Born Gay

Vergessen Sie, was Sie bisher über Gene wussten. Im Zeitalter der Epigenetik entscheiden Sie über Ihren Gencode mit!

Obwohl jede Zelle 20 000 Gene hat, verwendet sie nur einen kleinen Teil davon – und schaltet den Rest einfach ab. Warum und wie sie das tut und welche Konsequenzen das hat, erklärt die Epigenetik.

Hielt man bisher die DNA für einen unveränderlichen Code, so weiß man inzwischen, dass laufend kleine Moleküle oberhalb („epi“) der Nukleotid-Sequenz der DNA hinzugefügt oder wieder entfernt werden. Veränderte Markierungs-Muster werden dann von Speizial-Enzymen gelesen, die Schritte zum An- oder Abschalten von Genen einleiten.

Die durch die Markierung entstandene Information bildet das Epigenom – die chemisch veränderte Erbgut-Information DNA. Das Epigenom wiederum entscheidet über die Protein-Produktion der Zellen.

Diese Erkenntnisse sind revolutionär. Vorbei die Zeiten, in denen man dachte, ein Gen würde zwangsweise ein Verhalten hervorrufen. Tatsächlich hängt es von der Umwelt wie vom eigenen Verhalten ab, ob dieses Gen überhaupt „angeschaltet“ - oder gar verändert – wird.

Trotz gleicher Erbinformationen können also unterschiedliche Zellen oder auch unterschiedliche Lebewesen entstehen. So kann eine menschliche Stammzelle über 200 verschiedene Gewebe produzieren. Ob aus einer Bienenlarve eine Arbeiterin oder eine Königin wird, entscheidet das Epigenom, das Gene an- und abschaltet.

Verwendet wird letztendlich, was gebraucht wird. Zwar werden alle 20 000 menschlichen Gene laufend benötigt, aber nie gleichzeitig in einer einzigen Zelle.

Das Epigenom entscheidet aber nicht nur über die Verwendung, es speichert auch die Information – durch anfangs erwähntes Anhängen kleiner Moleküle an die DNA. Durch dieses Anhängen werden die Gene markiert und gegebenenfalls auch abgeschaltet. Diese Markierung ist in der Regel auch stabil. Es bedarf schon des Eingreifens durch Enzyme, um sie wieder zu lösen. Diese Flexibilität, die sich im An- und Abschalten von Genen zeigt, ist für unser Leben auch sehr wichtig: Das Epigenom kann somit auf Veränderungen reagieren – und diese sogar an die nächste Generation weiter geben. Es muss ja nicht immer das Rad von Neuem erfunden werden. Der veränderte Bauplan wird an die Nachkommen übertragen, sodass diese besser an ihre Umwelt angepasst sind.

Molekulare Mechanismen führen also zu einem stärkeren oder schwächeren Ablesen von Genen. Die auf ihnen befindliche Information wird aber nicht verändert. Dies wurde lange Zeit von der Fachwelt übersehen und revolutioniert die heutige Sichtweise.

Wissenschaftler haben durch die Epigenetik eine völlig neue Vorstellung davon bekommen, wie sich Lebewesen entwickeln und wie sie in einem komplexen Organismus zusammen arbeiten. Es reicht bei weitem nicht mehr, ein Gen zu präsentieren und damit schlüssige Entwicklungen folgern zu wollen.

Die Epigenetik kann und wird eine wichtige Rolle bei der Bekämpfung und Verhinderung von Krankheiten spielen – etwa beim Krebs.

Sie wird allerdings auch gesellschaftliche und politische Diskussionen nachhaltig beeinflussen: Nun kann eben nicht mehr behauptet werden, man werde zwangsweise homosexuell, weil man ein dementsprechendes (bisher allerdings noch nicht gefundenes) Gen habe. Diese Art von Steinzeit-Wissenschaft ist längst überholt und qualifiziert den Verwender derartiger Argumente als nicht informiert und nicht up-to-date. Das mag nun nicht mehr politisch korrekt, dafür aber umso wissenschaftlicher sein.

Was die klassische Genetik bisher nicht erklären konnte, scheint sich mittlerweile abzuzeichnen: offenbar können einzelne Merkmale vererbt werden, ohne dabei das Erbgut an sich zu verändern.

So fand man etwa heraus, dass die Einwohner eines Dorfes in Nordschweden länger lebten, weil ihre Großväter Hunger leiden mussten und die Gesundheit der Enkel genetisch beeinflussten. Das klassische Gen-Modell kann dies nicht erklären, da Gene nur sehr langsam und schrittweise durch die Evolution verändert werden, keinesfalls aber in einer oder zwei Generationen. Die DNA oder Proteine auf ihr wurden chemisch durch epigenetische Marker verändert – die Abfolge der DNA-Bausteine bleibt jedoch dieselbe. Allerdings ändert sich die Aktivität dieser Gene – bis hin zum völligen An- oder Abschalten. Die Zellen erhalten durch die Marker eine Art Handbuch dafür, wie sie mit den DNA-Bausteinen umgehen sollen. Diese Marker können dann auch vererbt werden, was aber nicht zwangsweise der Fall ist. So hat sich etwa der Stress von Rattenmüttern auf deren Nachkommen übertragen, die „automatisch“ ängstlicher waren.

Wichtig ist hierbei der Unterschied zwischen der epigenetischen Vererbung, also der Übertragung von der Mutter auf das Kind, und den generations-übergreifenden epigenetischen Effekten, der Prägung des Fetus im Mutterleib. Die Prägung etwa kann in der nächsten Generation wieder verschwinden.

Ob eine epigenetische Vererbung auch beim Menschen möglich ist, ist allerdings weiterhin umstritten. Epigenetische Prägung ist sehr wohl auch beim Menschen möglich, die epigenetische Vererbung nach bisherigem Wissensstand eher unwahrscheinlich.

In anderen Worten: Es hängt also von vielen verschiedenen Faktoren (etwa der Umwelt) ab, ob und in welcher Stärke Gene zum Tragen kommen oder ob sich ein Verhalten oder eine Veränderung von den Eltern auf die Kinder überträgt und diese prägt. Ein gegebener Gencode allein besagt noch wenig. Offenbar wird dieses „Handbuch“ des Umgangs mit der DNA aber nicht über mehrere Generationen vererbt. Letzteres wird wissenschaftlich allerdings noch diskutiert.

Bisher war man der Ansicht, dass nur spontane Gen-Mutationen – und nicht etwa die Umwelt - das Erbgut verändern. Dies wird in dieser Form von der Wissenschaft nicht mehr aufrecht erhalten. Die Markierungen auf den DNA-Basen haben das letzte Wort darüber, welches Gen verwendet wird und welches nicht – und in welcher Form. Dies geschieht sehr wohl in Anpassung an die Umwelt.

Augenblicklich ist man der Ansicht, dass die Epigenetik das Zusammenspiel zwischen den Zellen beeinflusst, nicht jedoch die Ausprägung neuer Funktionen oder Organe. Epigenetische Marker werden zwar vererbt, aber nur wenige davon. Bei Pflanzen werden epigenetische Veränderungen dauerhaft vererbt, bei Säugetieren ist das Epigenom spätestens in der dritten Generation wieder in seinem Ursprungs-Zustand.

Klar ist jedoch eines: Das bisherige wissenschaftliche Dogma, dass die Eigenschaften eines Organismus durch das Erbgut, dass ihm bei Geburt mitgegeben wird, unveränderlich und für alle Zeiten feststehen, ist gekippt. Das ist schlichtweg falsch.

Diese Erkenntnis kann in ihrer Tragweite gar nicht bedeutend genug eingeschätzt werden. Die Thesen von so manchen Hobby-Wissenschaftlern können somit schnell entkräftet werden.

Selbst geringfügige Umweltveränderungen können einen Einfluss auf unser Erbgut haben.

Diese Erkenntnis wird viele Wissenschaftsgebiete betreffen – unter anderem auch die Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie. Was bisher als unveränderlich galt und somit hingenommen und als moralisch akzeptabel gesehen werden musste (etwa Formen und Ausprägungen menschlicher Sexualität wie eben die Homosexualität), stellen sich nun in einem völlig anderen Licht dar. Dies bedeutet aber auch ein Ende der Verteufelung politisch nicht korrekter therapeutischer Ansätze. Wissenschaft muss sich vom Zeitgeist lösen und hiervon unabhängig forschen – und diese Forschungen auch veröffentlichen und auf ihrer Basis arbeiten dürfen.

Alles andere ist Gehirnwäsche mittels politischer Propaganda. Das allerdings hatten wir in der deutschen Geschichte schon einmal.

(Quellen: http://www.wissensschau.de/genom/epigenetik_und_epigenom.php, http://www.spektrum.de/thema/epigenetik/1191602, abgerufen am 15.06.2017)

Epigenetic theories of homosexuality

Epigenetic theories of homosexuality concern the studies of changes in gene expression or cellular phenotype caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence, and their role in the development of homosexuality.[1][2][3] Epigenetics examines the set of chemical reactions that switch parts of the genome on and off at strategic times and locations in the organism's life cycle. However, epigenetic theories tangle a multiplicity of initiating causes and of resulting final effects and will never lead to a single cause or a single result. Hence, any interpretation of such theories may not focus just one isolated reason of a multiplicity of causes or of effects.[4]

Instead of affecting the organism's DNA sequence, non-genetic factors may cause the organism’s genes to express themselves differently. DNA in the human body is wrapped around histones, which are proteins that package and order DNA into structural units. DNA and histone are covered with chemical tags known as the epigenome, which shapes the physical structure of the genome.[5] It tightly wraps inactive genes on the DNA sequence making those genes unreadable while loosely wrapping active genes making them more expressive. The more tightly wrapped the gene, the less it will be expressed in the organism. These epigenetic tags react to stimuli presented from the outside world. It adjusts specific genes in the genome to respond to humans' rapidly changing environments. The idea of epigenetics and gene expression has been a theory applied to the origins of homosexuality in humans. One team of researchers examined the effects of epi-marks buffering XX fetuses and XY fetuses from certain androgen exposure and used published data on fetal androgen signaling and gene regulation through non-genetic changes in DNA packaging to develop a new model for homosexuality.[6] The researchers found that stronger than average epi-marks, epigenomes that are wrapped tightly around the DNA sequence, convert sexual preference in individuals without altering genitalia or sexual identity.[7] This research gives support to the hypothesis that homosexuality stems from the under expression of certain genes on the DNA sequence involved with sexual preferences. This theory as well as other concepts involved with epi-marks, twin studies, and fetal androgen signaling will be explored here.

Epigenetic marks

Epigenetic marks (epi-marks) are temporary "switches" that control how our genes are expressed during gestation and after birth. Moreover, epi-marks are modifications of histone proteins.[8] Epigenetic marks are modifications of the methyl and acetyl groups that bind to DNA histones thereby changing how the proteins function and as a result, alter gene expression.[9] Epi-marks change how the histones function and as a result, influence the way genes are expressed.[1] Epigenetic marks promote normal sexual development during fetal development. However, they can be passed on to offspring through the process of mitosis. When they are transferred from one parent to an offspring of the opposite sex, it can contribute to an altered sexual development, thus leading to masculinization of female offspring and feminization of male offspring.[10] However, these epi-marks hold no consistency between individuals in regard to strength and variability.[citation needed]

Twin studies

Identical twins have identical DNA, which leads to the perceived conclusion that all identical twins are either heterosexual or homosexual. However, it is evident that this is not the case, consequently leaving a gap in the explanation for homosexuality. A "gay" gene does not produce homosexuality. Rather, epigenetic modifications act as temporary "switches" that regulate how the genes are expressed.[10] Of the pairs of identical twins in which one twin is homosexual, only twenty percent of the other twins are homosexual, which leads to the hypothesis that even though identical twins share the same DNA, homosexuality is created by something else rather than the genes. Epigenetic transformation allows the on and off switching of certain genes, subsequently shaping how cells respond to androgen signaling, which is critical in sexual development.[6] Another example of epigenetic consequences is evident in multiple sclerosis in monozygotic (identical) twins. There are pairs of twins that are discordant with multiple sclerosis and do not both show the trait. After gene testing, it was suggested that DNA was identical and that epigenetic differences contributed to the gene difference between identical twins.[11]

Effects of fetal androgen exposure

While in the fetal stages, hormonal influences of androgen, specifically testosterone, cause feminine qualities in regard to sexual development in females and masculine qualities in males. In typical sexual development, females are exposed to minimal amounts of testosterone, thus feminizing their sexual development, while males are typically exposed to high levels of testosterone, which masculinize their development. Epi-marks play a critical role in this development by acting as a buffer between the fetus and androgen exposure. Moreover, they predominantly protect XY fetuses from androgen underexposure while protecting XX fetuses from androgen overexposure.[1] However, when androgen overexposure happens in XX fetuses, research suggests they can show masculinized behavior in comparison to females who undergo normal levels of androgen exposure. The research also suggests that excess androgen exposure in females led to reduced heterosexual interest in adulthood than did females with normal levels of androgen.[12]

Heritability

New epi-marks are usually produced with each generation, but these marks sometimes carry over between generations. Sex-specific epi-marks are produced in early fetal development that protect each sex from the natural disparity in testosterone that occurs during later stages of fetal development. Different epi-marks protect different sex-specific traits from being masculinized or feminized—some affect the genitals, others affect sexual identity, and yet others affect sexual preference. However, when these epi-marks are transmitted across generations from fathers to daughters or mothers to sons, they may cause reversed effects, such as the feminization of some traits in sons and similarly a partial masculinization of daughters. Furthermore, the reversed effects of feminization and masculinization can lead to a reversed sexual preference. For example, sex-specific epi-marks normally prevent female fetuses from being masculinized through exposure of atypically high testosterone, and vice versa for male fetuses. Sex-specific epi-marks are normally erased and not passed between generations. However, they can sometimes escape erasure and are then transferred from a father's genes to a daughter or from a mother's genes to a son. When this happens, this may lead to an altered sexual preference.[1] Epi-marks normally protect parents from variation in sex hormone levels during fetal development, but can carry over across generations and subsequently lead to homosexuality in opposite-sex offspring. This demonstrates that gene coding for these epi-marks can spread in the population because they benefit the development and fitness of the parent but only rarely escape erasure, leading to same-sex sexual preference in offspring.[citation needed]

References

1) William R. Rice, Friberg, Urban and Sergey Gavrilets. "Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development." The Quarterly Review of Biology 87.4 (2012): n. pag. Print. PMID 23397798 doi:10.1086/668167

2) Rice WR, Friberg U, Gavrilets S. 2013. Homosexuality via canalized sexual development: A testing protocol for a new epigenetic model. BioEssays 35: 343-368

3) Rice W. R., Friberg U., and Gavrilets S. 2016. Sexually antagonistic epigenetic marks that canalize sexually dimorphic development. Molecular Ecology 12: DOI: 10.1111/mec.13490

4) "Ausbildungskonzept "Integrated approaches to teach and study the role of evolution for the emergence of biological complexity"". Archived from the original on 2017-07-01. Retrieved 2016-11-28.

5) "The Epigenome at a Glance." Genetic Science Learning Center. The University of Utah, 2013. Web. 10 Apr. 2013.

6) Richards, Sabrina. "Can Epigenetics Explain Homosexuality?." The Scientist. N.p., 1 Jan. 2013. Web. 13 Apr. 2013.

7) "National Geographic Explains the Biology of Homosexuality." YouTube. YouTube, 04 Feb. 2009. Web. 13 Apr. 2013.

8) Ruthenburg, A., C. Allis, and J. Wysocka. "Methylation of Lysine 4 on Histone H3: Intricacy of Writing and Reading a Single Epigenetic Mark." Molecular Cell 25.1 (2007): 15-30. Print. PMID 17218268 doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2006.12.014

9) Jablonka E and MJ Lamb (2010). Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. In: M Pigliucci and GB Müller Evolution, the expanded synthesis

10) "Gene Regulation May Explain How Homosexuality Flourishes." LiveScience.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Apr. 2013.

11) Handunnetthi, Lahiru, Adam Handel, and Sreeram V. Ramagopalan. Contribution of Genetic, Epigenetic and Transcriptomic Differences to Twin Discordance in Multiple Sclerosis. Ebsco Host. Psyc Info, 2010. Web. PMID 20819009 doi:10.1586/ern.10.116

12) Brook, Charles, Gerard S. Conway, and Melissa Hines. "Androgen and Psychosexual Development: Core Gender Identity, Sexual Orientation, and Recalled Childhood Gender Role Behavior in Women and Men with Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH)." Journal of Sex Research 41.1 (2004): 75-81. Online PMID 15216426

(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetic_theories_of_homosexuality August 25th, 2019)

Born Gay - Schwul geboren?

An dieser Stelle möchten wir etwas klar stellen:

Unserer Meinung nach konzentrieren sich Ex-Gay Ministries viel zu sehr auf die Diskussion, ob "Homosexualität" nun angeboren sei oder nicht. Das ist aus unserer Sicht höchst bedenklich. Wir sind Christen und als solche sollten wir uns nicht auf das Feld der weltlichen Wissenschaft begeben. Es ist für uns völlig unerheblich, ob Homosexualität nun in den Genen verankert ist oder nicht. Für uns zählt alleine, dass Gott uns gesagt hat, "Homosexualität" (bzw. das Ausleben gleichgeschlechtlicher Neigungen oder das Verfolgen unangemessener Phantasien oder Gedanken) sei eine Sünde. Und wir sind der festen Überzeugung, dass der Schöpfer aller Dinge weiß, warum er das gesagt hat und uns vor den Konsequenzen eines sündhaften Verhaltens bewahren will. Wenn man sich zu sehr auf diese Diskussion einlässt, kann es sein, dass man eines Tages weggefegt wird, sollte sich doch einmal herausstellen, dass es Gene gibt, die es "wahrscheinlicher" machen, dass ein Mensch homosexuell wird. Für uns würde dies nichts - aber auch GAR nichts - an der Tatsache ändern, dass wir als Christen nicht "homosexuell" leben können.

"Homosexuelle" Gruppierungen führen auch oft an, dass evangelikale Christen allein aus einem Grund so sehr darauf bestehen, dass "Homosexualität" nicht angeboren sei: dann könnten sie nämlich folgern, dass es ein reines Verhaltensproblem und damit "therapierbar" sei. Wenn im Umkehrschluss nachgewiesen würde, dass "Homosexualität" angeboren sei, dann "können die Betroffenen nichts dafür" und sind damit "fein raus"...

Selbst wenn morgen ein "schwules Gen entdeckt würde": Sexualität lässt sich nicht auf einen einzigen Faktor zurück führen. Außerdem ist die Tatsache, dass etwas "angeboren" ist, kein Hinweis auf die moralische Richtigkeit. Ganz abgesehen davon sind wir keine Sklaven unseres Gencodes. Wäre das nicht ein Armutszeugnis? Für Christinnen und Christen ist es außerdem zweitrangig, woher es kommt. Für uns ist es keine "Krankheit", sondern homosexuelle Handlungen und Fantasien widersprechen unserer Meinung nach dem Willen Gottes, den wir aus der Bibel entnehmen. Wir wissen, dass Gott uns liebt und wir wissen auch, dass Er uns einen Leitfaden mitgegeben hat, an dem wir uns orientieren sollten. Nicht, weil Er uns gerne herum kommandiert, sondern weil er uns vor Schlimmeren bewahren will...

Es steht jedem frei, zu tun und zu lassen, was er/sie will. Wir haben uns für das Wort Gottes entschieden.

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

Ich habe gehört. Homosexualität sei angeboren und 10 % der Bevölkerung seien homosexuell. Stimmt das?

Nein. Die "10 % - Theorie" wurde inzwischen hinreichend widerlegt und beruht auf fehlerhaften Grundlagen (diese Zahl beruht auf einer Studie von Alfred Kinsey in den späten 40ern). Es gibt bis heute nicht einen einzigen Beweis dafür, dass Homosexualität angeboren ist. Ganz im Gegenteil. Sexualität wird nicht einfach durch ein Gen bestimmt. Ein Fußballer mag vielleicht auch Eigenschaften wie Kraft, Ausdauer, Geschicklichkeit usw. geerbt haben - deswegen gibt es aber noch lange kein "Fußball-Gen" (und selbst wenn es das gäbe, heßt das noch lange nicht, dass aus ihm ein Fußballer werden MUSS)! Nochmal: selbst wenn dem so wäre: inzwischen geht man auch davon aus, dass Alkoholismus und bestimmte Formen kriminellen Verhaltens genetische Ursachen haben können. Würde deshalb irgenjemand auf die Idee kommen, zu behaupten, Alkoholismus oder Kriminalität seinen "normal" oder "natürlich"? Für uns ist Homosexualität zunächst einmal eine Sünde, und als solche können wir sie sehr wohl überwinden. Dafür ist Jesus schließlich am Kreuz gestorben. Wir sind nicht Sklaven unserer Triebe. Hierbei ist auch anzumerken, dass es Gemeinsamkeiten im Lebenslauf vieler Homosexueller gibt, die o.g. Theorie in einem anderen Licht erscheinen lassen: körperlicher, seelischer oder verbaler Missbrauch in der Kindheit, ein emotional nicht zugänglicher Vater (Mutter), Depressionen, Angsterkrankungen, Suizidalität, ein niedriges Selbstwertgefühl (besonders im Umgang mit dem eigenen Geschlecht) usw. Eine realistischere Prozentzahl von Menschen mit überwiegend gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen liegt bei etwa 2 - 4 % der Bevölkerung (manche Studien liegen sogar noch darunter).

(siehe auch die Bücher von Joe Dallas)

Was, wenn eines Tages doch bewiesen wird, dass Homosexualität genetische Ursachen hat?

Wer Freiheit von der "Homosexualität" sucht, sollte sich nie nur von wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnissen leiten lassen, sondern von der Stimme des Schöpfers aller Dinge. Gehen wir aber um der Diskussion willen davon aus, es wird ein "schwules Gen" gefunden.

Na und? Eine genetische Veranlagung führt nicht zwangsweise zu einem bestimmten Verhalten. Ein Mensch mag Ausdauer, Kraft, Geschicklichkeit, schnelle Reflexe, einen optimalen Körperbau, eine vorteilhafte Energie-Effizienz usw. geerbt haben. Damit ist er aber noch lange kein ausgezeichneter Fußballer. Die Umgebung und Erfahrung spielen hierbei eine entscheidende Rolle.

Ganz abgesehen davon: Auch Alkoholismus und bestimmte Formen kriminellen Verhaltens sollen genetische Ursachen haben (womit Alkoholiker oder Kriminelle nicht mit Menschen mit gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen gleichgesetzt oder verglichen werden sollen. Hier soll daran erinnert werden, wohin es führen kann, wenn man derartige Argumentationen weiter führt). Werden sie damit "normal" oder "natürlich"? Auch hier sind die Menschen keineswegs willenlose Objekte ihres Gencodes. Sie können ihr Handeln höchstwahrscheinlich durchaus beeinflussen.

Der Leitfaden für unser Handeln und Denken bleibt auch weiterhin das Wort Gottes - und das sagt uns ganz klar, dass Homosexualität eine Sünde ist. Unabhängig von der Ursache! Wir finden nirgends in der Bibel einen Satz wie: Du darfst dieses und jenes nicht tun, außer du hast eine natürliche Veranlagung hierzu!

Schließen wir mit Joe Dallas: "Unmoralisches Verhalten kann nicht durch eine schnelle Taufe im Gen-Pool legitimiert werden".

Siehe auch artikel bei NARTH hier.oder diesen Artikel.

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

Biologische Faktoren zwingen uns keineswegs zu bestimmten Verhaltensformen. Sie machen dieses Verhalten höchstens wahrscheinlicher!

Was sagt die Bibel - Verhalten oder Orientierung?

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

My genes made me do it?

Yesterday I saw a scientific magazine on TV which reported about groundbreaking new research in genetics.

What was first a theory seems to become reality now:

Example:

Take a mother that had to go through famine and thus her hips are not wide enough for a normal baby and would damage it through birth. Now the theory was that obviously - as the babies come to this world a little smaller than usual, the mother can transport information into the genes of the baby. But how?

Now a scientist in Sweden checked reports that have been done for centuries there over famines and births.

To sum it all up:

Obviously it is true - environmental factors can change the genetic code. And what is even more interesting: in apes they found out that this NEW information is being passed on to the next generation!

That should shut up the gays for good. Even if you assume "homosexuality" has a genetic cause, it may well be nurtured through environmental factors!

Similar things have been found with the brain studies: there it was claimed that "homosexual" persons have a different brain structure than heterosexual ones. Now the gays shouted out: GREAT! We are born gay!

NO - also in ape studies scientists proved that external factors just as well as behavior can change the structure of the brain, too! Neurons (the cells the brain is made of) learn through experience. So if you do something over and over again, the synapses that connect the neurons will be used a lot and thus strenthened. Which finally changes the whole structure. Little apes who have been traumatized for example showed a significant change in structure!

And everybody who has been in the gay scene can witness that: when the guys are coming there for the first time, they are still somewhat shy and natural. After a couple of years, their attitude, the way they move and talk and even their gestures and mimicry - everything totally changes! Like a different person!

So the theory that we have no influence on our genes is crumbling down...

Robert

Fragen

Homosexualität ist nicht falsch - schließlich ist mittlerweile klar, dass Schwule so geboren worden sind! Da müsste Gott ja einen Fehler gemacht haben!

Zum einen gibt es bis jetzt noch keinen einzigen beweis dafür, dass Homosexualität angeboren ist - warum also annehmen, Gott hätte uns "schwul" gemacht? Sexualität wird für gewöhnlich durch ein Bündel verschiedenster Faktoren beeinflusst, wobei die Gene nur einen Teil ausmachen. Zum anderen ist es für einen Christen unerheblich, ob man so "geboren" wurde oder nicht. Wir sind nicht Sklaven unseres Gencodes und außerdem ist die Tatsache, dass etwas "angeboren" ist kein Hinweis dafür, ob es auch moralisch richtig ist. Gesetzt den Fall, es gäbe tatsächlich ein "schwules Gen": als Christen müssen wir dann eben lernen, damit zu leben. Für uns ist die Bibel ausschlaggebend und das, was Gott uns darin sagt.

Ich habe mir meine Gefühle doch nicht ausgesucht!

Das mag so sein. Es gibt aber weitaus mehr Gefühle, die wir uns nicht aussuchen. Manchmal sind wir vielleicht wütend oder eifersüchtig. Diese Gefühle haben wir uns auch nicht ausgesucht - wir können uns aber sehr wohl aussuchen, ob wir ihnen freien Lauf geben und sie ausleben!

Ich bin schon homosexuell, seitdem ich denken kann!

Vielleicht hast du tatsächlich schon seit frühester Kindheit gemerkt, dass du "anders" bist (wobei wir hier ausdrücklich "anders" betonen - kann es nicht auch sein, dass du nur rückwirkend alles in diesem Licht interpretierst - was weiß ein Kleinkind denn schon von Homosexualität?). Vielleicht kannst du dich einfach nicht mehr erinnern. Wie dem auch immer - selbst das macht etwas nicht richtig oder falsch.

Gott hat mir also diese Gefühle gegeben - und jetzt will Er, dass ich ihnen nicht nachgebe??

Nur weil du bestimmte Gefühle hast, muss das nicht gleich heißen, dass Gott sie dir gegeben hat. Alle Menschen haben Gefühle, die auszuleben dem christlichen Glauben widersprechen würde. Na und? Auch Jesus wurde versucht - und hat der Versuchung widerstanden!

Wie auch immer - aber ich kann doch meine Sexualität nicht einfach ändern! Wollt ihr mich umpolen?

Wir zwingen niemanden, etwas zu tun oder nicht zu tun und wir wollen erst recht niemanden "umpolen". Als Christinnen und Christen glauben wir tatsächlich daran, dass das, was Menschen unmöglich ist, sehr wohl für Gott möglich ist. Und zu Ihm wenden wir uns um Hilfe. Wir haben die Erfahrung gemacht, dass unsere gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen sowohl in ihrer Häufigkeit wie auch in ihrer Intensität erheblich nachgelassen haben. Bei einigen sind sie gar ganz verschwunden. Manche unter uns haben heterosexuelle Gefühle entwickelt oder diese verstärkt - und eine Familie gegründet. Andere blieben Singles. Allen gemeinsam aber ist, dass sie ein enges Verhältnis zu Gott aufgebaut haben und ihr Leben an dem orientieren, was er uns in der Bibel sagt. Es mag sein, dass wir noch gleichgeschlechtliche Gefühle haben, aber sie beherrschen uns nicht mehr. Wir haben unser altes Leben aufgegeben und ein neues in Christus begonnen. Gehorsam dem Herrn gegenüber ist für uns wichtiger als alles andere. Im übrigen gibt es weltweit Wissenschaftler, die sehr wohl daran glauben, dass Homosexuelle therapeutisch begleitet werden können (siehe hierzu auch unser Selbstverständnis).

Warum sollte Gott denn wollen, dass ich etwas verändere, dass ich mein ganzes Leben lang gehabt habe? Ich habe ja versucht, es zu verändern, war aber nichts. Das klingt doch überhaupt nicht nach Gott!

Das klingt sogar sehr nach Gott! Er fordert von dir nichts anderes als von allen von uns: uns selbst zu verleugnen, ja aufzugeben. Unser Kreuz auf uns zu nehmen und Ihm nach zu folgen! Er weiß, dass du versucht hast, dich zu ändern und das aus eigener Kraft nicht kannst! Er hat auch nicht gesagt, dass DU dich ändern musst. Er hat gesagt, du musst Ihm nachfolgen und gehorsam leben. Die Veränderung in unseren Herzen, also im Inneren, ist Sein Job - der Gehorsam allerdings unserer. Wir sind nicht hier, um unser "Selbst" zu befriedigen, sondern es zu verlieren. Nichts von uns und alles von Ihm!

Gen-Faktoren?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ältere Brüder?

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

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

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

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

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

Homosexualität und Evolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was wartet da schon hinter dem Vorhang?

Mögliche Konsequenzen von "Gen-Faktoren"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Auch hier darf man fragen: was kommt als nächstes?

Mögliche Konsequenzen von "Gen-Faktoren" - II

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

Nun - beides ist falsch, zumindest aus christlicher Sicht.

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

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

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

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

Fragen...

Noch ist doch gar nicht geklärt, was Homosexualität verursacht. Es könnte doch auch genetisch bedingt sein! Kann denn etwas Sünde sein, dass in unseren Genen ist?

Es ist erstaunlich, wie sich selbst Christen hier so leicht in die Irre führen lassen. Bleiben wir doch um der Diskussion willen bei dem Argument. Wo hört das dann auf? Was, wenn morgen genetische Mitursachen für Pädophilie, Alkoholismus, bestimmte Formen kriminellen Verhaltens entdeckt werden (hier soll keineswegs Homosexualität mit diesen Begriffen in eine Reihe gestellt werden, aber dieses Argument führt unweigerlich zu derartigen Konsequenzen!)? Ist dann all dies nicht mehr Sünde? Müssen wir dann die Bibel umschreiben? Nirgends in der Bibel finden wir einen Hinweis darauf, dass wir dieses oder jenes nicht tun dürfen, ausser wir hätten es in den Genen. Wenn ich genetisch bedingte Diabetes habe, darf ich auch nicht jedes Stück Torte essen, das auf dem Tisch steht - ich muss vielmehr lernen, damit zu leben (auch hier gilt: hiermit soll nicht Homosexualität mit Krankheiten gleichgesetzt werden. Es geht hier vielmehr um die irrige Annahme, dass etwas, was in irgendeiner Form Mitursachen in unserem Gencode hat, gleichzeitig deshalb moralisch akzeptabel sein muss). Es steht uns nicht zu, nach Gutdünken und mit unserer begrenzten menschlichen "Weisheit" Wahrheiten der Bibel umzuschreiben und am christlichen Menschenbild zu rütteln. An dieser Stelle soll auch noch auf etwas anderes hingewiesen werden: Was, wenn man mit dieser Überzeugung falsch liegt? Die Bibel warnt uns ausdrücklich davor, andere Menschen in die Irre zu führen und zur Sünde zu verleiten... Ausserdem vergisst man dabei auch oft die Tradtition und Lehrmeinung seiner eigenen Kirche - und dies in manchen Fällen über Jahrhunderte. Schließlich sind wir nicht Sklaven unseres Gencodes. Zu behaupten, es wäre genetisch bedingt und damit zu unterstellen, diese Menschen können ja gra nicht anders, zeugt von einem Menschenbild, das uns zu willenlosen Sklaven unserer Gene macht.

Wenn die Kirche das Ausleben von Homosexualität verbietet, werden solche Menschen doch nie sexuelle Erfüllung finden!

Also ist es besser, "sexuelle Erfüllung" in einem Kontext zu finden, der klar den biblischen Vorgaben widerspricht? Was für eine Theologie wäre denn das? Nein, wir ziehen den Hut vor all denen, die gleichgeschlechtliche Neigungen empfinden, aber für sich entschieden haben, dass sie Jesus mehr lieben als alles andere. Die ihr Kreuz auf sich nehmen und Jesus nachfolgen - auch wenn es nicht leicht wird. Aus eigenen Erfahrungen können wir Ihnen sagen: es lässt sich durchaus auch ein erfülltes Leben als Mensch mit gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen finden, ohne dabei Sex mit demselben Geschlecht haben zu müssen! Eine sexuelle "Erfüllung", die nicht den biblischen Vorgaben der monogamen und heterosexuellen, lebenslangen Ehe entspricht, ist keine "Erfüllung", sondern ein Bruch von Gottes Geboten und kann nie wahre Erfüllung bedeuten!

Eine Bekehrung von Homosexualität ist doch gar nicht möglich!

Die Frage ist, was man hiermit eigentlich sagen will. Der wissenschaftliche Hintergrund dieser Aussage sei mal dahingestellt (wir verweisen auf die este Langzeitstudie zu diesem Thema, die besonders auch auf den religiösen Hintergrund eingeht). Es geht aber hier nicht um "Bekehrung" im Sinne von "Umpolung". Es geht darum, ein Leben nach christlichen und biblisch begründeten Grundsätzen zu leben, und das schließt ein Ausleben von Homosexualität unserer Auffassung nach eindeutig aus. Es lässt sich aber durchaus ein Leben führen, ohne dies tun zu müssen. Ein Leben, das erfüllt und reichhaltig ist.

Why Gays Need to Believe They were Born Gay: A Neurotic Drive for Acceptance

Written By: Don D

(Posted May 2012)

Co-Directors' Introduction: The writer, a married man, who is presently in counseling for same-sex attraction (SSA) issues has frequently expressed frustration about how the gay activist agenda consistently negates his own positive therapeutic experiences and his continuing growth out of homosexuality. His negative experiences with those who support the political gay lobby led him to understand how diversity and tolerance is a one way street for such advocates, only supporting those who want to be gay while attacking both those who want to change and those who wish to assist those who desire change of sexual orientation. His introspection on this question led him to pen the following thesis.

___________________________________

A genetic deterministic argument has been made in the public arena for some very specific reasons that those of us who are same-sex attracted (SSA) need to understand. Acceptance of the genetic deterministic argument is the primary vehicle being used to attack normative religious doctrine in the public policy arena and to create a sea change in attitudes toward gay behaviors.

". . .people who think that gays are born that way are also more likely to support gay rights" Simon LeVay

A similar genetic argument is also used to attack the rights of SSA men who seek help from sympathetic mental health professionals.

"There is this strange connection between whether you think this therapy is useful and whether you are for the civil rights of homosexuals. The gay activists believe that if they could convince everybody that they can never change, then they would be in a better position to argue for gay civil rights...." Dr. Robert Spitzer

If my genetics determines my sexual orientation, then advocates of homosexuality believe it is unjust for them to be denied the same enjoyment and fulfillment of emotional and sexual bonding to a life partner that is enjoyed by heterosexuals; and, religious doctrine to that effect will seem unjust as well. It also means any treatment to overcome homosexual ideation is not only doomed to failure but will likely result in harm (even though numerous studies evidence that no harm exists from reparative therapy.) To understand why this argument is so viscerally important to gay men beyond its persuasive value in the public policy arena, and why understanding the fallacy in it is so important to those of us who define ourselves as dealing with SSA, requires briefly discussing biology and understanding the true causes of SSA. Generally speaking, genetics is never deterministic when it comes to behaviors.

Genetics do not determine behavior in the same way that they determine physical traits, such as eye color. With behavior, the environment itself is substantially involved in genetic transmission, even when the proportion of variation attributable to genetic influence is high.. Genes do not produce behavior; they do not even determine behavior, they only influence the probability that behavior will occur, given a specific environmental influence..[p. 275] Caution is warranted [even in interpreting twin studies that purportedly shows evidence of genetic influences since] the difference between monozygotic and dizygotic concordance overestimates heritability to an indeterminate degree [p. 274]. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 27, 269-288

More than just behaviors, the traits that influence behaviors are also not generally controlled by genes the way that is implied by the over simplifying popular press.

.the interaction of genes and environment is much more complicated than the simple "violence genes" and "intelligence genes" touted in the popular press.. The same data that show the effect of genes, also point to the enormous influence of non-genetic factors [p. 1687]. Mann, C. 1994. Genes and Behavior. Science, 264, 1686-1689

Once I accept the genetic argument, then I internalize a deep sense of rejection. In fact, The true nature of homosexuality is rejection. The child and sometimes the infant at some level perceives rejection by a parent, or later on by peers, or both, or perhaps goes through a trauma such as sexual abuse, then as a result defensively detaches from his own masculine identity. It is, at its core, self rejection of an essential part of myself, my masculinity and my role as a man among men and my ability to identify with other men as like them, in at least the key area of sexual desire. Not always, but usually, the self rejection is much more extensive, and results in my rejection of my own masculinity so deeply that I view manhood as a club I was never invited to join.

The resulting manifestation in the gay community is a neurotic drive for acceptance. A gay pride parade is a cry for acceptance and at the same time an adolescent dare to reject. This is why gay pride parades do not bring out attempts to show everyone just how "normal" gay men are but instead bring out drag queens and men in dog collars and leashes. It is a manifestation of that neurotic drive to demand acceptance by a community of men who at their own core reject themselves and are simultaneously demanding to be rejected because deep down they believe they deserve to be rejected.

That neurotic drive for acceptance is why the gay rights community seeks to fight against the rights of SSA men to get treatment and has campaigned within the APA and through legislation, initially in Europe and South America and now in the USA, to sanction psychologists who treat men with unwanted SSA and therefore seek to change orientation. For the gay-identified personality, my efforts at chastity, or my efforts at change therapy, are too much of a challenge to his neurotic drive for acceptance and thus he seeks to deny me a right of self determination or a right to freedom of religion.

But above all else, here is the really sad thing about the growing acceptance of a genetic determinism of SSA. The vast majority of young men and women who struggle with SSA and grow up in a world where that view dominates will conclude for themselves, as a matter of moral certainty, that prohibitions against homosexual behavior in the Bible must be culturally-based human constructs which have no eternal validity, and no psychological benefits, and will make no attempt at chastity. Those men and women will eventually, or more than likely, leave any religious group that maintains a traditional biblical doctrine on homosexual conduct.

Psalm 1:1 - Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

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

Born gay or not..... does it matter?

There is a lot of argument about whether people are born gay or not. The pro-gay crowd wants it to be so, because then they can claim God made them that way, so of course it is OK. The conservative Christians want to say no, you are not born gay, for then they would have to agree it isn't fair of God to expect a gay person to fight his or her feelings.

I read a comment recently that has made me wonder if it really matters. And if we should even argue against it. If there is a "gay gene" found some day, then Christians are going to have egg on their face, and will have their very foundation of homosexuality being wrong, shaken.

I personally don't believe people are born gay, but also have learned not to be too dogmatic about that. I do believe people can be born with a predisposition to being gay, and their environment and circumstances can swing them one way or the other.

But I am going to go with the idea that people can be born gay. The Bible says homosexuality is wrong, as the act and lusting, so therefore, it is unfair of God to let someone be born gay and forbid them to give into their desires. Right? Wrong.

We are all born sinners, thanks to Adam and Eve. We are all born with the desire to sin, to do wrong, and the same Bible that forbids homosexual behavior, forbids any sinful behavior. A heterosexual man or woman has the desire to have sex, the temptation to lust, and granted, they can marry, but not all of them. I know, and have known, several women who never married. They wanted to, but it never happened. I am sure there have been heterosexual men who wanted to marry, and never did..... and it would have been a sin for them to lust, to have sex with someone they were not married to, as the person attracted to the same gender.

And there are other sins we are prone to do, that feel natural to us to do, yet we must fight those urges and live for God, not ourselves. Just as the person who may be born gay has to fight his desires to give in and sin, we all have to fight the desire to sin and live for the flesh, instead of for God.

Is it fair that someone who is attracted to the same gender can never marry, can never know what it is like to be in love and have a relationship that others have? No. It isn't. Some manage to marry a person of the opposite sex and make it work, and many do not. But life isn't fair.

When I get frustrated about the cross I must bear, and get to thinking that it isn't fair, a couple of people come to my mind. Joni Eareckson Tada, and Nick Vujicic.

In 1978, at the age of 17, Joni dove into some water and broke her neck, paralyzing her body from the neck down. Since 1978, she has been in a wheel chair, yet God has used her in ways she could never have been used if she were whole. Is it fair? Certainly not. She found a way to paint by holding a paintbrush in her mouth, and has written several books, recorded CDs, and started a program for people to get wheel chairs who cannot afford them. She served God no matter what, and He uses her for good.

Nick Vujicic was born with no arms or legs, having only a foot. His parents decided when he was very young, that he would live as much as possible as kids with all of their limbs. He surfs, swims, goes all over the world speaking, and got married a little over a year ago and has fathered a child with his wife. Is it fair that he was born the way he was? No way. But what an amazing attitude he has, and God is using him all over the world. If anyone had a right to say it isn't fair, it would be him, but he decided to live life to the fullest and let God use him.

People are born with all sorts of diseases and deformities. There are people going through their own private hells that we don't know anything about. Is it fair? No it isn't fair, but life isn't fair. When sin entered the world, fairness was tossed out the window.

So is it fair that men and women have to suffer same-sex attractions, and according to God's Word, never be allowed to give in to those attractions/desires? No. And it isn't easy to ignore what seems to come to naturally.

But you know what? It wasn't fair that God's Son was nailed to a cross for our sins. He did no wrong, and was totally innocent. Yet He died for our sins. He went through unimaginable pain and horror for us. For the gay person. For the murderer, the child molester, for Joni Eareckson Tada, Nick Vucicic, Adolf Hitler.

We are all born sinners, with a bent and desire to give into that sin. Gay people are not the only ones who must fight what comes naturally.

Some day it will be worth it all, when we hear Jesus say "Well done". In the mean time, we must all forsake our sins, take up our cross, die daily to ourselves and our desires, and serve God no matter what. Whether you're gay, or straight.

Mark B.

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 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 Associations 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 Mens 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:

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 Associations 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 Mens 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 Mens Studies, 18, 84-102.

March 1st, 2010 - Dr. Elan Y. Karten and Dr. Jay C. Wade authored a study published in the Journal of Mens 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. Kartens 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 ones sense of gender identity and relatedness to other men. Daryl Bems 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 mens 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 ones homosexuality and ones 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 APAs 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 scientists 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 (APAs 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 Mens 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 professions 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 patients 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 authors 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.

Psychiatrys 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)

THE GAY GENE?

Jeffrey B. Satinover, M.D. has practiced psychoanalysis for more than nineteen years, and psychiatry for more than ten. He is a former Fellow in Psychiatry and Child Psychiatry at Yale University, a past president of the C.G. Jung Foundation, and a former William James Lecturer in Psychology and Religion at Harvard University. He holds degrees from MIT, the University of Texas, and Harvard University. He is the author of Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Baker Books, 1996).

On July 15, 1993, National Public Radio (NPR) made a dramatic announcement on stations across the country: Was a team of scientists at the National Institutes of Health on the trail of a gene that causes homosexuality? Their report would be published the next day in Science, one of the two most prestigious scientific research journals in the world. (1)

The discussion that followed explained for the listening public the implications of these findings for social attitudes toward homosexuality and for public policy concerning it. Science was on the verge of proving what many had long argued: that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeable - a normal and commonplace variant of human nature. In the light of these findings, surely only the bigoted or ignorant could condemn it in any way.

Shortly after the announcement, amidst a well-orchestrated blizzard of press discussions, there ensued the watershed legal battle over "Proposition 2" in Colorado. (This popularly enacted legislation precluded making sexual orientation the basis of "privileged class" minority status, a status conferred previously only on the basis of immutable factors such as race.)

Among the many crucial issues raised by the legislation was the question as to whether homosexuality was indeed normal, innate and unchangeable. One prominent researcher testified to the court, "I am 99.5% certain that homosexuality is genetic." But this personal opinion was widely misunderstood as "homosexuality is 99.5% genetic," implying that research had demonstrated this. Certainly, that was the message promulgated by NPR's report on the recent research, and by all the discussions that followed. In a few weeks, Newsweek would emblazon across its cover the phrase that would stick in the public mind as the final truth about homosexuality: "Gay Gene?"

Of course, just near the end of the NPR discussion, certain necessary caveats were fleetingly added. But only an expert knew what they meant - that the research actually showed nothing whatever in the way of what was being discussed. The vast majority of listeners would think that homosexuality had been all but conclusively proven to be "genetic." But the real question is whether or not there is such a "Gay Gene."

In fact, there is not, and the research being promoted as proving that there is provides no supporting evidence. How can this be? In order to understand what is really going on, one needs to understand some little-know features of the emerging study of behavioral genetics (much subtler than the genetics of simple, "Mendelian" traits such as eye color).

When it comes to questions of the genetics of any behaviors- homosexuality included- all of the following statements are likely to be at least roughly true:

1. Such and such a behavior "is genetic";

2. There are no genes that produce the behavior;

3. The genes associated with the behavior are found on such and such a chromosome;

4. The behavior is significantly heritable;

5. The behavior is not inherited.

The scientific distinctions that make these seeming contradictions perfectly reasonable and consistent seem completely misunderstood by the media who report on them.

For example, in response to the "gay gene" research, the Wall Street Journal headlined their report (which appeared the next day), "Research Points Toward a Gay Gene."(2) A subheading of the Journal article stated, "Normal Variation"-leaving the casual reader with the impression that the research led to this conclusion. It did not, nor could it have. The subhead alluded to nothing more than the chief researcher's personal, unsubstantiated opinion that homosexuality, as he put it, "is a normal variant of human behavior." Even the New York Times, in its more moderate front-page article, "Report Suggests Homosexuality is Linked to Genes," noted that other researchers warned against over-interpreting the work, "or taking it to mean anything as simplistic as that the "gay gene" had been found."

At end of the Wall Street Journal article, at the bottom of the last paragraph on the last page deep within the paper, a prominent geneticist was quoted for his reactions to the research. He observed that "the gene…may be involved in something other than sexual behavior. For example, it may be that the supposed gene is only ´associated' with homosexuality, rather than a 'cause' of it."

This rather cryptic comment would be most difficult to understand without the needed scientific background. Yet it is the most critical distinction in the entire article; indeed, it renders the findings almost entirely worthless. Why bury and fail to explain what it means? Perhaps the motives were innocent, but in fact, the belief that homosexuality is "biological" or "genetic" causes people to develop more positive attitudes toward it. They need not have the foggiest understanding of what "biological" or "genetic" really mean in order change their view:

105 volunteer[s]… were exposed to one of three… [T]he experimental group read a summary… emphasizing a biological component of homosexual orientation… [O]ne control group read a summary… focusing on the absence of hormonal differences between homosexual and heterosexual men. [A]nother control group w[as] not exposed to either article… As predicted, subjects in the experimental group had significantly lower(3) scores [more positive attitudes toward homosexuals] than subjects in the control groups(4).

And:

Analysis indicated that subjects who believed that homosexuals are "born that way" held significantly more positive attitudes toward homosexuals than subjects who believed that homosexuals "choose to be that way" and/or "learn to be that way"(5).

What was actually going in the study the media was trumpeting? Dean Hamer and his colleagues had performed a Kind of behavioral genetics study now becoming widespread -the so-called "linkage study." Researchers identify a behavioral trait that runs in a family and then look to see whether there is a chromosomal variant in the genetic material of that family, and if that variant is more frequent in the family members who have the trait.

To the uninitiated, a positive finding ("correlation" or "association" of a genetic structure with a behavioral trait) is taken to mean that the trait "is genetic" - that is, inherited.

In fact, it means absolutely nothing of the sort, and it should be emphasized that there is virtually no human trait without innumerable such correlations. We will see shortly just how this is can be so. The most important take-home messages will be these:

(1) All the research that has been done on homosexuality has been selectively trumpeted through the press in carefully crafted form in order to shape public opinion -hence public policy- in predictable ways. The research itself means almost nothing.

(2) The research projects that would truly mean something are scarcely being done because they would all explicitly or tacitly lead to but one end highly undesirable to activists: a method or methods for preventing homosexuality or changing it with ever-increasing efficacy; and to one conclusion: homosexuality per se is not inherited.

(3) Most of the research has been hastily and often sloppily done but this point is a distraction. Even were it superb, the findings would still mean almost nothing.

(4) To whatever extent this research has been good enough to generate valid conclusions at all, these conclusions are precisely the opposite of what is claimed in the press.

Before we talk about specifics, here is what serious scientists think about the recent behavior-caused-by-genes research. From Science, 1994:

Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they are not replicated. "Unfortunately" says Yale's (Dr. Joel) Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "…All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in dispute" (6)

A scientist at Washington University School of Medicine calculated what would be required for such replication, He:

…projected that if the trait (in question) was 50% heritable… detecting (just) one of (its) genes would require studying 175 families - that is, almost 2000 people (7). Replicati(on) would require studying 781 families - another 8000… (E)ach additional gene (for a polygenic trait), researches would need… the whole business again. "Suddenly you're talking about tens of thousands of people and years of work and millions of dollars". (8)

Nothing even remotely close to this has been done with respect to homosexuality.

Using arguable-at-best- methods, two American activists recently publish studies showing that if one of a pair of identical twins is homosexual, the odds that the other one is, too, are less than 50% (the study examined a few dozens of pairs). On this basis, they argue that "homosexuality is generic". British researchers generated comparable results in a similar study. Their conclusion? The surprisingly low odds that both twins were homosexual:

… confirmed that genetic factors are insufficient explanation for the development of sexual orientation. (9)

Two Columbia University researches (who have published the most comprehensive research summary on the subject to date) note the unexpectedly:

… large proportion of monozygotic twins who (did not share) homosexuality despite sharing not only their genes but also their prenatal and familial environments. (10) The… (50% odds)… for homosexuality among the identical twins could be entirely accounted for by the increased similarity of their developmental experiences. In our opinion, the major finding of that study is that 48 percent of identical twins who were reared together (and where at least one was homosexual) were discordant for sexual orientation. (11)

Two other genetic researches (one heads one of the largest genetics departments in the country, the other is at Harvard) comment:

… recent studies seeking a genetic basis for homosexuality suggest that.. we may be in for a new molecular phrenology, rather than true scientific progress and insight into behavior.

While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment. (12)

The author of the lead article on genes and behavior in a special issue of Science notes:

... the growing understanding that the interaction of genes and environment is much more complicated than the simple "violence genes" and "intelligence genes" touted in the popular press. Indeed, renewed appreciation of environmental factors is one of the chief effects of the increased belief in genetics' effects on behavior (my emphasis). The same data that show the effects of genes also point to the enormous influence of non-genetic factors. (13)

The director of the Center for Developmental and Health genetics at Pennsylvania State University comments:

Research into heritability is the best demonstration I know of the importance of the environment.

(Note the term "heritability"; we will be returning to it in detail as it lies at the heart of much confusion).

With regard to the work announced by NPR, genetics researchers from Yale, Columbia and Louisiana State Universities noted that:

Much of the discussion of this finding (of a purported gene locus for homosexuality) has focused on its social and political ramifications. (But) inconsistencies… suggest that this finding should be interpreted cautiously…

The results are not consistent with any genetic model… neither of these differences (between homosexuality in maternal versus paternal uncles or cousins) is statistically significant… small sample sizes make these data compatible with a range of… hypotheses.

(T)he… data… present no consistent support for the… results. (14)

By contrast to their public policy statements, the researches responded carefully as follows:

We did not say that (the chromosome segment under study) "underlies" sexuality, only that it contributes to it in some families. Nor have we said that (it) represents a "major" gene, only that its influence is statistically detectable in the population that we studied. (15)

Ignoring possible flaws in the research, have the researches actually pointed to this more modest claim with any degree of certainty? In fact, they have not - as they themselves acknowledge, but in language that will surely evade general understanding - and that will continue to be avoided by the press:

… the question of the appropriate significance level to apply to a non-Mendelian trait such as sexual orientation is problematic. (16)

English translation: "It is possible to know what the findings mean, if anything, since sexual orientation cannot possibly be inherited the way eye-color is". Thus, to their fellow scientists, the researchers properly acknowledge what every serious researcher knows, but the public does not.

Complex behavioral traits are the product of multiple genetic and environmental antecedents, with 'environment' meaning not only the social environment but also such factors as the 'flux of hormones during development, whether you were lying on your right or left side in the womb and a whole parade of other things'… the relationships among genes and environment probably have a somewhat different effect on someone in Salt lake City than if that person were growing up in New York City. (17)

English translation: "You're more likely to become gay growing up in Manhattan than in Utah among Mormons and Christian fundamentalists, even if everything else is the same, including genes."

Unfortunately, anyone who is so disposed can readily offer the public partial truths which are seriously misleading. This is so only in part because of an easily led or poorly educated press. The major reason is really that the ideas being cooked beyond recognition once they leave the labs are inherently complex, even if originally formulated and presented properly. There are no "lite," sound-bite versions of behavioral genetics that are not fundamentally in error in one way or another.

Nonetheless, if one grasps at least some of the basics, in simple form, it will be possible to see exactly why the current research into homosexuality means so little - and will continue to mean little even should the quality of the research methods improve - so long as it remains driven by political, rather than scientific objectives.

There are really two major principles that need to be carefully assimilated in order to see through public relations distortions to the actual meaning of recent research. They are as follows:

1. Heritable does not mean inherited

2. Meaningful genetics research identifies and then focuses on traits that are directly inherited. One prominent genetic researcher (discussing a matter unrelated to homosexuality, but equally frustrated with the bad science reporting) flatly calls the question of heritability "trivial".

Heritable Does Not Mean Inherited

Heritability studies can be done on almost any human trait - physical, behavioral, emotional, etc. - and will show positive results. That is, almost every human characteristic you can think of is in significant measure heritable (thus discussing it is "trivial"). But few human behavioral traits are directly inherited the way simple physiological traits are (e.g. eye color). Inherited means "determined directly by genes", with little or no way of changing the traits by choice, or by preventing it, or by modifying the environment in which the trait has emerged (or is more likely to emerge).

Here is a simple hypothetical example, but it is 100% plausible. It tracks the kinds of studies that have been done with innumerable other traits, including homosexuality. (But only in the area of homosexuality has the meaning of such studies been so badly distorted).

Suppose that for political reasons you want to demonstrate that there is a "basketball gene" that "makes" people become basketball players ("BBPs"). (Please suspend your immediate, current understanding that the idea is absurd). To make your case you would use the same methods as in homosexuality. These methods fall into three categories, and represent important forms of preliminary research when investigating any trait: (1) twin studies; (2) brain dissections; (3) gene "linkage" studies.

Twin Studies

The basic idea in twin studies is to show that the more genetically similar are two people, the more likely it is that they will share the trait you are studying. So, you create a study set of pairs of people, divided into categories according to how genetically similar they are, as follows:

Pair Type Degree of similarity

Identical Twins 100%

Fraternal Twins 50%

Non-twin Siblings 50%

Unrelated people <5%

The most similar are identical twins, the next most similar are fraternal twins (who are on average as different as non-twin brothers or sisters, but no more so), the least similar are unrelated people.

Then you identify those pairs of twins in which at least one is a BBP. It will not be difficult to show that if one such identical twin is a BBP, his brother (or her sister) more frequently will be, too, than would a non-identical twin or a non-twin sibling or a non-sibling. You would create groups of such different kinds of pairs to make the comparison in a large number of cases. (One set of identical twin pairs, one set of non-identical twin pairs, one set of non-twin siblings, and so on.)

From the "concordance rate" in each set (the percentage of pairs in each set in which either both are BBPs or both are not. Pairs in which one was and another was not would be called "discordant for BBP") you would calculate a "heritability" rate. (Perhaps you have an armchair guess as to how many identical twin-pairs either both play or both do not play basketball. Probably a good deal more than half, the concordance rate for homosexuality in such twin-pairs.)

You respond to the reporter from Sports Illustrations that, "Our research demonstrates that BBP is very strongly heritable" and you would be right. But the article that comes out that month reads something slightly different, but completely wrong. "…Recent researchers examined the work and found it substantially accurate and well-performed. They cautioned against arriving at hasty conclusions, however." No one notices the difference.

Brain Dissections

Second, your colleagues perform a series of autopsies on the brains of some dead people who appear to have been BBPs. (Old jerseys, high-top sneakers and Knicks ticket-stubs were found among their possessions, for example). They do the same with a group of dead non-players (no sneakers, jerseys or tickets.) They report that, on average, "certain parts of the brain long thought to be involved with BBP are much larger in the groups of BBPs than in the controls." Certain nationally renowned newspapers in the Northeast pick up on the story and editorialize, "It will be very difficult for anyone to expect poorly educated yokels who believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth-Fairy and God to argue that BBP is not inborn. For not only has it been proven to run in families, even the brains of basketball players are different." (18)

In a pretense of balance, some of these papers interview diehard believers in the old view - yokels who still think that one must decide to play basketball, and play it for a long time, before you really can be considered "a BBP". One of them is quoted as claiming that, "maybe if you do something long enough your brain changes as you get better at it, and that part of the brain gets bigger." (Remarkably enough, this surmise seems obvious to the old-time believer.) The reporter does not merely report the comment, however, he also hints that it is especially idiotic - typical of diehards and yokels - since everyone knows the brain does not change.

Of course, you yourself are well aware that among neuroscientists it is extremely old news that the brain indeed changes, quite dramatically, in just the way the old diehard guessed: those parts responsible for the activity get much bigger over time (and there are definitely parts that are more utilized in BBP). You will not lie about if asked (since you will not be), but neither will you go out of your way to confirm the truth.

Gene "Linkage" Studies

Now for the coup de grace. You find a couple of families of BBPs and compare them to some families of non-BBPs. You have a hunch that of innumerable genes of every imaginable sort likely to be "associated" or "linked" to BBP (you never use the word "causing" because you do not need to - no one knows the difference), there are some genes on, say, the X-Chromosome. After a few false starts, sure enough, you find what you are looking for: among the BBP families one particular chromosomal variant (cluster of genes) is more commonly found (though not always) than among the non-players.

Now, sympathizers at National People's Radio were long ago quietly informed of your research, since they want people to come around to certain beliefs, too. So, as soon as your work hits the press, they are on the air: "Researchers are hot on the trail of the 'Basketball gene!' In an article to be published tomorrow in Sports Science…" Learned-sounding commentators pontificate in soft, accentless, perfectly articulated and faintly condescending tones about the enormous public policy implications of this superb piece of science-in-the-service-of-humankind. Two weeks later, there it is again, at a jaunty angle across the cover of the major national newsweekly: "Basketball Gene."

Now what is wrong with this scenario? It is simple: of course BBP is heritable ("has a non-zero heritability" to use the words of homosexuality researchers). That is because many physiological traits - muscle strength, speed, agility, reflex speed, height, etc. - are themselves directly inherited and they make it more or less likely that one can, and will want to, and will successfully, and will therefore continue to want to, and will in fact continue to, play basketball. In short, because of intermediate inherited traits associated with BBP (none of which are BBP), it shows significant heritability. (The genetic association, of course, is in no way necessary or predetermined, and is highly culturally conditioned: there were no BBPs at all in, say, ancient Greece, yet the same genes were there.)

BBP also shows a strong biological representation in the brain, both at birth (e.g.) nervous system factors contributing to reflex speed) and specially later (e.g. the parts of the cortex that are cultivated and become responsible for movements of basketball, as in the huge increases in finger-related brain tissues among blind people who learn Braille).

And the specific genes that run in families that are responsible for height, athleticism, etc. can surely be found and they will be statistically linked to BBP. And if one identical twin decides to play basketball, the unusually strong emotional bond between such siblings will make it even more likely that his twin will, too. (The fact of their genetic identity, not their specific genes, are here influencing an outcome above and beyond the indirect contributions from any specific genes.)

The basic problem is this: BBP is "influenced" (made more or less an easy and enjoyable thing to do) by the presence or absence of other associated traits. For BBP we can readily guess what they are and so immediately see that the "genetic" component of BBP has nothing to do with the game itself but with these associated (facilitating) traits. What are these traits? Height, athleticism, bone structure, reflexes, muscle refresh rate, and so on. So evident that are the specifics of this association that no serious researcher will waste his time looking into the genetics of BBP proper; he will concentrate on the obvious intermediate traits - height, athleticism, and so on.

The same is true for homosexuality, except (a) the more important, intermediate traits with which it is associated are mostly unknown and unsuspected ones are harder to confirm, and (b) the research agenda is being distorted by the political requirement that no such associated traits be discovered and that homosexuality be falsely presented as directly inherited.

Meaningful Genetics Research Identifies and Focuses on Traits That Are Directly Inherited

Research into more heritable traits is useful only in generating hypotheses about what the directly inherited traits might be. Here is what this means: Let us imagine that it was not immediately evident to us that the heritable aspects of BBP were intermediate traits such as height. A good researcher would not be at all tempted to conclude from the studies we described that BBP itself was inherited. He would conclude however that, indeed, there must be some inherited traits that facilitate BBP, and it would be these as-yet-unknown traits were producing the "non-zero heritability" results. If he could identify the traits correctly, he would find that heritability results, when he redirected his genetics research, would increase dramatically.

In other words, studying the genetics of BBP is really a crude way of unwittingly studying the genetics of height and athleticism, etc. If he selects his population on the basis of the indirect trait (BBP), when it is other traits that are really inherited, the researcher's results will be "fuzzed up" by the inevitable proportion of BBP's who lack these traits, or have them in lesser degree (e.g. a small number of shortish BBPs). But if he correctly identifies the traits in question, his next round of studies will "divide the herd" more efficiently, corralling his subjects not by BBP (or "sexual orientation"), but by height. Of course, there will be more BBPs among the tall subjects than among the short, but that is incidental. He will seek out other tall people who are not BBPs, and in his new study, the heritability factor (height) will be even more concentrated.

How might he guess at what the most important traits are, and then try to confirm his guess, so he could investigate the genetics of these traits? Very simply: he looks, does the best he can to name what he sees, and tries not to run afoul of the currently fashionable taboos enforced by the thought-police! He will probably have no trouble studying height, but he might run into difficulties should he suspect that athleticism (or even height) has a racial association. (More people of Nordic stock, being taller, become basketball players than do people of Appenzeller Swiss stock, being short. Perhaps other such groupings might occur to a researcher.)

In the case of homosexuality, the inherited traits that are more common among homosexuals (and that produce "non-zero" heritability" in studies) might include such qualities as greater than average tendency to anxiety, shyness, sensitivity, intelligence, aesthetic abilities and so on. (Of course, these traits may themselves be further reducible to a variety of mutually influencing, associated genetic and non-genetic factors.) The brain changes that are more prevalent among homosexuals, the tendency of homosexuality to run in families (and to vary with degree of genetic similarity within families) and the presence of associated chromosomal makings are all certainly due to as yet unresearched and therefore not-yet identified intermediate traits. There is no evidence that homosexuality itself is inherited.

Like height and BBP, these traits - intelligence, say, or anxiety - are surely widely distributed in the population at large and densely present therefore in groups that are properly selected to have them. If researchers had divided their populations by shyness or aesthetic sensibility, and ignored the homosexual/non-homosexual division, they might well have found even stronger chromosomal linkages as well as brain changes and twin concordance rates.

Conclusion

Here, then is a final summary, in the form of a dialogue.

Isn't homosexuality heritable?

Yes, significantly

So it is inherited?

No, it is not.

I'm confused. Isn't there is a "genetic component" to homosexuality?

Yes, but "component" is just a loose way of indicating genetic associations and linkages. This will not make sense unless you understand what, and how little, "linkage" and "association" really means.

What about all evidence that shows that homosexuality "is genetic"?

There is not any, and none of the research itself claims there is; only the press and, sadly, certain researchers do - when speaking in sound bites to the public.

But isn't homosexuality "biologically in the brain"?

Of course it is. So is just about everything else. I'll bet people who pray regularly have certain enlarged portions of their brains!

So doesn't that mean that homosexuality is "innate"?

No more than prayer is. The brain changes with use or nonuse as much as muscles do - a good deal more, in fact. We just do not usually see it happening.

But doesn't homosexuality run in families?

Yes.

So you get it from your parents, right?

You get viruses from your parents, too, and some bad habits. Not everything that is familial is innate or genetic.

But it just seems to make sense. From the people I know there's a type - it's got to be inherited - that runs in families and a lot of these people are gay, right?

That is what associated traits are - but what exactly is the associated trait - or traits - you are detecting? If there is one thing the research confirms, it is that it is not "gayness" itself. That is why these traits are sometimes in evidence at a very early age, long before sexuality is shaped.

So what are these traits?

An important question, indeed. Science is being seriously obstructed in its effort to answer that question. If we were allowed - encouraged - to answer it, we would soon develop better ideas on what homosexuality is and how to change, or better, prevent it. We would know who was at greater risk for becoming homosexual and what environments - family or societal - foster it. As one prominent gay activist researcher implied, all genetic things being equal, it is a whole lot easier to become "gay" in New York than in Utah. So who do you think would benefit from that kind of research?

Well, what traits do you suggest are "associated," as you put it, with homosexuality?

May I speculate, perhaps wildly? That is how scientific hypotheses are first generated. The important thing is not to avoid ideas that prove wrong, just not cling to them if they do.

Okay, go ahead, speculate.

Intelligence, anxiety, sensitivity, aesthetic abilities, taste. You know, all the stereotypes.

But where do these traits come from? Aren't they inherited?

We do not know yet. Some may be. Or rather, we do not know how much is inherited, and which elements are direct and which merely further associated and linked with other yet more fundamental traits. But you are getting the picture. That is how the research ought to proceed. It is not necessarily that the traits that facilitate homosexuality are themselves bad; perhaps many are gifts. Athleticism is a generally good thing, and we think highly of people who satisfy their athletic impulses as, say, outstanding BBPs. Not so the fellow who merely become as thug.

JONAH Tag

Foot Notes:

1. D. H. Hamer et al, "A linkage Between DNA Makers on the X-chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation," Science (1993), 261, bno. 5119, pp. 321-27

2. "Research points Toward a Gay Gene," Wall Street Journal, 16 July 1993.

3. A lower score on this scale means a less negative attitude toward homosexuality.

4. Piskur and Degelman, "Attitudes Toward Homosexuals," Psychological Reports 71 (1992); my emphasis, pp. 1219-25 (part 2 of 3). See also K.E. Ernulf, "Cross-National Analysis."

5. K.E. Ernulf, S.M. Innala, and F.L. Whitam, "Biological Explanation, Psychological Explanation, and Tolerance of Homosexuals: A Cross-National Analysis of Beliefs and Attitudes, "Psycological Reports 65 (1989), pp. 1003-10 (1 of 3).

6. Mann C. Genes and behavior. Science 264:1687 (1994)

7. None of the studies of the genetics of homosexuality (all of which are initial; none are replicatory) have come even remotely close to studying this many subjects.

8. Mann C. op. cit. p. 1688.

9. King, M and McDonald, E Homosexuals who are twins: a study of 46 probands. British Journal of Psychiatry 160:407-409 (1992)

10. Byne W and Parsons B. Human sexual orientation: the biological theories reappraised. Archives of General Psychiatry. 50, 3:230 (1993).

11. Quoted by Horgan, J., Scientific American: Eugenics Revisited. June 1993, p. 123.

12. Billings, P. and Beckwith, J. Technology Review, July, 1993. p. 60.

13. Mann C op. cit. pp. 1686-1689.

14. Risch N., Squires-Wheeler E., and Bronya J.B.K., "Male Sexual Orientation and GeneticEvidence," Science 262 (1993), pp. 2063-63

15. Hammer DH et al. Response to Risch N et al. ibid p. 2065

16. Hammer DH et al. Response to Risch N et al. loc. cit.

17. Mann C., op. cit. p. 1687

18. Readers may recall Simon LeVay's much touted discovery that the certain parts of the brains of (supposedly) homosexual men were larger than among (supposedly) heterosexual men. But even if the research is valid - its quality has been strongly criticized - the discovery of brain differences per se is on a par with the discovery that athletes have bigger muscles than non-athletes. For though a genetic tendency toward larger muscles may make it easier to - become an athlete, becoming an athlete will certainly give one bigger muscles.

When this particular critique was raised, the press quickly took its accustomed potshot at the usual "poorly educated and easily led" religious groups for the suggestion's politically incorrect implications: "Some religious fundamentalists even suggested that homosexual activity somehow could have caused the structural differences [that LeVay claimed to have discovered]."

But as the editor of Nature - an equally prestigious publication - wrote, commenting on the LeVay research: "Plainly, the natural correlates of genetic determined gender are plastic at a sufficiently early stage... Plastic structures in the hypothalamus allowing the consequences of early sexual arousal to be made permanent might suit [those who claim an environmental origin to homosexuality] well." This editor is not, to anyone's knowledge, a religious fundamentalist.

Interessante wissenschaftliche These: "Schwul geboren"" zu sein, bedeutet nicht zwangsweise, ein "schwules Gen" zu haben...

Es ist grundfalsch, die Ursache für gleichgeschlechtliche Neigungen alleine in biologischen Vorgängen sehen zu wollen. Wer dabei psychologische Aspekte sowie prägende Aspekte aus der Lebensgeschichte ignoriert, handelt nicht wissenschaftlich.

Die Tatsache, dass sich die Lebensläufe der Betroffenen in so vielen Punkten überproportional gleichen (bei Männern etwa ein gestörtes oder nicht vorhandenes Verhältnis zum Vater, Identitätsstörungen, Missbrauchserfahrungen, psychische Erkrankungen etc.), kann nicht einfach als unwichtig vom Tisch gewischt werden.

Damit würde man weder der Wissenschaft noch den Betroffenen einen Gefallen tun.

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.

A FASCINATING OBSERVATION --

Assume a 'gay' gene were found. Now assume that an unknown percentage of gay self-identified participants -- did not have the gene on testing. Imagine the explosive chaos within the gay community to discovering their friends and partners were not "true" gays. The mind boggles at the internal war that would ensue and the pressure from within and without on those proving not to have the gene but are adamantly gay self-identified. The campaign to find this gene suddenly becomes an unwitting walk to the gallows for LBGT'ers.

John

Is Homosexuality Genetic?

Author / Contributor :: Dr. Neil Whitehead

Twin Studies: Is Homosexuality Genetic?

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

E-mail: whiteh@paradise.net.nz

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

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

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

Look carefully at the next figure:

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

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

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

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

There is one complication. People may say to you â€œI thought the concordance figure was 30%â€ or they may say â€œ52%â€. It is a fact that the early studies had higher figures but are also now universally acknowledged (and by their authors) to be highly biased samples. It is also a fact that they were quoting a concordance called â€œprobandwise concordanceâ€ which is more complex than the â€œpairwiseâ€ concordance I quoted to you, significantly higher, and used in later calculations that do not immediately concern us in this paper. The only important conclusion is that whichever form is used, SSA would still be clustered among the traits with a very high chance component. The irony is that far from being a trait with extremely high degree of dictation by genes, it is almost as far from that as it is possible to get. This is another sad example of the public tending to believe the exact opposite of the truth in scientific matters SSA dictated? The exact opposite. I hope that from now on you will not be disturbed into thinking the genes or prenatal conditions are overwhelmingly important, regardless of what new discoveries may emerge.

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

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

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

Why twins might differ

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

One twin sees internet SSA porn and the other doesn't

One twin misperceives the father favoring the co-twin

One twin is unlucky in (heterosexual) love and thinks he is gay

One twin is sexually abused and the other is not

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

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

HA: New Homepage!

Homosexuals Anonymous has a new homepage:

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

Oceania and Africa

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

Was ist das eigentlich, "Homosexualitaet"?

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

Beitrag von Homosexuals Anonymous.

Homosexuals Anonymous

Jason is affiliated to Homosexuals Anonymous:

www.homosexuals-anonymous.com

Beitrag von Ex-Gay Rights.

Beitrag von Pure Passion.

Beitrag von Homosexuals Anonymous.

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!

Beitrag von Patheos Catholic.

What is Homosexuality?

Hinweis fuer Priester und Ordensangehoerige sowie Mitarbeiter in pastoralen Diensten:

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

Kontakt-Telefonnummer: 089-78018960

Kontakt-Email: free32@gmx.de

Wir freuen uns auf Sie!

The 14 Steps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Homosexuals Anonymous

Beitrag von Homosexuals Anonymous.

If

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

André

www.thewordswithin.org

Beitrag von Robert A. J. Gagnon.

Seek Me!

Jeremiah 29:13

King James Version (KJV)

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

My King

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

What was He thinking?

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

Again: What was He thinking?

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

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

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

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

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

If I remember correctly, His name was Jesus.

Anybody by chance remember Him?

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

He is my king.

My saviour.

Rob

I Have Decided to Follow Jesus

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

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

Freedom from SSA

Guys,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rob

Tweets by @gollwitzer

Beitrag von Homosexuals Anonymous.

Beitrag von The Bible Condemns Sodomy.

Beitrag von Homosexuals Anonymous.