigen Dienstleistungen zur Verfügung – wenn sie diese ausleben. Staatlicherseits dick subventioniert bleibt hier kaum ein Wunsch oder Bedürfnis unbefriedigt.
Will man/frau aber – aus welchen Gründen auch immer – dieses Leben verlassen oder erst gar nicht dorthin kommen, sieht es rabenschwarz aus.

Therapien

Ansprechpartner für psychotherapeutische Unterstützung: Die Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik und Nervenheilkunde (DGPPN). Auf eine Anfrage hin, ob es denn für Menschen mit ungewollten gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen Unterstützung gibt – wohlgemerkt nicht (!) automatisch für Menschen, die „heterosexuell“ werden wollen, kam eine sehr standardisierte Antwort: Zunächst wird man darüber belehrt, dass 1973 die amerikanische Psychiatervereinigung APA Homosexualität vom DSM (Liste der psychischen Krankheiten) gestrichen hatte. Als Folge davon wurde das 1991 auch bei uns (hier: der ICD) so gehandhabt. Homosexualität sei keine Krankheit, sondern eine häufige Form menschlichen Zusammenlebens. Sie bedürfe deshalb keiner Therapie.

Abgesehen davon, dass dies keine Antwort auf die ursprüngliche Frage war (es ging nicht um eine „Therapie“ von Homosexualität, sondern um therapeutische Begleitung bei der Suche nach einem alternativen Leben!), wird hier – bewusst oder unbewusst – ein wesentliches Detail verschwiegen.

Die Tatsache, dass Homosexualität aus dem DSM bzw. ICD genommen wurde, beruhte keineswegs auf neuen medizinischen Erkenntnissen. Die lagen damals schlichtweg nicht vor – und tun dies auch heute nicht. Der Grund hierfür war allein politischer Art – ein erheblicher Druck der Schwulenbewegung. Selbst heute also lässt sich die DGPPN instrumentalisieren und verschließt politisch nicht korrekten Forschungen den Weg.

Weiterhin heißt es in der Antwort, die DGPPN lehne „reparative Therapien“ oder „Konversionstherapien“ entschieden ab. Auch hier: dies war nicht Gegenstand der Frage. Außerdem konnte ich keine Organisation und keinen Therapeuten hier in Deutschland ausfindig machen, der eine „Konversationstherapie“ anbietet. Auch hier geht die DGPPN der Schwulenbewegung auf dem Leim. Reparative Therapie und Konversionstherapie werden hier fälschlicherweise in einem Atemzug genannt, beschreiben aber etwas ganz anderes. Während eine Konversionstherapie die sexuelle Orientierung verändern will (es gibt mittlerweile tatsächlich Anzeichen für eine „Fluidität“ menschlicher Sexualität – sie ist also keineswegs in Stein gemeiselt!), konzentriert sich die Reparative Therapie auf einige der Faktoren, die zur Entwicklung gleichgeschlechtlicher Neigungen beitragen, etwa eine Störung der Geschlechts-Identität, unerfüllte legitime Bedürfnisse, ein gestörtes Verhältnis zum gleichgeschlechtlichen Elternteil etc. Dies ist offenbar der DGPPN noch nicht einmal bekannt – sie bedient sich ungeprüft der Meinung von wissenschaftlichen Laien, die ihre eigene Agenda verfolgen. Selbst das Argument, Homosexualität sei eine „häufige“ Form menschlichen Zusammenlebens, ist wissenschaftlich irrelevant. Eine psychische Störung, die häufig auftritt, wird alleine dadurch ja auch noch nicht zum weniger pathologisch. Die Tatsache, dass es viele tun, macht etwas weder in moralischer noch in medizinischer Form „besser“ oder „schlechter“.

Als medizinischen „Beleg“ für die eigene Sichtweise führt die DGPPN an, es gebe keine empirische Evidenz (Nachweis) für günstige Effekte von Konversionsverfahren, wohl könne Patienten dadurch aber Schaden zugefügt werden. Erneut wird hier auf eine Verfahren polarisiert, dass weder bei uns allgemein angewandt noch gefragt wurde. Derart pauschalisierte Aussagen sind nicht wissenschaftlich und schon gar nicht ethisch vertretbar. Jeder Therapeut und jede Therapeutin kann dem Hilfesuchenden potentiell Schaden zufügen. Die Frage ist, ob dann die Therapieform als ganze oder der Therapeut Schuld hierfür trägt. Da die DGPPN sich offensichtlich noch nicht einmal mit den wissenschaftlichen Arbeiten hierzu befasst hat und alternative Therapiemodelle auch im Studium nicht Gegenstand der Lehre sind, kann sie hierzu auch keine gültige Aussage treffen. Würde man die von ihr getroffenen Aussagen auf alle Formen sexuellen Empfindens übertragen und damit alles mehr oder weniger als „normale“ Formen menschlichen Zusammenlebens hinstellen, würde dies zu absurden und unverantwortlichen Ergebnissen führen.

Die Mitarbeiterin der DGPPN (der ich noch nicht einmal böse Absicht unterstellen will!) weist weiterhin darauf hin, dass psychische Erkrankungen unabhängig von der sexuellen Orientierung „anhand der klinisch relevanten Symptome gemäß ICD-10 Kriterien klassifiziert“ werden und dementsprechend von Fachleuten therapiert werden sollen. Dies ist schon aus wissenschaftlicher Sicht ein unsinniges Vorgehen. Hier werden bewusst Faktoren und Ursachen ausgeklammert bzw. voneinander getrennt gesehen, die durchaus etwas miteinander zu tun haben können. Mit anderen Worten: Der Patient bekommt nicht die beste Hilfe, die verfügbar ist, da dies politisch nicht korrekt ist.

Womit wir beim Abschluss-Statement der DGPPN-Kollegin sind: "Direkt oder indirekt erfahrene Diskriminierung kann zur Entstehung psychischer Erkrankungen bei homosexuellen Menschen beitragen." Hier trägt die schwule Propaganda reiche Früchte: alles, was nicht politisch korrekt ist, ist „Diskriminierung“. Hier wird in unglaublicher Art und Weise unterstellt, dass Therapeuten, die oben genannten Ratsuchenden Hilfe anbieten, nicht wissenschaftlich arbeiten, sondern „diskriminieren“. So macht man es sich selbst sehr einfach – man muss sich erst gar nicht mit dem Thema in einer objektiven, wissenschaftlichen Herangehensweise befassen, sondern stellt Andersdenkende als Menschen zweifelhaften moralischen Charakters dar. Das ist nichts anderes als unselige Propaganda.

Die angestrebte Therapie, so die DGPPN, ziele nicht auf die Homosexualität ab, sondern auf die Konflikte, die in Verbindung mit religiösen, gesellschaftlichen und internalisierten Normen entstehen. Mit anderen Worten: der gute alte Leitsatz „Nicht der Homosexuelle hat ein Problem, sondern die Gesellschaft“. Ziel des Therapeuten sei es, dass sich der/die Homosexuelle wieder gut bei dem fühle, was er/sie tut und gegebenenfalls alle Einstellungen überwindet, die dem entgegen stehen. Das ist keine wissenschaftliche Therapie, das ist ideologisch motivierte politische Korrektheit par excellence. Hier fügt die DGPPN ihrerseits möglicherweise denen Schaden zu, die aus persönlichen, religiösen oder anderweitigen Gründen ein Ausleben ihrer Neigungen nicht für gut heißen können. Anstelle ihnen beizustehen und ihre Ansichten zu respektieren, sorgt die DGPPN noch für Schuld- und Schamgefühle und will ihnen Ansichten aufschwatzen, die nicht die ihren sind. Mit welchem Recht?


Die Krankenkassen

Hier hält man sich mit einer klaren Antwort auf die Anfrage bedeckt. Die AOK etwa geht erst gar nicht auf dieses Thema ein, sondern verweist allgemein auf Informationen zur Psychotherapie. Auch hier wird einem Ratsuchenden offenbar nicht weiter geholfen. Soll man vielleicht erst alle Therapeuten in der Gegend abklappern, um einen zu finden, der bereit ist, einem beizustehen?



Die Kirchen

Bei einem Pastor, einem Priester etc. Hilfe zu suchen, ist beinahe ein Glücksspiel. Manch einer wird hier das finden, was er/sie sucht, allerdings ist die Bandbreite der Haltungen, Meinungen, Ansichten und Herangehensweisen hier – selbst innerhalb einer Kirche – enorm. Wenige halten sich an das, was ihre eigene Lehrautorität verkündet. Viele handeln nach eigenem Gutdünken. Wirklich empfehlenswert ist dies für Betroffene nicht. Zu groß ist das Risiko hierbei, an „den Falschen“ zu geraten – mit unkalkulierbaren Konsequenzen.


Angebote im Bereich Lebensberatung und Seelsorge

Hier sieht die Lage etwas besser aus. Im Gegensatz zur landläufigen Meinung sind von anerkannten Lehreinrichtungen zertifizierte Lebensberater und Seelsorger in der Regel theoretisch und praktisch sehr gut ausgebildet und erfahren. Natürlich führen diese Einrichtungen keine Therapien durch, eine seelsorgerische Begleitung oder eine Teilnahme an einer Selbsthilfegruppe kann hier sehr hilfreich sein. Zu nennen sind hier etwa christliche Einrichtungen wie Wüstenstrom (www.wuestenstrom.de), das Weisse Kreuz (www.weisses-kreuz.de) oder Organisationen wie Jason International (http://jason-online.webs.com), der Partnerorganisation der internationalen, wohl ältesten Organisation auf diesem Gebiet: Homosexuals Anonymous (www.homosexuals-anonymous.com).


Fazit

Der Standpunkt der DGPPN soll hier auf keinen Fall verteufelt werden. Selbstverständlich sind psychische Krankheitsbilder von entsprechenden Psychotherapeuten oder Psychiatern zu behandeln. Betroffene sollten hier keinesfalls zögern, Hilfe zu suchen. Nötigenfalls klärt ein Eingangsgespräch, ob der Therapeut/Arzt bereit ist, die Einstellung des Patienten zu akzeptieren und nicht dagegen zu arbeiten. Gleichwohl werden die meisten Betroffenen alleine dadurch nicht die Hilfe finden, die sie brauchen. Abgesehen davon hat nicht jeder von ihnen eine psychische Erkrankung. Deshalb ist ein TNetzwerk von Freunden, Seelsorgern, Lebensberatern, Therapeuten, Ärzten usw. nicht nur sinnvoll, sondern notwendig. Der DGPPN kann man nur wünschen, dass sie nicht das nachplappert, was andere ihr vorplappern, sondern sich als Teil eines Netzwerkes siieht und dieses – wie auch die Ratsuchenden und deren Überzeugungen selbst – respektiert.

AN EX-GAY COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO: “Genome-wide scan demonstrates significant linkage for male sexual orientation” 17 November 2014 [1]


11-18-2014

Media outlets are flush with the rush to promote yet another inconclusive hypothesis attempting to tie biological factors to the penchant for homosexual behavior. After an unusual 7 year tweaking before release, Dr. Alan Sanders of NorthShore University HealthSystem Research Institute et al, compared the genes of 409 gay twin brothers (the largest twin sampling to date). The team argues that they found linkages to the X Chromosome 8 region and Xq28 but were unable to cite any actual gene. This runs contrary to the conclusions of eight other international twin studies examining the same notion[2] with the exception of Dr. Dean Hamer’s claim to find Chromosome 8 involvement 20 years ago but also failing to find any actual gene.

The inability to find and verify gene involvement makes the entire exercise of identifying linkages fruitless since there can be no linkage between non-existent entities. This leaves wide open the interpretation of what these researchers are seeing within these chromosome bands. Sanders himself describes his results as, “not proof but a pretty good indication.” An indication of what remains to be seen. Meanwhile, the reaction by genetic experts ranges from skeptical to completely dismissive. Dr. Robert Green, medical geneticist at Harvard Medical School called the study, “intriguing but not in any way conclusive” and Dr. Neil Risch, genetics expert at UC San Francisco states the data is too statistically weak to suggest any linkage (with homosexual preference.)[3]

Of bizarre concern is Sander’s use of a deprecated genetic method. Genetic linkages have been replaced with GWA (genome-wide association) methodology in genetic science which gives a higher, but still not guaranteed, association between a given gene and a behavior. Sanders admitted it would have been the preferable approach but it was the only way to try to expound on Hamer’s failed attempt 20 years ago. Ken Kendler, an editor at Psychological Medicine admitted it was a surprise to see Sanders submit a study using the old technique and Sanders admits that one publication turned down his submission outright.[4] Sanders has announced his intention of a GWA study using an even larger sample group.

It is the opinion of most in the ex-gay community that scientific research would be better utilized addressing the knowns of same-sex attraction, such as the high child sexual abuse and childhood trauma histories found in research which is more results oriented by healing traumas that often lead to same-sex attractions and therapies that eliminate unwanted same-sex attraction. This more appropriately achieves the goals of the American Psychological Association’s vow to patient self-determination. Much like the already proven genetic components of depression and anxiety disorders, genetic involvement only contributes to predilection and has no bearing at all on outcomes. Thus, any genetic discovery while interesting is irrelevant to ultimate behavioral self-management and choice.

[1] “Genome-wide scan demonstrates significant linkage for male sexual orientation”

A. R. Sanders, E. R. Martin, G. W. Beecham, S. Guo, K. Dawood, G. Rieger, J. A. Badner, E. S. Gershon, R. S. Krishnappa, A. B. Kolundzija, J. Duan, P. V. Gejman and J. M. Bailey

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, NorthShore University HealthSystem Research Institute, Evanston, IL, USA

[2] "EIGHT MAJOR STUDIES of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way."Dr. Neil Whitehead is author of the book, "My Genes Made Me Do It" – a scientific look at sexual orientation (1999/USA; revised 2nd edition, 2010) and over 140 published scientific papers.

[3] “Study Suggests Genetic Link for Male Homosexuality”, November 17th, 2014, Associated Press.

[4] “Study of gay brothers may confirm X chromosome link to homosexuality”, 17 November 2014, AAAS Science Magazine.

John Ozanich, VP The Jason Foundation

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

The Science about Same Sex Attractions

SSA Speech
Secular Presentation

The Science about Same Sex Attractions

I appreciate being able to speak to the Traditional Value Club through Sinclair Community College.  I have always believed that college is a place where various views can be presented and discussed, allowing each person to decide for themselves what they want to believe.  I am well aware there are differences of opinion on the subject of Same Sex Attractions. I believe that the human race has freewill and choices can be made. I am also aware that in country we believe in freedom of speech

My background and how I got into this work:

I have been an ordained clergyman for many years, pasturing churches and counseling individuals with various personal and marital issues.   In 1986 a number of men in my community were arrested for importuning in a city park. Being a compassionate person, I told my wife I wish there was a way to help men like this who struggle with Same Sex Attractions and possibly are addicted to sex.  I attended a seminar on gender identity so I could better understand same sex attractions. After completing this training, I founded New Pathways a Christian ministry to assist individuals who wish to change their lifestyle. This is my 24th year in this work helping individuals. People come for help because they are not happy with their Same Sex Attractions.  Many have been married and wish to remain married. Others come for religious reasons. And still others for other personal reasons. There is no ill will toward anyone who does not wish to change their lifestyle. I have worked with some who decided they did not want to change and they quit either counseling or group. There is no animosity toward them or anyone else. I have several friends who are in the gay lifestyle.

I worked to complete my education in counseling. In 1992, I began formal counseling under the supervision of a psychologist. In 2004, I began counseling in a private practice.  I continue as a pastor of small church because it keeps me in church ministry and they cannot afford a full-time pastor. My licensing is through the National Christian Counselors Association and I have a certification through them as a Sexual therapist.  NCCA is a national religious organization who trains people in pastoral counseling.  Through them I am a Licensed Clinical Pastoral Counselor. My counseling is done under the auspices of the Church of God of Cedarville.

My religious faith teaches me that if a person seeks help for any spiritual or psychological issue and I have the ability to assist them, I should try to meet that need the best way I can.


I believe religious faith and science are not on opposite poles, they can work together to achieve a common goal. I wanted to know what research has been done in this field. I began to research and have discovered some interesting facts regarding persons who are Same Sex Attracted. I am an avid reader and so I have read most of the literature on this subject. Just in the field of psychology I have over 300 books beside probably another 12 dozen religious books.  A number of studies have been done over the past thirty years, investigating the causes of Same Sex Attractions and behaviors. I first began this research at the Medical Library at Wright State University and through other organizations that study the psychology of Same Sex Attractions.  I found a number of organizations, including different religious bodies who believe same sex attractions can be changed. I have deep respect for all those who research in this field. Some of the major studies performed have been hypothalamus studies, identical twin studies, hormonal studies, genetics and several minor studies, on smell and finger length.

An interesting fact is that the researchers themselves have stated they have not proved inconclusively that anyone is born gay. Every researcher has admitted that psychological and social influences play a large part in the development of Same Sex Attractions. That is the premise upon which I work- that there are psychological and social influences that create a sexual desire for someone of the same sex.

I have studied several of the major research studies done within the past 30 years. Good research is based upon large-random examples covering a number of different groupings. This includes racial, economic, geographic regions and religious groups. Also,   researcher must be able to replicate a study. I have found that replication of studies has not produced the desired results of the researchers.

  Factors studied have been-

1.    Simon LeVay studied the hypothalamus. This study was mostly done on men who died of aides while in prison. The study first of all was too narrow because of the number of men used in this study. The study should have been broader in scope covering many different people groupings and from many different locations across the nation.  It is difficult to study the hypothalamus because it requires a cadaver. The hypothalamus in these men was smaller than the normal man.  The question is, did aids cause the reduction of the size or did their behaviors over several years cause the reduced size?  No one knows. William Byrne, another research scientist could not duplicate LeVay’s research.  That is a significant point about this study.

2.    Baily & Pillard researched identical twins. The identical twin study reported that 52% of the gay men were both gay, while 48% of identical twins were not gay.  Identical twins are alike in most areas of life. They carry the same genetic makeup so what caused the differences? Michael King and Elizabeth McDonald and Wm Byrne and Bruce Parsons could not replicate the same patterns as did Baily and Pillard.

3.    I have twice sat under the teachings of Neil Whitehead, a research scientist from New Zealand. He teaches in the field of genetics. The study in genetics is extremely complex. Some of the findings in this field are:

a. No generally determined human behavior has yet been discovered.
b. Genetically dominated behaviors have only been found in very simple organisms.
c. A genetically denominated homosexual trait cannot suddenly appear and disappear in families.  One psychiatric researcher reported, “If the trait was 50 % inheritable and each family in the initial study had ten members in the family- 4 grandparents, 2 parents, and 4 children- detecting one of the genes would require studying 2000 people. Replicating that finding would require studying another 8000 people.  To find and confirm each additional gene, researchers would need to go through this whole process over and over again. ‘Suddenly, you’re talking about tens of thousands of people and years of work and millions of dollars.’” No study has come close to meeting these requirements.

These studies have helped those who come to me and to my ministry to have hoped that they can change their behaviors and understand their deepest SSA desires.   I am well aware there are those who object to this belief system.  I am reminded that the human race has freewill and therefore choices are made throughout life. Also, we live in a country that believes in freedom of speech.
What have I come to believe about Same Sex Attractions?  

I believe the home is the basic training ground for life. The home is the most important institution that exists in our world. The attitudes and behaviors within the family mold the minds and hearts of every human being. As the home goes, so goes the country and the world. The parents instill in their children values and beliefs that affect the future of that child.

Gender disparity can be developed very early in a child’s life. Many times children make decisions at a very young age. How the mother and father function together, and with their children forms concepts that eventually are believed by the children.  Sibling and peer interactions also play a part in child development.  Dr. Kenneth Leymen writes about birth order and how it affects a child’s development. I like the teachings of John Bradshaw and many other who write in the field of psychology.  Their writings resonate with me.
 
What important attitudes and practices should be a part of the home? There are many but here are a few important ones that affect a person’s gender identity.
    1. Appropriate same sex attitudes and behaviors on the part of both parents are important. Parents who criticize each other can cause a child to reject their own gender out of fear of that parent or even to dislike that parent.
    2. Parents help their children to become aware of the different sex roles within the family.  A confusion of sex roles may cause confusion in children’s gender roles.      
    3. Parents help their children to understand each child’s uniqueness.
    4. Rigid gender roles in a family confuses a child’s proper development
    of their own gender.
    5. Favoritism also affects a child’s sense of who they are.
    6. Abuse in any form, whether physical, mental or especially sexual abuse
    creates a feeling of not liking their gender.
    7. And finally a child’s own perceptions stemming from their own     personality helps them to form beliefs that will affect them all through
    life unless they find help to understand themselves.

Beyond the family, children also respond to many other environmental factors which affect their perceptions of self.
I thank you for the opportunity to share my views today.

(Elton M.)

The APA

Clarifying The Misinformation About Homosexuality
Attributed To The APA – American Psychiatric Association
And To The APA – American Psychological Association

    According to the APA – American Psychological Association, as of Dec 2011 there are no scientific findings that a person is born homosexual. “No findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.”
    The 1973 APA – American Psychiatric Association’s decision to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses (DSM) was not based on any new scientific or psychological findings regarding homosexuality. In addition the APA acknowledged that “a significant proportion of homosexuals” can “change their sexual orientation.”
    A 2010 peer reviewed study published in The Journal of Men’s Studies found that men experiencing unwanted homosexual attractions seeking sexual orientation change experienced “a decrease in homosexual feelings and behavior, an increase in heterosexual feelings and behavior, and a positive change in psychological functioning.”
    The political correctness of the APAs and their loss of scientific objectivity.
    Past APA President, Dr. Nicholas Cummings, testifying how the “APA is politically based rather than scientifically based” as well as “confirming the research that reports that change is possible.”
    Dr. Jeffrey Satinover M.D., Ph.D in his book titled: Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, expands upon how the APA was “driven by politics, not science.”
    APAs’ political bias on reparative or change therapy is blatant. They cite no scientific studies of harm. Rather, they use terms such as “expressed concerns” “no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy is safe or effective.” “it seems likely promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes.”
    Dr. A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., MBA, MPH reviews a book titled: Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm. (Edited by Rogers H. Wright and Nicolas A. Cummings, 2005.) The book exemplifies how “The APA has chosen ideology over science.”

Fact 1:

According to the APA – American Psychological Association, as of Dec 2011 there are no scientific findings that a person is born homosexual. “No findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.”

Excerpt:

    “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.”

Fact 2:

The 1973 APA – American Psychiatric Association’s decision to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses (DSM) was not based on any new scientific or psychological findings regarding homosexuality. In addition the APA acknowledged that “a significant proportion of homosexuals” can “change their sexual orientation.”

The following are excerpts from the official policy document on homosexuality approved by APA Assembly and Board of Trustees. “These are position statements that define APA official policy on specific subjects.”

Excerpts:

    “Modern methods of treatment enable a significant proportion of homosexuals who wish to change their sexual orientation to do so.”

    “…We acknowledge that by itself [homosexuality] does not meet the requirements for a psychiatric disorder. Similarly, by no longer listing it as a psychiatric disorder we are not saying that it is ‘normal’ or as valuable as heterosexuality.”

    “…Psychiatrists… will continue to try to help homosexuals who suffer from what we can now refer to as Sexual orientation disturbance, helping the patient accept or live with his current sexual orientation, or if he desires, helping him to change it.”

    “…No doubt, homosexual activist groups will claim that psychiatry has at last recognized that homosexuality is as ‘normal’ as heterosexuality. They will be wrong. In removing homosexuality per se from the nomenclature we are only recognizing that by itself homosexuality does not meet the criteria for being considered a psychiatric disorder. We will in no way be aligning ourselves with any particular viewpoint regarding the etiology or desirability of homosexual behavior.”

    “…Therefore, this change should in no way interfere with or embarrass those dedicated psychiatrists and psychoanalysts who have devoted themselves to understanding and treating those homosexuals who have been unhappy with their lot. They, and others in our field, will continue to try to help homosexuals who suffer from what we can now refer to as Sexual orientation disturbance, helping the patient accept or live with his current sexual orientation, or if he desires, helping him to change it.”

Fact 3:

2010 peer reviewed study published in The Journal of Men’s Studies found that men experiencing unwanted homosexual attractions seeking sexual orientation change experienced “a decrease in homosexual feelings and behavior, an increase in heterosexual feelings and behavior, and a positive change in psychological functioning.”

NARTH Summary of a Newly Published Study on Sexual Orientation Change Efforts

Summary Written by Benjamin Erwin, Ph.D.

Karten, E. Y., & Wade, J. C. (2010). Sexual orientation change efforts in men: A client perspective. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 18, 84-102.

March 1st, 2010 - Dr. Elan Y. Karten and Dr. Jay C. Wade authored a study published in the Journal of Men’s Studies investigating the social and psychological characteristics of men experiencing unwanted homosexual attractions seeking sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE). This study was based on Dr. Karten’s doctoral dissertation at Fordham University, New York, under the direction of Dr. Jay Wade.

Karten and Wade make both timely and significant contributions to the body of evidence understanding SOCE. They investigated self-reported change, which factors were statistically associated with change, and which treatment interventions and techniques were perceived by clients to be most helpful. The authors specifically investigated whether male identity, sexual identity, high religiosity, psychological relatedness to other men, gender role conflict regarding affection between men, and marital status would be related to self-reported change in sexual and psychological functioning.

Karten & Wade found that overall clients experienced “a decrease in homosexual feelings and behavior, an increase in heterosexual feelings and behavior, and a positive change in psychological functioning.” The researchers discovered that the most significant factors correlating to successful SOCE were reduced conflict in expressing nonsexual affection with other men, being married, and feeling disconnected with men prior to treatment.

This study provides significant empirical evidence to factors related to SOCE. Although several meta-analysis reviews have shown the efficacy of SOCE (e.g. Byrd & Nicolosi, 2002; Jones & Yarhouse, 2000), Karten and Wade provide insight into which factors play a significant role in the change process. Such factors, like reduced conflict in expressing nonsexual affection with men, provide valuable empirical evidence that homosexual thoughts and feelings are greatly influenced by social and psychological factors. Such factors include one’s sense of gender identity and relatedness to other men. Daryl Bem’s theory, that the “Exotic Becomes Erotic,” is another way to summarize this social constructive viewpoint. This suggests that the absence/presence of healthy male relationships plays a critical role in the development/treatment of homosexuality.

For clinicians and clients currently involved with SOCE, this study highlights the importance of developing appropriate nonsexual male relationships. Participants perceived the most helpful interventions to be a men’s weekend/retreat, a psychologist, and a mentoring relationship. Considering the above findings regarding the significance of male identity and nonsexual affectionate relationships with other men, it is notable that at least two of these interventions involve healthy relationship development with men. In addition, participants perceived the two most helpful techniques to be understanding better the causes of one’s homosexuality and one’s emotional needs and issues and developing nonsexual relationships with other men.

Karten and Wade also found that SOCE actually helped psychological functioning. This is in direct contradiction to the APA’s executive summary from Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation that states “there was some evidence to indicate that individuals experienced harm from SOCE” (pg. 3). Any psychological intervention or technique has the risk to produce uncomfortable feelings and harm. Ethical guidelines dictate that informed consent statements disclose this fact to clients. However, it is a double standard to assume that SOCE produces any significantly different effects for clients than any other form of psychotherapy or counseling. Karten & Wade provide valuable evidence that SOCE is not contraindicated, but in fact helps psychological functioning.

This study reflects that mainstream literature is beginning to give voice to scientific research and empirical inquiry regarding SOCE. Although such research may not be considered politically correct, Karten and Wade should be praised for their courage to investigate such issues, and Fordham University should be lauded for sponsoring it. Karten and Wade have followed similar pioneers such as Dean Byrd who asserts “though such research into sexual reorientation may be viewed as politically incorrect, no longer can it be ignored. Sociopolitical concerns must not interfere with the scientist’s freedom to research any reasonable hypothesis, or to explore the efficacy of any reasonable treatment.”

While some would encourage practitioners to provide “affirmative” treatments but “not to aim to alter sexual orientation” (APA’s executive summary, pg. 6), SOCE seeks to honor client self-determination. It is ironic that as society promotes self determination and autonomy, efforts to restrict the research and practice of SOCE actually discriminate against the self determination and autonomy of those with unwanted homosexual attractions. The Journal of Men’s Studies should be commended for their integrity in publishing honest research regardless of popular political sentiment. Perhaps other journals and scholarly publications will follow suit.

Fact 4: The political correctness of the APAs and their loss of scientific objectivity.

Past APA President, Dr. Nicholas Cummings, testifying how the “APA is politically based rather than scientifically based” as well as “confirming the research that reports that change is possible.”

“In a rousing address, American Psychological Association Past-President Dr. Nicholas Cummings shared his experience from his 60-year career as a psychologist and clinician. Dr. Cummings said that he has always been a champion of gay rights, and during his many years of leadership within the American Psychological Association, he influenced the organization to support many causes, including gay issues.

However, as a scientist, he began to have serious concerns over the direction the APA eventually was taking in becoming more influenced by politics than by science. He began to write extensively on the ways that the APA is politically based rather than scientifically based, describing one of his recent books, “Eleven Blunders that Cripple Psychotherapy in America” (Routledge, 2008).

He described his own experience in treating homosexuals for various issues, including men and women who were troubled with unwanted homosexual attractions. Dr. Cummings says he personally worked with homosexual clients who went on to marry and live heterosexual lives, confirming the research that reports that change is possible.”

Dr. Jeffrey Satinover M.D., Ph.D in his book titled: Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, expands upon how the APA was “driven by politics, not science.”

Excerpt from page 32:

    “The APA (American Psychiatric Association) vote to normalize homosexuality was driven by politics, not science. Even sympathizers acknowledged this. Ronald Bayer was then a Fellow at the Hastings Institute in New York. He reported how in 1970 the leadership of a homosexual faction within the APA planned a “systematic effort to disrupt the annual meetings of the American Psychiatric Association.”(3) They defended this method of ‘influence’ on the grounds that the APA represented “psychiatry as a social institution” rather than a scientific body or professional guild.”

APAs’ political bias on reparative or change therapy is blatant. They cite no scientific studies of harm. Rather, they use terms such as “expressed concerns” “no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy is safe or effective.” “it seems likely promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes.”

Excerpt:

    “All major national mental health organizations have officially expressed concerns about therapies promoted to modify sexual orientation. To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective. Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons.”

Dr. A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., MBA, MPH reviews a book titled: Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm. (Edited by Rogers H. Wright and Nicolas A. Cummings, 2005.) The book exemplifies how “The APA has chosen ideology over science.”

Excerpt from the review:

“…The authors condemn the APA for providing forums only for their preferred worldviews. They particularly note how psychology is undermined when APA makes resolutions and public policy statements on issues for which there is little or inadequate science. Such prostitution of psychology by activist groups within APA is contributing, they say, to the profession’s demise as a scientific organization. “Psychology and mental health,” Cummings says, “have veered away from scientific integrity and open inquiry, as well as from compassionate practice in which the welfare of the patient is paramount” (p. xiii).

Cummings and Wright note that “psychology, psychiatry, and social work have been captured by an ultraliberal agenda” (p. xiii) with which they personally agree regarding quite a few aspects, as private citizens. However, they express alarm at the damage that such an agenda is wreaking on psychology as a science and a practice, and the damage that is being done to the credibility of psychologists as professionals.

They reference a principle enunciated by former APA president Leona Tyler, where the advocacy of APA as an organization should be based upon “scientific data and demonstrable professional experience,” (p. xiv) leaving individual psychologists or groups of psychologists to advocate as concerned, private citizens. But they decry the “agenda-driven ideologues” in APA who erode psychology as a science. As they note, “The APA has chosen ideology over science, and thus has diminished its influence on the decision-makers in our society” (p. xiv).

…Gay Activism in APA

The issue of homosexuality is illustrative of how political correctness and a narrow definition of “diversity” have dominated APA. Wright notes: In the current climate, it is inevitable that conflict arises among the various subgroups in the marketplace. For example, gay groups within the APA have repeatedly tried to persuade the association to adopt ethical standards that prohibit therapists from offering psychotherapeutic services designed to ameliorate ‘gayness,’ on the basis that such efforts are unsuccessful and harmful to the consumer. Psychologists who do not agree with this premise are termed homophobic.

Such efforts are especially troubling because they abrogate the patient’s right to choose the therapist and determine the therapeutic goals. They also deny the reality of data demonstrating that psychotherapy can be effective in changing sexual preferences in patients who have a desire to do so (pp. xxx).

…The author’s view of the 1973 and 1974 decisions reclassifying homosexuality is worthy of quoting here:

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association yielded suddenly and completely to political pressure when in 1973 it removed homosexuality as a treatable aberrant condition. A political firestorm had been created by gay activists within psychiatry, with intense opposition to normalizing homosexuality coming from a few outspoken psychiatrists who were demonized and even threatened, rather than scientifically refuted.

Psychiatry’s House of Delegates sidestepped the conflict by putting the matter to a vote of the membership, marking the first time in the history of healthcare that a diagnosis or lack of diagnosis was decided by popular vote rather than scientific evidence (p. 9).

The authors do not complain about what was done, but rather, how it was done. The co-author (Cummings) of the chapter not only agrees with the outcome, but in 1974 introduced the successful resolution declaring that homosexuality was not a psychiatric condition. However, the resolution carried with it a “proscription that appropriate and needed research would be conducted to substantiate these decisions.” Cummings “watched with dismay as there was no effort on the part of APA to promote or even encourage such required research” (p. 9).

Unfortunately, both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association had established precedents “forever that medical and psychological diagnoses are subject to political fiat” (p. 9). As a result, the authors note, “Diagnosis today in psychology and psychiatry is cluttered with politically correct verbiage, which seemingly has taken precedence over sound professional experience and scientific validation” (p. 9).”

http://narth.com/docs/destructive.html

(Source: The Torah Declaration: http://www.torahdec.org/FatAPA.aspx. Used with permission)

 

Scientific Tests?

Should we take part in „scientific“ tests that want to (dis-)prove the possibility of change through our physical reactions?


From the bottom of my heart: NO.


Why is that?


There are many reasons for that. In short: You don’t want to go down to that level. Had I heard of ex-gay leaders that do that when I left my gay life, I’d probably not even have given the option of living a life aside from the gay scene a chance. I’ve been there where you show off your thing in public – I did not need to go back and go down to that level again.


Let’s go into detail:


First: Why would you want do that (and in some cases even take money for it!)? Think about the headlines: “Gay leader being paid for showing his thing in public”. You think that would really help the cause?

Maybe you want to do that to give a scientific “proof” for the possibility of change and thus motivate others. Nice motivation, bad thought. First you’d have to prove that you were “homosexual” at first place so you can prove you came out of it and changed to heterosexual. As the causes of “homosexuality” to this day are not even clear, it is impossible to do that. So any attempt to prove the possibility of change is futile from the beginning.

Second: Think about what could go wrong. You might be nervous, you might have a physical disease or what not. All of that could influence and/or distort the outcome – with dramatic consequences for people wanting and seeking change.

For a scientific test to be valid, it would also need to be repeated. How many men do you think can be found willing to do this?

Most of all, however, our goal is NOT to change from “homosexual” to heterosexual, but to become followers of Christ (for the non-Christians: to find freedom from same-sex attractions – however that might look like for the individual).


Do I think that change from “homosexual” to heterosexual is possible? Absolutely. For God all things are possible that might be impossible for men.

But: Who do you need to prove that to? The institutes that do those tests most likely than not are not what you might call “neutral” – else they wouldn’t do the test (see above). I don’t believe Christian scientists or serious secular scientists would do such “experiments”. Gay activists would not be convinced, even if the test would prove what you want it to prove. People that seek help might not be encouraged, but discouraged. Why? Some of them struggled for years to find freedom. Now they hear that this guy has changed a 100 %. I don’t know about you guys, but in my case this would add shame to the guilt. I’d even feel worse than ever before for not having made it yet.


Now just for the sake of the argument let’s assume everything goes according to plan and 100 men do the test and give a “scientific” prove they changed (again: it would not even be scientific at first place because you first need to prove you were “homosexual”). What would that show? That change is possible? So what? It would not be a sign for something being wrong or right from a moral perspective. Even if change would not be possible something could be wrong from a moral perspective. Even if change is possible, it does not make things right (if so, heterosexual men could and maybe even should change to “homosexuals” too).


Again: Do not go down to the level of some gay activists. Neither did Jesus. He was mocked and told to do this and that if He really was the Son of God. He did none of it. It would have been easy to say something like “Just for the record: You see that Temple over here? BOOF! Now you don’t!” or say or do something else to “scientifically prove” He stand above physics and thus is very “likely” to be the Son of God. He did none of it but stayed silent, knowing that people would not even believe then. Even the miracles He did perform were done to show people the importance of faith and not to show what a great magician Jesus really was. He did not need to prove anything to anybody. If people did not come to Him by faith, there is no point for them to follow Him anyways. Jesus even called those blessed that do not see and still believe. That should teach us a lesson.


Finally: As every good Christian we should surround ourselves with good and healthy Christian men that walk with us through life and encourage and/or exhort us and help us find the right decisions. God pointed out several times that our hearts are deceitful and we should not trust them. For us alone it is impossible to find out which ones of the many voices we get to hear each day are from God and which from the other side. In important matters – and taking such tests as men who have responsibilities certainly is an important matter – we should listen to the advice of our friends and also the advice and opinion of the people we work together with in a ministry and/or church congregation. Else we are very prone to fall for pride and arrogance (“Had I always listened to others, I’d have never achieved what I did achieve!” – Really? If there is something good we did achieve we did so through the blessings of God and through His sanctifying work). Works of the flesh (like pride) will never bring forth fruits of the Spirit. As believers in Jesus we are not individuals cut off from the rest – we are part of the body of Christ and should act like that.


Rob


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

Links National

Links International

Resources

Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate

Stanton L. Jones: Ex-Gays?: A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation

Neil and Briar Whitehead: My Genes Made Me Do It! - A Scientific Look at Sexual Orientation.

HEALTH CONCERNS OF HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR - A Voice of the Voiceless Reference. Volume 1. 2/3/2014

Feed design by pfalzonline.de

Feed design by pfalzonline.de

New research on same-sex households reveals kids do best with mom and dad(2015)

Posted by We can defend marriage on Dienstag, 1. März 2016

Miriam Grossman, MD

Shame on you, United Nations

Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:57:02 +0000March 18, 2013 Shame on you, United Nations The UN’s annual Commission on the Status of Women just came to an end. I spoke there last week, and urged other nations to protect their youth from the onslaught of US-made “comprehensive” sexuality education (CSE). Why? Because the priority of CSE is sexual rights and sexual

Are You My Mother?

Sun, 10 Mar 2013 17:52:18 +0000March 10,2013 Are You My Mother? I’m going to makes lots of money. While I’m no whiz at investing, I do know this: if demand for an item is high and supply is low, its price goes up. That basic principle of economics occurred to me while I was reading a book to my grandson

More abortions for the abortion capital of the nation?

Mon, 04 Mar 2013 19:49:45 +0000March 4,2013 More abortions for the abortion capital of the nation? Last week I spoke at a press conference in Albany with a group of health professionals. We were there to oppose legislation that would expand access to abortions, especially late ones, in New York State. I’m not against all abortions; I believe there are

Gay or Straight? When others decide for you* – Part Two

Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:37:08 +0000February 21,2013 Gay or Straight? When others decide for you* – Part Two In not too long, Malik felt better. He decided against therapy of any kind, aside from medication. For a while he came in to see me regularly, but then his name disappeared from my schedule. My calls to him were not returned. I

Gay or Straight? When others decide for you – Part One

Wed, 13 Feb 2013 07:07:37 +0000February 13,2013 Gay or Straight? When others decide for you – Part One A lawsuit was recently filed in New Jersey against an organization called JONAH -Jews Offering New Alternatives to Healing. I plan to blog about it, but as an introduction to the topic, here’s a true story: I once saw a college student

Say it’s not so: HPV in the Brain

Thu, 31 Jan 2013 07:00:54 +0000January 31,2013 Say it’s not so: HPV in the Brain Evidence of the human papilloma virus (HPV) has been found in the brains of children with epilepsy. Epilepsy is a disorder that causes repeated seizures over time. It has various causes, such as head trauma or brain cancer. The type of epilepsy associated with HPV

Feed design by pfalzonline.de

Feed design by pfalzonline.de

Feed design by pfalzonline.de