Ist die sexuelle Neigung nun festgeschrieben oder veränderlich?
"Sechs Jahre STD-Sentinel-Surveillance in Deutschland – Zahlen und Fakten
Neuronale Plastizität
Die Diskriminierung von Schwulen ist schuld am erhöhten Risiko dieser Menschen, psychisch krank zu werden!
"Chlamydia trachomatis Untersuchungen bei Männern
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.
Gender Ideology Harms Children
March 21, 2016 – a temporary statement with references. A full statement will be published in summer 2016.
The American College of Pediatricians urges educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts – not ideology – determine reality.
1. Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: “XY” and “XX” are genetic markers of health – not genetic markers of a disorder. The norm for human design is to be conceived either male or female. Human sexuality is binary by design with the obvious purpose being the reproduction and flourishing of our species. This principle is self-evident. The exceedingly rare disorders of sex development (DSDs), including but not limited to testicular feminization and congenital adrenal hyperplasia, are all medically identifiable deviations from the sexual binary norm, and are rightly recognized as disorders of human design. Individuals with DSDs do not constitute a third sex.1
2. No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one. No one is born with an awareness of themselves as male or female; this awareness develops over time and, like all developmental processes, may be derailed by a child’s subjective perceptions, relationships, and adverse experiences from infancy forward. People who identify as “feeling like the opposite sex” or “somewhere in between” do not comprise a third sex. They remain biological men or biological women.2,3,4
3. A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking. When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such. These children suffer from gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria (GD), formerly listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V).5 The psychodynamic and social learning theories of GD/GID have never been disproved.2,4,5
4. Puberty is not a disease and puberty-blocking hormones can be dangerous. Reversible or not, puberty- blocking hormones induce a state of disease – the absence of puberty – and inhibit growth and fertility in a previously biologically healthy child.6
5. According to the DSM-V, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.5
6. Children who use puberty blockers to impersonate the opposite sex will require cross-sex hormones in late adolescence. Cross-sex hormones (testosterone and estrogen) are associated with dangerous health risks including but not limited to high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke and cancer.7,8,9,10
7. Rates of suicide are twenty times greater among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery, even in Sweden which is among the most LGBQT – affirming countries.11 What compassionate and reasonable person would condemn young children to this fate knowing that after puberty as many as 88% of girls and 98% of boys will eventually accept reality and achieve a state of mental and physical health?
8. Conditioning children into believing a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse. Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents, leading more children to present to “gender clinics” where they will be given puberty-blocking drugs. This, in turn, virtually ensures that they will “choose” a lifetime of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic cross-sex hormones, and likely consider unnecessary surgical mutilation of their healthy body parts as young adults.
Michelle A. Cretella, M.D.
President of the American College of Pediatricians
Quentin Van Meter, M.D.
Vice President of the American College of Pediatricians
Pediatric Endocrinologist
Paul McHugh, M.D.
University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School and the former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital
References:
1. Consortium on the Management of Disorders of Sex Development, “Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Disorders of Sex Development in Childhood.” Intersex Society of North America, March 25, 2006. Accessed 3/20/16 from http://www.dsdguidelines.org/files/clinical.pdf.
2. Zucker, Kenneth J. and Bradley Susan J. “Gender Identity and Psychosexual Disorders.” FOCUS: The Journal of Lifelong Learning in Psychiatry. Vol. III, No. 4, Fall 2005 (598-617).
3. Whitehead, Neil W. “Is Transsexuality biologically determined?” Triple Helix (UK), Autumn 2000, p6-8. accessed 3/20/16 from http://www.mygenes.co.nz/transsexuality.htm; see also Whitehead, Neil W. “Twin Studies of Transsexuals [Reveals Discordance]” accessed 3/20/16 from http://www.mygenes.co.nz/transs_stats.htm.
4. Jeffreys, Sheila. Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism. Routledge, New York, 2014 (pp.1-35).
5. American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Arlington, VA, American Psychiatric Association, 2013 (451-459). See page 455 re: rates of persistence of gender dysphoria.
6. Hembree, WC, et al. Endocrine treatment of transsexual persons: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009;94:3132-3154.
7. Olson-Kennedy, J and Forcier, M. “Overview of the management of gender nonconformity in children and adolescents.” UpToDate November 4, 2015. Accessed 3.20.16 from www.uptodate.com.
8. Moore, E., Wisniewski, & Dobs, A. “Endocrine treatment of transsexual people: A review of treatment regimens, outcomes, and adverse effects.” The Journal of Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2003; 88(9), pp3467-3473.
9. FDA Drug Safety Communication issued for Testosterone products accessed 3.20.16: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm161874.htm.
10. World Health Organization Classification of Estrogen as a Class I Carcinogen: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/ageing/cocs_hrt_statement.pdf.
11. Dhejne, C, et.al. “Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden.” PLoS ONE, 2011; 6(2). Affiliation: Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Psychiatry, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. Accessed 3.20.16 from http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885.
http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children?utm_source=email+marketing+Mailigen&utm_campaign=News+3.23.16&utm_medium=email
Every sick person deserves compassion and necessary care and treatment. This does not mean, however, that you cannot say an open word as to the causes for this sickness.
APA
Two quotes from the American Psychiatric Association (taken from here: http://www.psychiatry.org/mental-health/people/lgbt-sexual-orientation. April 1st, 2013):
"In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association’s Board of Trustees removed homosexuality from its official diagnostic manual, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Second Edition (DSM II). The action was taken following a review of the scientific literature and consultation with experts in the field. The experts found that homosexuality does not meet the criteria to be considered a mental illness."
"No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality."
Let me get this straight: In 1973 they removed homesexuality from their diagnostic manual, after a "review" of "scientific" literature and consultation with "experts". It does not fit the criteria of a mental illness. To this day, however, they say that no one knows what causes homosexuality. In other words: Those "experts" have no idea what they are talking about, but it sure is no mental illness. And the "scientific" literature supports that view. I wonder what defines "scientific" then. I am just a simple dude from the country, but doesn't "scientific" refer to that what can be measured or watched or proven in some sort of way?
Could it be that even today they don't have the guts to say that it was not science, but political pressure that made them take it off the manual list?
Robert
Homosexualität wird bei uns nicht als Erkrankung oder psychische Störung gesehen, daher wird eine Therapie oder ähnliches weder als sinnvoll noch notwendig betrachtet. Ganz im Gegenteil - man weist auf negative Auswirkungen solcher Versuche hin.
Es gibt aber immer noch internationale Fachleute, die dies anders sehen (siehe www.narth com oder www.dijg.de). Im Zuge der Meinungsfreiheit wollen wir hier auch diese Wissenschaftler zu Wort kommen lassen. Wir weisen dabei auf unser Selbstverständnis hin.
Diese Wissenschaftler sehen Homosexualität eher als eine Störung der Geschlechtsidentität bzw. als Neurose und verweisen auf das Verhältnis zum gleichgeschlechtlichen Elternteil, dass bei Homosexuellen oft gestört sei.
Fakt ist, dass bisher eine eindeutige Ursache für Homosexualität nicht gefunden wurde. Es ist auch kaum davon auszugehen, dass menschliche Sexualität auf einen einzigen Faktor zurück geführt werden kann. Unbestritten ist der Einfluss des sozialen Umfeldes eines Kindes (insbesondere der Familie) auf die Entwicklung seiner Sexualität und seiner Identität.
Für Christen zählt letztendlich Gottes Wort. Wir wollen uns für ein Leben entscheiden, von dem wir glauben, dass Gott es so von uns will.
Wissenschaft
- Genetische oder hormonelle Einflüsse
- Inzest
- Experimentieren mit anderen Jungs oder Männern
- Pornographie
- Negative spirituelle Einflüsse
- Medien
- Personalität/Temperament
- Negatives Verhältnis zum eigenen Körper
- Diskriminierung durch Gleichaltrige
- Furcht vor dem anderen Geschlecht oder Unfähigkeit, eine angemessene Beziehung herzustellen
- Nicht funktionierende Familie
- Schlechte Hand-Gehirn Koordination ("zwei linke Hände") und die daraus resultierende Verspottung durch Gleichaltrige.
- Geringe Stress- und Frustrationstoleranz
- Erhöhte Sensibilität
- Soziale Phobie bzw. extreme Schüchternheit
- Kein emotionaler Zugang zum Vater (der entweder gar nicht da war oder emotional nicht zugänglich bzw. sogar Alkoholiker, gewalttätig usw. Auf jeden Fall konnte er nicht mit den besonderen Talenten seines Sohnes umgehen). Entsprechendes gilt für Frauen und deren Mütter.
- Eltern, die die Identifikation mit dem eigenen Geschlecht nicht unterstützt haben.
- Eine Mutter, die ihren Sohn übertrieben verwöhnt und beschützt hat.
- Eine Mutter, die ständig Forderungen and den Sohn gestellt hat (meist um ihre eigenen emotionalen Bedürfnisse damit zu befriedigen)
- Das Fehlen von Spielen der härteren Gangart bei Jungs in deren Kindheit (Raufen, körperliche Spiele mit dem Vater usw.).
- Den Kindern wurde kein natürliches Verhältnis zum eigenen Körper beigebracht
- Fehlende Identifikation mit Gleichaltrigen.
- Bei Jungs die Abneigung gegenüber Mannschaftssportarten.
- Sexueller, emotionaler, physischer oder verbaler Missbrauch.
- Verlust eines Elternteils durch Scheidung oder Tod.
- Verlust eines Elternteils während wichtiger Entwicklungsphasen.
- Fehlende Vorbilder in der Gesellschaft (heutzutage gelten bei Jungs eher androgyne Freaks als in als aufrechte Männer mit Idealen und Glauben. Ähnliches gilt bei Frauen)
Man könnte sagen Homosexualität bedeutet, dass Männer von Männern und Frauen von Frauen sexuell angezogen werden. Das alleine wäre aber zuwenig. Wenn man die Wurzeln von Homosexualität betrachtet, merkt man schnell, dass dadurch legitime Bedürfnisse nach gleichgeschlechtlicher Nähe und Wärme auf die falsche Art und Weise befriedigt werden. Wir sind auch der festen Überzeugung, dass es Homosexualität nicht gibt. Diese Wortschöpfung ist noch relativ jung. Wir sind alle im Grunde heterosexuell - aber aus unterschiedlichen Gründen (und seien sie genetisch!) haben wir ein homosexuelles Problem. Homosexualität ist aber nicht auf derselben Stufe von Heterosexualität. Die Amerikaner drücken das weitaus besser aus: "gender identity disorder" (GID) - Störung der Geschlechts-Identität. Das trifft es weitaus besser. Am besten wäre es, sich in der öffentlichen Diskussion auf den Begriff "gleichgeschlechtliche Neigungen" (same-sex attractions - ssa) zu einigen. Damit trifft man den Kern der Angelegenheit. Ein weiteres Problem: wer bestimmt eigentlich, ob ich diese habe? Nicht jede gleichgeschlechtliche sexuelle Erfahrung macht einen automatisch "homosexuell". Manche hatten noch nie gleichgeschlechtlichen Sex, bezeichnen sich aber trothdem als "schwul" oder "lesbisch", andere hatten ihn schon öfter, sehen sich aber als heterosexuell. Tatsächlich kann das nur jeder selbst bestimmen. Auch die Dauer gleichgeschlechtlicher Neigungen ist bei jedem unterschiedlich. Tatsächlich wird in der Jugend oft experimentiert - aber auch im Erwachsenenalter wechseln so manche noch "die Seiten". Bei Männern ist die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass sich dieser Zustand dauerhaft verfestigt aber weitaus höher als bei Frauen. (siehe auch Exodus)
Homosexualität ist also weitaus mehr als nur Sex zwischen Menschen desselben Geschlechts. Sie bezeichnet gleichgeschlechtliche Neigungen (ausschließlich oder überwiegend und vor allem andauernd). Wichtig zu wissen: niemand sucht sich seine Sexualität aus. Man kann aber sehr wohl wählen, ob man sie auch auslebt.
Wie entwickelt sich Homosexualität?
Man geht heute davon aus, dass eine Vielzahl von Faktoren die (Homo-)Sexualität eines Menschen beeinflussen: eine genetisch vorbedingte Veranlagung sowie hormonelle Voraussetzungen, die ein zu bestimmten Verhalten fördern können - in Verbindung mit äußeren Einflüssen wie verbaler, körperlicher oder sexueller Missbrauch in der Kindheit, Inzest, Experimentieren mit anderen Frauen/Männern, Pornos, negative spirituelle Einflüsse, die Gesellschaft, Medien, Personalität/Temperament, negatives Verhältnis zum eigenen Körper, Diskriminierung durch Gleichaltrige, kein emotionaler Zugang zum gleichgeschlechtlichen Elternteil und damit kein Zugang zur gleichgeschlechtlichen Welt (und deren Ablehnung und spätere Erotisierung während der Pubertät) usw.
(siehe auch Buchliste)
Gen-Faktoren?
Und schon jubelt die schwule Welt. Emails werden an uns geschickt mit Kommentaren wie: "Wissenschaft statt Wunschdenken!"
Es bleibt die Frage, warum man hier eigentlich jubelt und ob das wirklich Sinn macht.
JASON hat von Anfang an darauf hingewiesen, dass die Ursachen von Homosexualität für einen Christen zwar wichtig, aber zweitrangig sind. Einige Punkte, die man in diesem Zusammenhang beachten sollte:
1) Wenn Gen-Faktoren männliche Sexualität mitbestimmen, heißt das nicht zwangsweise, dass man "homosexuell" geboren wird. Sexualität ist auf ein Bündel von Faktoren zurückzuführen, von denen Genetik nur ein Teil ist. Was ist mit dem Teil, der nicht von "genetischen Faktoren" bestimmt wird?
2) Und selbst wenn dem so wäre - selbst wenn es ein "schwules Gen" gäbe: zum einen sind wir nicht willenlose Sklaven eines Gencodes (was für eine Vorstellung!), zum anderen ist ein "Gen-Faktor, der Sexualität mitbestimmt" nicht gleichzusetzen mit moralisch richtigem Verhalten. Wir wollen an dieser Stelle nicht darauf hinweisen, was sonst noch alles genetische (Mit-)Ursachen haben mag. Wird etwas dadurch richtig, dass es von "genetischen Faktoren" "mitverursacht" wird?
3) Für uns als Christinnen und Christen heißt das einfach nur, wir müssen und werden auch in einem solchen Fall lernen, damit zu leben. Für uns bleibt auch weiterhin die Bibel - Gottes Wort - Maßstab unseres Verhaltens und unserer moralischen Grundwerte. Wir zwingen dies niemandem auf und denken nicht, dass wir damit bessere Menschen sind. Wir sind es durchaus gewohnt, deshalb verlacht und verspottet zu werden. Letztlich ist uns aber wichtiger, dass wir unserem Glauben treu bleiben. Wir verneigen uns in tiefem Respekt vor allen Menschen, die trotz aller Schwierigkeiten und Anfeindungen diesen Weg mit uns gehen.
Mögliche Konsequenzen von "Gen-Faktoren"
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
Nun - beides ist falsch, zumindest aus christlicher Sicht.
Ex-Gays, die sich auf das Beweisen eines nicht vorhandenen genetischen Hintergrunds konzentrieren, kämpfen auf dem falschen Schlachtfeld. Wissenschaft kann sich ändern. Selbstverständlich haben die Gene einen gewissen Einfluss auf menschliche Sexualität. Eine "Wahl" ist Homosexualität nie - wir haben sie uns nicht einfach so ausgesucht. Kein Kind steht vor der Theke sexueller Neigungen und sucht sich ein wenig hiervon und ein wenig davon aus. Aus welchen Gründen auch immer - selbst wenn einige selbstverschuldet sind - wir haben heute gleichgeschlechtliche Neigungen. Aber ausgesucht haben wir uns diese wirklich nicht. Was wir uns eher "aussuchen" können: ob wir sie ausleben oder bewusst in Kauf nehmen (etwa durch das Ansehen von Pornos).
Schwule Aktivisten machen den großen Fehler, dass sie genetisch mitverursacht mit "normal", "natürlich" oder "moralisch richtig" gleichsetzen (wir verweisen an dieser Stelle auf unser Selbstverständnis). Wir sind nicht Sklaven unserer Gene und können sehr wohl entscheiden, welchen Weg wir gehen - selbst wenn genetische Faktoren eine bestimmte Tendenz erleichtern.
Als Christen zählt für uns alleine der Wille Gottes - und der wird die Bibel nicht für uns umschreiben. Nirgendwo in der Bibel steht: "Du sollst nicht dieses oder jenes tun - außer du hast eine genetische Veranlagung dazu."
Wir sollten also darauf achten, worum es in dieser ganzen Diskussion eigentlich wirklich geht.
Ältere Brüder?
Auch hier dürfen wir auf unsere Ausführungen zum Thema "Gen-Faktoren" verweisen. Wir sind keine Wissenschaftler und maßen uns nicht an, derartige Studien zu beurteilen (wir wundern uns oft nur, wie kritiklos Studien akzeptiert werden, wenn sie nur mit den eigenen Vorstellungen übereinstimmen).
Selbst wenn Herr Bogaert zu 100 % recht hätte, wäre das für uns kein Grund, von unseren moralischen Werten abzuweichen. Unser Glaube bedeutet uns mehr als Ergebnisse von irgendwelchen Studien. Wir sind keine Maschinen oder Roboter, die willenlos Hormonen, Genen, Gehirnstrukturen oder was auch immer ausgesetzt sind. Wir glauben an den dreifaltigen Gott und das, was Er uns in der Bibel mitteilt.
Jesus hat uns nie versprochen, dass es leicht sein würde. Er hatte nur gemeint, dass es sich lohnen wird. Er hat uns darauf hingewiesen, dass das Tor zum Himmel eng, der Weg dorthin schwer und voller Gefahren sein wird und nur wenige ihn gehen. Für uns ist es aber der EINZIGE Weg.
Nur mal so am Rande: gehen wir doch einmal - nur so, der Diskussion willen - davon aus, dass die Bibel doch recht hat. Was dann?
Things epigenetics taught us:
- Genes can be molded
- Environment and our actions, words and thoughts decide upon which genes will be activated or deactivated and in what form they will be activated (one gene can have totally different effects)
- Each second of our lives our brain structure and our genetic code is being changed through our actions, words and thoughts and through our environment - changes that can be passed on to future generations.
- Genes have a very complex interaction among one another and with external factors. To say that there is one gene that "makes you gay" and that there is nothing you can do about it is complete nonsense and has nothing at all to do with science, but rather with politics and wishful thinking.
Bisexualität?
Nun habe ich selbst viele Jahre lang meine Homosexualität ausgelebt. Und auch ich habe - wie viele andere damals - immer die These vertreten, dass alle Männer eigentlich bisexuell wären, also "schwule Anteile" hätten (was o.g. Studie gerade widerlegt!). Das aber ohne wissenschaftlichen Hintergrund. Damals war das einfach nur Wunschdenken. Wir WOLLTEN, dass es so ist, denn dann wäre jeder Mann ein potentieller Wunschpartner.
Was mich betrifft, so hatte ich keine großen Hemmschwellen, ob jemand verheiratet war oder eine Familie hatte. Hauptsache, ich hatte Sex mit ihm. Im Grunde war es mir völlig egal. ob der nun homo-, bi- oder heterosexuell ist. Ganz im Gegenteil: in vielen Kontaktanzeigen wurden "Hetero-" oder "Bi-Typen" gesucht.
Soll man derartige wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen wirklich zur Grundlage seiner moralischen Werte machen? Aufgrund derartiger Studien von seinem Glauben abweichen?
Wohl kaum.
Homosexualität und Evolution
Männliche Homosexualität wird von der Mutter vererbt und konnte sich deshalb in der Evolution behaupten, weil genau diese Gene auch die weibliche Verwandtschaft fruchtbarer machen würden.
Und wieder jubelt die schwule Welt und lacht uns hämisch zu. Warum aber? Nichts von all dem macht etwas "richtig" oder "falsch" in moralischer Sicht. Und erst recht hat dies keinen Einfluss auf unseren christlichen Glauben. Möge man uns auch für noch so rückständig, fanatisch oder einfach nur dumm und stur halten.
Was, wenn morgen selbiges von ganz anderen Erscheinungsformen menschlichen Verhaltens behauptet wird? Werden die dann auch dadurch "richtiger" oder "natürlicher" oder gar "normaler"?
Warum dieser ständige Drang, die Richtigkeit seines Verhaltens oder seiner Neigung mit Genen rechtfertigen zu wollen? Wenn ich davon ausgehe, dass mein Verhalten richtig ist, dann bitte schön. Was interessieren mich da meine Gene?
Und will man wirklich biochemische, hormonelle oder genetische Faktoren zur Grundlage seines Wertesystems machen? Wo hört das dann auf? Was, wenn morgen ganz andere gesellschaftliche Gruppen oder Einzelpersonen mit genau denselben Argumenten und demselben Anspruch - gegründet auf neue Studien - kommen?
Was wartet da schon hinter dem Vorhang?
Kindheit
Bisher hat man sich immer gestritten, ob Homosexualität denn nun angeboren sei, biologische Ursachen habe oder ihre Wurzeln in der Kindheit hat (Beziehung zum gleichgeschlechtlichen Elternteil usw.) oder beides - oder ganz was anderes.
Nun hat man offensichtlich herausgefunden, dass es hier nicht nur ein "oder" sondern auch ein "und" geben kann.
So können kindliche Erfahrungen - vor allem traumatische Erfahrungen - offenbar biochemische Prozesse im Gehirn auslösen, also die Gehirnstruktur nachhaltig ändern. Ebenso scheinen kognitive Neubewertungen (man erkennt etwas verstandesmäßig und versucht daraufhin, Prozesse neu zu bewerten und Verhalten und Empfinden entprechend "umzuprogrammieren) wiederum rückwirkend Einflüsse auf die Emotionen zu haben!
Es gibt anscheinend ein engeres Band zwischen Körper und Geist/Emotionen, als man bisher dachte!
Die Kirche muss Ergebnisse moderner Wissenschaft anerkennen und darf homosexuelles Verhalten nicht einfach ablehnen!
Ist dem wirklich so? Mal ganz abgesehen davon, dass es bisher nicht einen einzigen Beweis dafür gibt, woher homosexuelle Neigungen eigentlich kommen (wohl aber viele Hinweise auf die Bedeutung der Familie, Erziehung sowie eine genetische Veranlagung, die es uns unter bestimmten Bedingungen erleichtert, uns so und nicht anders zu verhalten. Allerdings gibt es bis heute keinen Hinweis auf ein schwules Gen. Selbst wenn es dieses aber geben würde, würde es dem Ganzen keinen Abbruch tun, da wir mehr sind als nur Sklaven eines Gencodes!), hätte die Kirche ein Problem, wenn sie ihre Grundsätze sowie die Bibel jedes Mal umschreiben müsste, wenn neue wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse oder Theorien veröffentlicht werden. Die Kirche hat immer die enge Verbindung von Glaube und Vernunft betont. Glaube muss vernünftig sein, um ihn vor sich selbst und anderen begründen zu können, geht aber über rein menschliches Vernunftempfinden hinaus. Auch kann die Kirche kein Spielball von Wissenschaftlern sein noch dazu, wenn sich diese gerade bei diesem Thema uneinig sind. Ein zeitgemäßer Glaube ist etwas anderes als ein Glaube, der sich dem Zeitgeist unterwirft. Eine Kirche, die klare biblische Aussagen uminterpretiert oder gleich verwirft, hilft Menschen mit gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen nicht ganz im Gegenteil. Homosexuelles Verhalten wurde in der überwiegenden Anzahl menschlicher Kulturen weltweit und zu allen Zeiten abgelehnt und das lässt sich nicht alleine auf mangelndes Wissen oder die gesellschaftliche Diskriminierung schieben. Viele Menschen mit gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen berichten, wie sehr sich ihr Innerstes dagegen gesträubt hat, als sie diese Neigungen in ihrer frühen Jugend das erste Mal wahrgenommen haben. Und noch Jahre später berichten sie, dass dies unabhängig vom gesellschaftlichen Einfluss so war. Es scheint, als sei Heterosexualität als Standard von unserem Schöpfer so tief in unser Innerstes eingeschlossen worden, dass selbst hartnäckige Versuche, bereits Kinder und Jugendliche zu indoktrinieren und von der Attraktivität homosexuellen Verhaltens überzeugen zu wollen, nur sehr kurzfristige Erfolge haben, langfristig aber auf inneren Widerstand stoßen.
Menschen mit gleichgeschlechtlichen Neigungen ist mit Verständnis und Liebe zu begegnen. Es ist aber auch unsere Verantwortung als Christinnen und Christen, unsere Geschwister im Glauben zu ermahnen, wenn sie vom Weg abkommen und sich von Gott abwenden. Man kann nicht beides haben. Die Bibel sagt uns nicht: Du darfst nicht mit einem Mann liegen, wie man mit einer Frau liegt, außer du bist so geboren worden. Sie hat uns den Standard der heterosexuellen, monogamen Ehe vorgegeben und diesen über Jahrtausende hinweg aufrecht erhalten. Es steht uns nicht zu, Gott spielen zu wollen und Seinen Willen eigenmächtig und willkürlich zu missachten oder nach Belieben umzuinterpretieren, wenn wir ihn nicht mehr als zeitgemäß ansehen.
Alle Unterstützung für aktive Schwule, aber keine für die, die erst gar nicht dorthin wollen?
AN EX-GAY COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO: “Genome-wide scan demonstrates significant linkage for male sexual orientation” 17 November 2014 [1]
11-18-2014
Media outlets are flush with the rush to promote yet another inconclusive hypothesis attempting to tie biological factors to the penchant for homosexual behavior. After an unusual 7 year tweaking before release, Dr. Alan Sanders of NorthShore University HealthSystem Research Institute et al, compared the genes of 409 gay twin brothers (the largest twin sampling to date). The team argues that they found linkages to the X Chromosome 8 region and Xq28 but were unable to cite any actual gene. This runs contrary to the conclusions of eight other international twin studies examining the same notion[2] with the exception of Dr. Dean Hamer’s claim to find Chromosome 8 involvement 20 years ago but also failing to find any actual gene.
The inability to find and verify gene involvement makes the entire exercise of identifying linkages fruitless since there can be no linkage between non-existent entities. This leaves wide open the interpretation of what these researchers are seeing within these chromosome bands. Sanders himself describes his results as, “not proof but a pretty good indication.” An indication of what remains to be seen. Meanwhile, the reaction by genetic experts ranges from skeptical to completely dismissive. Dr. Robert Green, medical geneticist at Harvard Medical School called the study, “intriguing but not in any way conclusive” and Dr. Neil Risch, genetics expert at UC San Francisco states the data is too statistically weak to suggest any linkage (with homosexual preference.)[3]
Of bizarre concern is Sander’s use of a deprecated genetic method. Genetic linkages have been replaced with GWA (genome-wide association) methodology in genetic science which gives a higher, but still not guaranteed, association between a given gene and a behavior. Sanders admitted it would have been the preferable approach but it was the only way to try to expound on Hamer’s failed attempt 20 years ago. Ken Kendler, an editor at Psychological Medicine admitted it was a surprise to see Sanders submit a study using the old technique and Sanders admits that one publication turned down his submission outright.[4] Sanders has announced his intention of a GWA study using an even larger sample group.
It is the opinion of most in the ex-gay community that scientific research would be better utilized addressing the knowns of same-sex attraction, such as the high child sexual abuse and childhood trauma histories found in research which is more results oriented by healing traumas that often lead to same-sex attractions and therapies that eliminate unwanted same-sex attraction. This more appropriately achieves the goals of the American Psychological Association’s vow to patient self-determination. Much like the already proven genetic components of depression and anxiety disorders, genetic involvement only contributes to predilection and has no bearing at all on outcomes. Thus, any genetic discovery while interesting is irrelevant to ultimate behavioral self-management and choice.
[1] “Genome-wide scan demonstrates significant linkage for male sexual orientation”
A. R. Sanders, E. R. Martin, G. W. Beecham, S. Guo, K. Dawood, G. Rieger, J. A. Badner, E. S. Gershon, R. S. Krishnappa, A. B. Kolundzija, J. Duan, P. V. Gejman and J. M. Bailey
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, NorthShore University HealthSystem Research Institute, Evanston, IL, USA
[2] "EIGHT MAJOR STUDIES of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way."Dr. Neil Whitehead is author of the book, "My Genes Made Me Do It" – a scientific look at sexual orientation (1999/USA; revised 2nd edition, 2010) and over 140 published scientific papers.
[3] “Study Suggests Genetic Link for Male Homosexuality”, November 17th, 2014, Associated Press.
[4] “Study of gay brothers may confirm X chromosome link to homosexuality”, 17 November 2014, AAAS Science Magazine.
John Ozanich, VP The Jason Foundation
The Guardian: Male sexual orientation influenced by genes, study shows
FOR IMMEDIATE NOTICE - We want to jump on this new hack article right
away because we've been down the Xq28 road before and you know you will
be brow beaten with these "facts" ad nauseum. For anyone literate -
we've highlighted the laughable holes for you:
"A region of the
X chromosome called Xq28 had some impact on men's sexual behaviour –
though scientists have no idea which of the many genes in the region are
involved, nor how many lie elsewhere in the genome.
Another
stretch of DNA on chromosome 8 also played a role in male sexual
orientation – though again the precise mechanism is unclear.
Researchers have "speculated" in the past that genes linked to
homosexuality in men "may" have survived evolution because they happened
to make women who carried them more fertile. This "may" be the case for
genes in the Xq28 region, as the X chromosome is passed down to men
exclusively from their mothers.
"The work has yet to be published..."
...he found that [only] 33 out of 40 gay brothers inherited similar genetic markers...
The gene or genes in the Xq28 region that influence sexual orientation
have a limited and variable impact. Not all of the gay men in Bailey's
study inherited the same Xq28 region. -->The genes were neither
sufficient, nor necessary, to make any of the men gay.<--
The flawed thinking behind a genetic test for sexual orientation is
clear from studies of twins, which show that the identical twin of a gay
man, who carries an -->exact<-- replica of his brother's DNA, is
more likely to be straight than gay. That means even a perfect genetic
test that picked up every gene linked to sexual orientation would still
be less effective than flipping a coin.
However, we don't know where these genetic factors are located in the genome.
"We found evidence for two sets [of genes] that affect whether a man is
gay or straight. But it is not completely determinative; there are
certainly other environmental factors involved." [Women must simply just
be of some other species or don't have genes.]
13 February 2014
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/14/genes-influence-male-sexual-orientation-study
The Science about Same Sex Attractions
Secular Presentation
The Science about Same Sex Attractions
I appreciate being able to speak to the Traditional Value Club through Sinclair Community College. I have always believed that college is a place where various views can be presented and discussed, allowing each person to decide for themselves what they want to believe. I am well aware there are differences of opinion on the subject of Same Sex Attractions. I believe that the human race has freewill and choices can be made. I am also aware that in country we believe in freedom of speech
My background and how I got into this work:
I have been an ordained clergyman for many years, pasturing churches and counseling individuals with various personal and marital issues. In 1986 a number of men in my community were arrested for importuning in a city park. Being a compassionate person, I told my wife I wish there was a way to help men like this who struggle with Same Sex Attractions and possibly are addicted to sex. I attended a seminar on gender identity so I could better understand same sex attractions. After completing this training, I founded New Pathways a Christian ministry to assist individuals who wish to change their lifestyle. This is my 24th year in this work helping individuals. People come for help because they are not happy with their Same Sex Attractions. Many have been married and wish to remain married. Others come for religious reasons. And still others for other personal reasons. There is no ill will toward anyone who does not wish to change their lifestyle. I have worked with some who decided they did not want to change and they quit either counseling or group. There is no animosity toward them or anyone else. I have several friends who are in the gay lifestyle.
I worked to complete my education in counseling. In 1992, I began formal counseling under the supervision of a psychologist. In 2004, I began counseling in a private practice. I continue as a pastor of small church because it keeps me in church ministry and they cannot afford a full-time pastor. My licensing is through the National Christian Counselors Association and I have a certification through them as a Sexual therapist. NCCA is a national religious organization who trains people in pastoral counseling. Through them I am a Licensed Clinical Pastoral Counselor. My counseling is done under the auspices of the Church of God of Cedarville.
My religious faith teaches me that if a person seeks help for any spiritual or psychological issue and I have the ability to assist them, I should try to meet that need the best way I can.
I believe religious faith and science are not on opposite poles, they can work together to achieve a common goal. I wanted to know what research has been done in this field. I began to research and have discovered some interesting facts regarding persons who are Same Sex Attracted. I am an avid reader and so I have read most of the literature on this subject. Just in the field of psychology I have over 300 books beside probably another 12 dozen religious books. A number of studies have been done over the past thirty years, investigating the causes of Same Sex Attractions and behaviors. I first began this research at the Medical Library at Wright State University and through other organizations that study the psychology of Same Sex Attractions. I found a number of organizations, including different religious bodies who believe same sex attractions can be changed. I have deep respect for all those who research in this field. Some of the major studies performed have been hypothalamus studies, identical twin studies, hormonal studies, genetics and several minor studies, on smell and finger length.
An interesting fact is that the researchers themselves have stated they have not proved inconclusively that anyone is born gay. Every researcher has admitted that psychological and social influences play a large part in the development of Same Sex Attractions. That is the premise upon which I work- that there are psychological and social influences that create a sexual desire for someone of the same sex.
I have studied several of the major research studies done within the past 30 years. Good research is based upon large-random examples covering a number of different groupings. This includes racial, economic, geographic regions and religious groups. Also, researcher must be able to replicate a study. I have found that replication of studies has not produced the desired results of the researchers.
Factors studied have been-
1. Simon LeVay studied the hypothalamus. This study was mostly done on men who died of aides while in prison. The study first of all was too narrow because of the number of men used in this study. The study should have been broader in scope covering many different people groupings and from many different locations across the nation. It is difficult to study the hypothalamus because it requires a cadaver. The hypothalamus in these men was smaller than the normal man. The question is, did aids cause the reduction of the size or did their behaviors over several years cause the reduced size? No one knows. William Byrne, another research scientist could not duplicate LeVays research. That is a significant point about this study.
2. Baily & Pillard researched identical twins. The identical twin study reported that 52% of the gay men were both gay, while 48% of identical twins were not gay. Identical twins are alike in most areas of life. They carry the same genetic makeup so what caused the differences? Michael King and Elizabeth McDonald and Wm Byrne and Bruce Parsons could not replicate the same patterns as did Baily and Pillard.
3. I have twice sat under the teachings of Neil Whitehead, a research scientist from New Zealand. He teaches in the field of genetics. The study in genetics is extremely complex. Some of the findings in this field are:
a. No generally determined human behavior has yet been discovered.
b. Genetically dominated behaviors have only been found in very simple organisms.
c. A genetically denominated homosexual trait cannot suddenly appear and disappear in families. One psychiatric researcher reported, If the trait was 50 % inheritable and each family in the initial study had ten members in the family- 4 grandparents, 2 parents, and 4 children- detecting one of the genes would require studying 2000 people. Replicating that finding would require studying another 8000 people. To find and confirm each additional gene, researchers would need to go through this whole process over and over again. Suddenly, youre talking about tens of thousands of people and years of work and millions of dollars. No study has come close to meeting these requirements.
These studies have helped those who come to me and to my ministry to have hoped that they can change their behaviors and understand their deepest SSA desires. I am well aware there are those who object to this belief system. I am reminded that the human race has freewill and therefore choices are made throughout life. Also, we live in a country that believes in freedom of speech.
What have I come to believe about Same Sex Attractions?
I believe the home is the basic training ground for life. The home is the most important institution that exists in our world. The attitudes and behaviors within the family mold the minds and hearts of every human being. As the home goes, so goes the country and the world. The parents instill in their children values and beliefs that affect the future of that child.
Gender disparity can be developed very early in a childs life. Many times children make decisions at a very young age. How the mother and father function together, and with their children forms concepts that eventually are believed by the children. Sibling and peer interactions also play a part in child development. Dr. Kenneth Leymen writes about birth order and how it affects a childs development. I like the teachings of John Bradshaw and many other who write in the field of psychology. Their writings resonate with me.
What important attitudes and practices should be a part of the home? There are many but here are a few important ones that affect a persons gender identity.
1. Appropriate same sex attitudes and behaviors on the part of both parents are important. Parents who criticize each other can cause a child to reject their own gender out of fear of that parent or even to dislike that parent.
2. Parents help their children to become aware of the different sex roles within the family. A confusion of sex roles may cause confusion in childrens gender roles.
3. Parents help their children to understand each childs uniqueness.
4. Rigid gender roles in a family confuses a childs proper development
of their own gender.
5. Favoritism also affects a childs sense of who they are.
6. Abuse in any form, whether physical, mental or especially sexual abuse
creates a feeling of not liking their gender.
7. And finally a childs own perceptions stemming from their own personality helps them to form beliefs that will affect them all through
life unless they find help to understand themselves.
Beyond the family, children also respond to many other environmental factors which affect their perceptions of self.
I thank you for the opportunity to share my views today.
(Elton M.)
Clarifying The Misinformation About Homosexuality
Attributed To The APA - American Psychiatric Association
And To The APA - American Psychological Association
According to the APA - American Psychological Association, as of Dec 2011 there are no scientific findings that a person is born homosexual. "No findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors."
The 1973 APA " American Psychiatric Association's decision to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses (DSM) was not based on any new scientific or psychological findings regarding homosexuality. In addition the APA acknowledged that "a significant proportion of homosexuals" can "change their sexual orientation."
A 2010 peer reviewed study published in The Journal of Men's Studies found that men experiencing unwanted homosexual attractions seeking sexual orientation change experienced a decrease in homosexual feelings and behavior, an increase in heterosexual feelings and behavior, and a positive change in psychological functioning."
The political correctness of the APAs and their loss of scientific objectivity.
Past APA President, Dr. Nicholas Cummings, testifying how the "APA is politically based rather than scientifically based" as well as confirming the research that reports that change is possible."
Dr. Jeffrey Satinover M.D., Ph.D in his book titled: Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, expands upon how the APA was driven by politics, not science."
APAs' political bias on reparative or change therapy is blatant. They cite no scientific studies of harm. Rather, they use terms such as "expressed concerns" "no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy is safe or effective." "it seems likely promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes."
Dr. A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., MBA, MPH reviews a book titled: Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm. (Edited by Rogers H. Wright and Nicolas A. Cummings, 2005.) The book exemplifies how The APA has chosen ideology over science."
Fact 1:
According to the APA - American Psychological Association, as of Dec 2011 there are no scientific findings that a person is born homosexual. "No findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors."
Excerpt:
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors."
Fact 2:
The 1973 APA - American Psychiatric 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 Men's Studies, 18, 84-102.
March 1st, 2010 - Dr. Elan Y. Karten and Dr. Jay C. Wade authored a study published in the Journal of Men's Studies investigating the social and psychological characteristics of men experiencing unwanted homosexual attractions seeking sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE). This study was based on Dr. Karten's doctoral dissertation at Fordham University, New York, under the direction of Dr. Jay Wade.
Karten and Wade make both timely and significant contributions to the body of evidence understanding SOCE. They investigated self-reported change, which factors were statistically associated with change, and which treatment interventions and techniques were perceived by clients to be most helpful. The authors specifically investigated whether male identity, sexual identity, high religiosity, psychological relatedness to other men, gender role conflict regarding affection between men, and marital status would be related to self-reported change in sexual and psychological functioning.
Karten & Wade found that overall clients experienced "a decrease in homosexual feelings and behavior, an increase in heterosexual feelings and behavior, and a positive change in psychological functioning." The researchers discovered that the most significant factors correlating to successful SOCE were reduced conflict in expressing nonsexual affection with other men, being married, and feeling disconnected with men prior to treatment.
This study provides significant empirical evidence to factors related to SOCE. Although several meta-analysis reviews have shown the efficacy of SOCE (e.g. Byrd & Nicolosi, 2002; Jones & Yarhouse, 2000), Karten and Wade provide insight into which factors play a significant role in the change process. Such factors, like reduced conflict in expressing nonsexual affection with men, provide valuable empirical evidence that homosexual thoughts and feelings are greatly influenced by social and psychological factors. Such factors include one's sense of gender identity and relatedness to other men. Daryl Bem's theory, that the "Exotic Becomes Erotic," is another way to summarize this social constructive viewpoint. This suggests that the absence/presence of healthy male relationships plays a critical role in the development/treatment of homosexuality.
For clinicians and clients currently involved with SOCE, this study highlights the importance of developing appropriate nonsexual male relationships. Participants perceived the most helpful interventions to be a men's weekend/retreat, a psychologist, and a mentoring relationship. Considering the above findings regarding the significance of male identity and nonsexual affectionate relationships with other men, it is notable that at least two of these interventions involve healthy relationship development with men. In addition, participants perceived the two most helpful techniques to be understanding better the causes of one's homosexuality and one's emotional needs and issues and developing nonsexual relationships with other men.
Karten and Wade also found that SOCE actually helped psychological functioning. This is in direct contradiction to the APA's executive summary from Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation that states "there was some evidence to indicate that individuals experienced harm from SOCE" (pg. 3). Any psychological intervention or technique has the risk to produce uncomfortable feelings and harm. Ethical guidelines dictate that informed consent statements disclose this fact to clients. However, it is a double standard to assume that SOCE produces any significantly different effects for clients than any other form of psychotherapy or counseling. Karten & Wade provide valuable evidence that SOCE is not contraindicated, but in fact helps psychological functioning.
This study reflects that mainstream literature is beginning to give voice to scientific research and empirical inquiry regarding SOCE. Although such research may not be considered politically correct, Karten and Wade should be praised for their courage to investigate such issues, and Fordham University should be lauded for sponsoring it. Karten and Wade have followed similar pioneers such as Dean Byrd who asserts "though such research into sexual reorientation may be viewed as politically incorrect, no longer can it be ignored. Sociopolitical concerns must not interfere with the scientist's freedom to research any reasonable hypothesis, or to explore the efficacy of any reasonable treatment."
While some would encourage practitioners to provide "affirmative" treatments but "not to aim to alter sexual orientation" (APA's executive summary, pg. 6), SOCE seeks to honor client self-determination. It is ironic that as society promotes self determination and autonomy, efforts to restrict the research and practice of SOCE actually discriminate against the self determination and autonomy of those with unwanted homosexual attractions. The Journal of Men's Studies should be commended for their integrity in publishing honest research regardless of popular political sentiment. Perhaps other journals and scholarly publications will follow suit.
Fact 4: The political correctness of the APAs and their loss of scientific objectivity.
Past APA President, Dr. Nicholas Cummings, testifying how the "APA is politically based rather than scientifically based" as well as "confirming the research that reports that change is possible."
"In a rousing address, American Psychological Association Past-President Dr. Nicholas Cummings shared his experience from his 60-year career as a psychologist and clinician. Dr. Cummings said that he has always been a champion of gay rights, and during his many years of leadership within the American Psychological Association, he influenced the organization to support many causes, including gay issues.
However, as a scientist, he began to have serious concerns over the direction the APA eventually was taking in becoming more influenced by politics than by science. He began to write extensively on the ways that the APA is politically based rather than scientifically based, describing one of his recent books, "Eleven Blunders that Cripple Psychotherapy in America" (Routledge, 2008).
He described his own experience in treating homosexuals for various issues, including men and women who were troubled with unwanted homosexual attractions. Dr. Cummings says he personally worked with homosexual clients who went on to marry and live heterosexual lives, confirming the research that reports that change is possible."
Dr. Jeffrey Satinover M.D., Ph.D in his book titled: Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, expands upon how the APA was driven by politics, not science."
Excerpt from page 32:
"The APA (American Psychiatric Association) vote to normalize homosexuality was driven by politics, not science. Even sympathizers acknowledged this. Ronald Bayer was then a Fellow at the Hastings Institute in New York. He reported how in 1970 the leadership of a homosexual faction within the APA planned a "systematic effort to disrupt the annual meetings of the American Psychiatric Association."(3) They defended this method of "influence" on the grounds that the APA represented "psychiatry as a social institution" rather than a scientific body or professional guild."
APAs' political bias on reparative or change therapy is blatant. They cite no scientific studies of harm. Rather, they use terms such as "expressed concerns" "no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy is safe or effective." "it seems likely promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes."
Excerpt:
"All major national mental health organizations have officially expressed concerns about therapies promoted to modify sexual orientation. To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective. Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons."
Dr. A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., MBA, MPH reviews a book titled: Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm. (Edited by Rogers H. Wright and Nicolas A. Cummings, 2005.) The book exemplifies how "The APA has chosen ideology over science."
Excerpt from the review:
"The authors condemn the APA for providing forums only for their preferred worldviews. They particularly note how psychology is undermined when APA makes resolutions and public policy statements on issues for which there is little or inadequate science. Such prostitution of psychology by activist groups within APA is contributing, they say, to the profession's demise as a scientific organization. "Psychology and mental health," Cummings says, "have veered away from scientific integrity and open inquiry, as well as from compassionate practice in which the welfare of the patient is paramount" (p. xiii).
Cummings and Wright note that "psychology, psychiatry, and social work have been captured by an ultraliberal agenda" (p. xiii) with which they personally agree regarding quite a few aspects, as private citizens. However, they express alarm at the damage that such an agenda is wreaking on psychology as a science and a practice, and the damage that is being done to the credibility of psychologists as professionals.
They reference a principle enunciated by former APA president Leona Tyler, where the advocacy of APA as an organization should be based upon "scientific data and demonstrable professional experience," (p. xiv) leaving individual psychologists or groups of psychologists to advocate as concerned, private citizens. But they decry the "agenda-driven ideologues" in APA who erode psychology as a science. As they note, "The APA has chosen ideology over science, and thus has diminished its influence on the decision-makers in our society" (p. xiv).
"Gay Activism in APA
The issue of homosexuality is illustrative of how political correctness and a narrow definition of diversity have dominated APA. Wright notes: In the current climate, it is inevitable that conflict arises among the various subgroups in the marketplace. For example, gay groups within the APA have repeatedly tried to persuade the association to adopt ethical standards that prohibit therapists from offering psychotherapeutic services designed to ameliorate gayness, on the basis that such efforts are unsuccessful and harmful to the consumer. Psychologists who do not agree with this premise are termed homophobic.
Such efforts are especially troubling because they abrogate the patient's right to choose the therapist and determine the therapeutic goals. They also deny the reality of data demonstrating that psychotherapy can be effective in changing sexual preferences in patients who have a desire to do so (pp. xxx).
"The author's view of the 1973 and 1974 decisions reclassifying homosexuality is worthy of quoting here:
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association yielded suddenly and completely to political pressure when in 1973 it removed homosexuality as a treatable aberrant condition. A political firestorm had been created by gay activists within psychiatry, with intense opposition to normalizing homosexuality coming from a few outspoken psychiatrists who were demonized and even threatened, rather than scientifically refuted.
Psychiatry's House of Delegates sidestepped the conflict by putting the matter to a vote of the membership, marking the first time in the history of healthcare that a diagnosis or lack of diagnosis was decided by popular vote rather than scientific evidence (p. 9).
The authors do not complain about what was done, but rather, how it was done. The co-author (Cummings) of the chapter not only agrees with the outcome, but in 1974 introduced the successful resolution declaring that homosexuality was not a psychiatric condition. However, the resolution carried with it a "proscription that appropriate and needed research would be conducted to substantiate these decisions." Cummings "watched with dismay as there was no effort on the part of APA to promote or even encourage such required research" (p. 9).
Unfortunately, both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association had established precedents "forever that medical and psychological diagnoses are subject to political fiat" (p. 9). As a result, the authors note, "Diagnosis today in psychology and psychiatry is cluttered with politically correct verbiage, which seemingly has taken precedence over sound professional experience and scientific validation" (p. 9)."
http://narth.com/docs/destructive.html
(Source: The Torah Declaration: http://www.torahdec.org/FatAPA.aspx. Used with permission)
Scientific Tests?
Should we take part in „scientific“ tests that want to (dis-)prove the possibility of change through our physical reactions?
From the bottom of my heart: NO.
Why is that?
There are many reasons for that. In short: You don’t want to go down to that level. Had I heard of ex-gay leaders that do that when I left my gay life, I’d probably not even have given the option of living a life aside from the gay scene a chance. I’ve been there where you show off your thing in public – I did not need to go back and go down to that level again.
Let’s go into detail:
First: Why would you want do that (and in some cases even take money for it!)? Think about the headlines: “Gay leader being paid for showing his thing in public”. You think that would really help the cause?
Maybe you want to do that to give a scientific “proof” for the possibility of change and thus motivate others. Nice motivation, bad thought. First you’d have to prove that you were “homosexual” at first place so you can prove you came out of it and changed to heterosexual. As the causes of “homosexuality” to this day are not even clear, it is impossible to do that. So any attempt to prove the possibility of change is futile from the beginning.
Second: Think about what could go wrong. You might be nervous, you might have a physical disease or what not. All of that could influence and/or distort the outcome – with dramatic consequences for people wanting and seeking change.
For a scientific test to be valid, it would also need to be repeated. How many men do you think can be found willing to do this?
Most of all, however, our goal is NOT to change from “homosexual” to heterosexual, but to become followers of Christ (for the non-Christians: to find freedom from same-sex attractions – however that might look like for the individual).
Do I think that change from “homosexual” to heterosexual is possible? Absolutely. For God all things are possible that might be impossible for men.
But: Who do you need to prove that to? The institutes that do those tests most likely than not are not what you might call “neutral” – else they wouldn’t do the test (see above). I don’t believe Christian scientists or serious secular scientists would do such “experiments”. Gay activists would not be convinced, even if the test would prove what you want it to prove. People that seek help might not be encouraged, but discouraged. Why? Some of them struggled for years to find freedom. Now they hear that this guy has changed a 100 %. I don’t know about you guys, but in my case this would add shame to the guilt. I’d even feel worse than ever before for not having made it yet.
Now just for the sake of the argument let’s assume everything goes according to plan and 100 men do the test and give a “scientific” prove they changed (again: it would not even be scientific at first place because you first need to prove you were “homosexual”). What would that show? That change is possible? So what? It would not be a sign for something being wrong or right from a moral perspective. Even if change would not be possible something could be wrong from a moral perspective. Even if change is possible, it does not make things right (if so, heterosexual men could and maybe even should change to “homosexuals” too).
Again: Do not go down to the level of some gay activists. Neither did Jesus. He was mocked and told to do this and that if He really was the Son of God. He did none of it. It would have been easy to say something like “Just for the record: You see that Temple over here? BOOF! Now you don’t!” or say or do something else to “scientifically prove” He stand above physics and thus is very “likely” to be the Son of God. He did none of it but stayed silent, knowing that people would not even believe then. Even the miracles He did perform were done to show people the importance of faith and not to show what a great magician Jesus really was. He did not need to prove anything to anybody. If people did not come to Him by faith, there is no point for them to follow Him anyways. Jesus even called those blessed that do not see and still believe. That should teach us a lesson.
Finally: As every good Christian we should surround ourselves with good and healthy Christian men that walk with us through life and encourage and/or exhort us and help us find the right decisions. God pointed out several times that our hearts are deceitful and we should not trust them. For us alone it is impossible to find out which ones of the many voices we get to hear each day are from God and which from the other side. In important matters – and taking such tests as men who have responsibilities certainly is an important matter – we should listen to the advice of our friends and also the advice and opinion of the people we work together with in a ministry and/or church congregation. Else we are very prone to fall for pride and arrogance (“Had I always listened to others, I’d have never achieved what I did achieve!” – Really? If there is something good we did achieve we did so through the blessings of God and through His sanctifying work). Works of the flesh (like pride) will never bring forth fruits of the Spirit. As believers in Jesus we are not individuals cut off from the rest – we are part of the body of Christ and should act like that.
Rob
Links National
Dr. Christian Spaemann (Psychiater und Psychotherapeut): Anmerkungen zum Thema Homosexualität
kath.net: Führender Homo-Aktivist: Es gibt kein "Gay-Gen"
Siehe auch Artikel des Deutschen Institutes für Jugend und Gesellschaft:
Homosexualität und physische Erkrankungen
Homosexualität und psychische Erkrankungen
Homosexualität und sexueller Mißbrauch
Männliche Homosexualität und Promiskuität
Jugendliche und sexuelle Orientierung
Resources
Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate
Stanton L. Jones: Ex-Gays?: A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation
Neil and Briar Whitehead: My Genes Made Me Do It! - A Scientific Look at Sexual Orientation.
HEALTH CONCERNS OF HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR - A Voice of the Voiceless Reference. Volume 1. 2/3/2014