EXPOSING MYTHS ABOUT
SEXUAL ORIENTATION (EMASO)
If you have arrived at this website for the purpose of looking at the scientific evidence why such a thing as a homo gene has never been found nor will it ever be, then click here if you want to go directly to this evidence (myth 3, items 4 and 6).
If you are not a Swede or don’t live in Sweden, click here for some background about this website.
It’s my hope that the information that follows speaks to you with an openness that’s not meant to hurt anyone. It’s the concern about our children and grandchildren that compels me to bring forth the truth as I have come to know it.
Keep in mind that the depraved lifestyle - so prominently and unashamedly promoted by RFSL, not only on their website but also in their disseminated material - is something that's part of our public school curriculum. The filth and smut abound as you will find. To most people, the RFSL material is no doubt very disgusting and repulsive. But for the vulnerable children in our midst, many of whom already struggle with gender identity problems, when they come home from school and go to the RFSL website, the material to them is nothing short of pornographic in nature.
But if you want to avoid altogether the references to RFSL's materials you will find ample warnings.
I therefore feel an obligation to share with others and in particular with parents and grandparents what I’ve found. In particular I want to expose three commonly held myths. To withhold this important information would be morally wrong and would deprive parents and grandparents of important knowledge on how they can prevent a homosexual outcome in their offspring. Especially fathers play a very important role in developing masculinity in their boys and thereby prevent a homosexual outcome when their sons enter puberty. What I will talk about is based solely on research and scientific studies and reports. With the exception of the last sidebar link, it’s not based on religious or moral attitudes on this issue. My emphasis will be on homosexuality among men where the origin and development is well documented. The development of lesbianism among girls is more complex. It's believed that child molestation and abuse by a male in general, plays an even major role for girls.
This presentation is intended as an information source for parents and grandparents and not for adults who have already developed a homosexual orientation. I repeat: This information is not for you if you are already involved in the homosexual lifestyle unless you want to be free from your lifestyle. If so, go to this website www.akegreen.org and click on "Help Organizations" on the left side menu bar.
Not for Children
1. Which sexual orientation is the most desirable for your child or grandchild? Without proper information about the homosexual lifestyle, and the practices associated with the same, you will not be able to decide to what extent you want to go to promote the development of one of the two orientations (homo or hetero).
2. How can you, during your child’s formative years, lay the groundwork for the sexual orientation that will develop when puberty sets in?
3. Is a child born homosexual or heterosexual? Is it in the genes?
The introduction and the three parts (myths) are divided into the following subparts (by clicking on any of the parts or subparts you will be taken directly to that topic):
Myth Number 2: You cannot influence your child as to what sexual orientation he will choose when puberty occurs.
Myth Number 3: Sexual orientation is something inherited. It’s determined by the genes.
Type 1. To keep the main presentation within limits I have placed some of the background material in links that you will find on the left sidebar menu. Whenever you see an underlined number (like No.1) you will find additional information on this issue by either clicking right there on the link or going to the left sidebar and click on the same number there.
Type 2. I have used material from several books as sources for the presentation. References to these books appear as "REF." (upper case letters), followed by a number and then the page number in the book where you can find the information. Most of these books in turn have many references of their own.
Type 3. Some of the source material that I consider especially significant is referred to with the designation "ref." (lower case letters) followed by a number. I also use this type of reference to particular websites on the internet. Some of these references, especially RFSL’s web pages, have a habit of being withdrawn whenever they get in hot water for their lurid material. So, I don’t know whether a particular link is current (i.e. up and running) and have therefore “frozen” the page in time for you. But the material I have included was posted on the web as recently as March 2007. All the references of this type (type 3) have a direct link if you just click on the ref. number. A listing of all the three types of references (“Nr”, “REF” and “ref”) can be found by clicking on the link at the bottom of the left side bar.
Tour through Sweden
Update note: The tour was ended in 2006 and will not be completed due to ongoing threats by the homo mafia in our country. For further information about the tour see link on top menu bar titled “homolobby or homomafia?”
Let’s now start with Myth Number 1.
Why is it necessary that we take a look at the prevalent homosexual acts?
They continue (page 155):
And Kirk and Madsen further explain (page 155-156):
And with respect to the truthfulness of the ads, Kirk and Madsen arrogantly proclaim (page 154):
Well, here in Sweden the camel is already fully inside our tent. Here the lies have, by and large, already been swallowed by us gullible Swedes. Here the RFSL has already “dragged in all the peculiarities one by one”. It’s only by describing them that you (as a parent) will be motivated to save your child from such a lifestyle. Only when you realize that “the ads are lies” will you seek and find the tools necessary to prevent a homosexual development in your child.
So, let’s now compare the two lifestyles. But let’s first establish that - in spite of all the ad lies from RFSL and their supporters - the homosexual and heterosexual people are of equal value. All people have equal value. We should all agree on that. However, if we talk about what is the desirable sexual orientation both for individuals and for society, opinions differ. There are those who would argue that the homosexual lifestyle, with its lack of taboos and freedom to enjoy any kind of sex, is the more desirable lifestyle. But there are also those who believe that the heterosexual lifestyle is to be preferred, both from the individual’s point of view as well as from society’s point of view.
Let us therefore compare the two lifestyles so that you, as a parent, can decide for yourself what you believe is the desired outcome in your own offspring and take action accordingly. Since we are talking about what you as a parent find desirable we shall only touch on what is best for you and your offspring and not the impacts on society at large (e.g. medical costs for sexually transmitted diseases, the cost to society for drug abuse, how other medical research has suffered lack of resources due to the intense focus on AIDS etc.).A comparison of the two lifestyles reveals the following:
Many of the categories are interdependent. For example: drug abuse, suicide, and sexually transmitted deceases all affect the average life expectancy. And in certain social and religious environment (with a low acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle), the frequency of suicide among already established homosexuals may be higher, which is compensated for by a much lower percentage of homosexuals. In other words: The absolute number of suicides in such a culture is probably lower. But once a person becomes homosexual he/she is more likely to commit suicide. We must also remember that we are talking about statistical averages. In other words: the probability of a particular outcome. For example, there are homosexual men with no STD while there are heterosexual men with many of them.
The root problem with the male homosexual lifestyle apart from moral and fidelity aspects are the various forms of anal sex. This is very central to their lifestyle as evidenced by the focus on the “Anal Manual” (ref. 13) at RFSL’s official website. About two thirds of all male homosexuals engage in various forms of anal intercourse and activities. From this practice follow many health related maladies and associated problems. The next epidemic for mankind is just waiting to happen.
Let’s now take a closer look at each of the 9 areas of comparison.
1. Average life expectancy.
2. Use of illegal drugs.
The answer is found on another one of RFSL’s web pages. I must admit that I hesitated to include this material. It is indeed repulsive to most normal people. But after all, it’s from RFSL’s own website and it explains better than words why illegal drugs are so prevalent. Here on this RFSL page (ref.5) they write:
“Licking the ass - Rimming
In other words: “for the novice it’s repulsive but for the experienced participant it’s like heaven on earth”. And this very fact - that it’s repulsive for the novice explains why illegal drugs are conveniently used to facilitate the practice. The same thing goes for many of the other activities that homosexuals engage in (for example the so called “fisting” etc.). It’s well recognized that experienced older men love to initiate younger men and boys to the “mystery” of various sexual practices. Like when our Supreme Court Justice Leif Thorsson sought and paid for homosexual favors from a young 20 years old boy in Stockholm (No.1). We’ll look more at this phenomenon later. As you read the RFSL website you realize that there is a progression in homosexual practices. The vile and depraved acts of yesterday will not suffice today.
3. Frequency of suicide.
1). When a “pre-homosexual” boy enters puberty he has often already experienced plenty of rejection by his male peers. During his formative years he often felt like he was not like the other boys. This has already caused emotional trauma for him. He urgently needs help from another man (or men) to be affirmed in his masculinity. Instead, what he too often receives is RFSL propaganda that pulls him deeper and deeper into the homosexual lifestyle.
2). If he then ”comes out” as a homosexual he often experiences further scorn and rejection from many people. He may even be rejected by member of his own family. Even many church members unfortunately don’t know how to give the proper help. But even with total acceptance, most homosexual men will never be happy because they feel deep inside that something is wrong and unnatural.
3). When he then progresses in the homosexual lifestyle he finds that it never leads to true satisfaction. Since it’s against nature there will never be emotional satisfaction. And what worked yesterday will no longer satisfy today and he will typically progress into increasingly depraved acts and feel even more dissatisfied.
There is a fallacy promoted by the gay agenda that full and unreserved tolerance and acceptance will lead to fewer suicides. It may be that the rate (or frequency) itself might decrease somewhat. But it also leads to many more boys developing homosexuality. Parents will come to consider it fully normal and natural and not do what they can to prevent it. And although the frequency might come down somewhat, the fact that many more will be drawn into the homosexual lifestyle means that the total number of suicides will increase.
In this context I want to discuss a little more the proper attitudes towards homosexuals by caring and loving heterosexuals. Of all the e-mails I have received from my countrymen, through contacts on this site, one gentleman (apparently Christian) wrote: “Isn’t it a problem (from a Christian point of view) that the ones who have suffered the most from an unfortunate upbringing (i.e. absentee father) will also be the ones to suffer the most risks of developing homosexuality. The question of how to show Christian love and care to a homosexual person is very difficult”.
It’s apparent what’s on the writer’s mind. When an adolescent displays pre-homosexual tendencies, and we know (or have reason to believe) that it’s rooted in an inadequate upbringing, should we not embrace the lifestyle and make it easier for him (or her) to accept the homosexual lifestyle. There are two issues involved in the writer’s contribution: a) Our attitudes and b) The fairness of it all.
a) Our attitudes
This thought is well communicated in the touching story about “Randy” in Chuck Colson’s book “The Good Life”. By permission from Prison Fellowship, this chapter (titled “Morality and the Natural Order”), has been translated into Swedish and is made available upon request. See the sidebar under “Free Literature” for information on how to order. If you understand English I strongly recommend that you buy the book (“The Good Life” by Chuck Colson, the founder and chairman of the successful Prison Fellowship).
So, what it all boils down to is this: Do you or don’t you believe that homosexuality is something that can be prevented in the first place and “repaired” if already developed? To that very end I have written about Myth 2 and Myth 3 below to help you understand why it can indeed be prevented. And also why it’s so important for the homosexual lobby that such information be withheld from you.
b) The fairness of it all
4. Frequency of pedophilia.
Whenever a boy is molested by a man, the act itself is by nature a homosexual act whether or not the perpetrator becomes identified as a homosexual man per se. Just think about all the catholic priests who have molested boys. Obviously it was by someone with homosexual tendencies even though the priest would never admit that he is homosexual. Likewise, the molestations of virtually all girls are crimes of heterosexual pedophilia.
So, it therefore follows that a look at the ratio of molestations of boys to molestation of girls ought to give us some insight. If anything, the molestation of boys by men are likely to be more underreported that the molestation of girls by men. It should be noted though that there are some bisexual molesters who seek out both boys and girls. Statistics indicate that molestations of boys are not too far below molestations of girls even though there are between some 25 to 50 times more heterosexual than homosexual men in the general population.
Even a politically correct liberal media outlet like Los Angeles Time had to admit that. On August 25-26 1985 they reported on a survey of 2,628 adults across the US. A full 27% of the women and 16% of the men claimed to have been sexually molested as children. In other words, only about 1.7 times (=27/16) more girls than boys had been molested. Since 25/1.7=14.7 and 50/1.7=29.4 it follows that homosexual men are between 14.7 and 29.4 times more likely to become pedophiles than heterosexual men. A crude analysis like this is, as stated above, based on the assumption that all molesters were males. However, in the LA Times study 7% of the girls were molested by a woman and also 7% of the boys were molested by a woman. So, male molesters were 93% as opposed to the previously assumed 100% of the total number of molesters. Through this “adjustment” they found that 4 out of every 10 molestations in the study were committed by homosexuals. So, with 40% divided by a 2-4% homosexual population it becomes between 10 (=40/4) to 20 (=40/2) times more likely that any given homosexual man is a pedophile than any given heterosexual man. This compares to the “unadjusted” numbers above (14.7 to 29.4 times more likely). For a further discussion of this one and other scientific studies on the subject click here. And for even more evidence click here (PDF-file 210 KB). The conclusions of a wealth research into this subject are so uniform and undeniable. In short: the evidence is overwhelming.
One thing should be noted. Much of the statistics in previous studies are based on a data base before there was an explosion of homosexuality due to the media’s popularization of this lifestyle. Today, the percentage of homosexuals may far exceed the historic levels of 2%-4% of the population. Therefore, if as an example - the percentages today are between 4% and 8% homosexuals and it’s applied to the same data base, the results are reduced by a factor of 2 from 10-20 times to between 5-10 times higher probability of pedophilia among homosexual men. But such a calculation is of course an artifact. Because, as the percentage of homosexuals among the population at large increases, so does that the total number of crimes of pedophilia by homosexuals. Therefore, the probability will always be some 10-20 times higher that a homosexual man is a pedophile than a heterosexual man.
It’s apparent from the numbers that most homosexuals are of course not pedophiles. So, to be part of a group with such an elevated frequency of pedophilia is (quite understandably) often disturbing to non-pedophilic homosexuals. This is similar to the situation with the “North American Man-Boy Love Association” (NAMBLA) which is an embarrassment to many non-pedophilic homosexuals. However, the acceptance of pedophilia is slowly but surely gaining acceptance in our decadent society. So, it won’t be long before NAMBLA will no longer be an embarrassment.
Let’s now look at some examples and then I’ll present my own statistical analysis on an extensive and interesting data base.
4:1. In a statement on RFSL’s own website they express admiration of older men having sex with young boys. They write: ”In ancient Greece the love between older men and young boys was greatly appreciated” For further information click here (No.2)
4:2. It’s no secret that just Thailand - with its infamous child prostitution - is such a popular travel destination among homosexual men. On this information page (ref.8) - directed towards homosexual men - we read why the country is so popular. It reads in part:
About the gay scene.
Please remember that the Thai-men you will meet in the bars are working men and your satisfaction and happiness is their income. If you talk with a man for a while in the bar, buy him a drink, leave him a tip, or both.
Patong has bars with cabaret shows, go-go boys, sexy shows, bars and restaurants, and almost all have Thai-men who would go with a guest. If a Thai- man appeals to you, find out through the captain or owner if he speaks English. It is always best to be straightforward with the Thai-man and the owner of the bar. Find out what the Thai-man likes and does not like. Also find out if he will spend the night, or just spend a shorter time together with you. If you do not find out about this in advance you may be confused and disappointed later. There is always a fee to the bar that is not negotiable if you want to take away a Thai-man working in that bar. There may be some flexibility with your payment to the Thai-man. It may involve only sex, staying the night, or perhaps you will have company for your entire holiday. Please remember, he has friends or family, and will need some time for his daily life too. Payment can be at the end of your adventure, but it is more thoughtful to consider payment as you both go along…
Additionally, after the Tsunami hit Thailand the gay community was forced to postpone a big gay festival in Phuket, much to the disappointment of many of our gay people. Something that was regretfully announced on RFSL’s website.
4:3. The Netherlands and Belgium are countries well-known for continuously lowering the ”age of consent” between grown-up and children (presently 12 years). It therefore didn’t come as a surprise that Bo Svensson - Chief Justice of the Swedish Supreme Court and an apparent defender of the sex trade seems to take his cues from the Belgian judicial system. He discussed it in an interview where he defended his buddy on our Supreme Court, Leif Thorsson, who had bought sex from a young student boy in Stockholm. (No.1).
4:4. Recently The Journal of Homosexuality ran a special edition of their publication devoted to ”The paedophilia debate”. The publisher, John DeCecco also serves on the editorial board of “Paedika: The Journal of Paedophilia”, a Dutch publication that sponsors “paedophilia research” in an attempt to make pedophilia more acceptable in society. This special edition reflects an essential, influential and growing segment of the homosexual community that neither hides, nor condemns pedophilia (REF.1 page 63).
The homosexual lobby likes to emphasize that there are more heterosexual than homosexual pedophiles in society. And if we talk about the total number of such crimes it’s of course true. And a gullible public leaves it at that. But if you look at the rate (or frequency) of pedophilia, homosexual pedophilia is far more common. By a factor probably somewhere around 10.
The reason for a substantial variation from study to study is as stated before - that it is difficult to ascertain exact numbers in the data base. This may cause some people to wrongly discredit the whole issue of a serious increased frequency of pedophilia among homosexual men. But all the studies have the same clear trend.
To be sure, there are some studies on the low side of the factor of 10. One such study (REF.1 page 64-65 and ref.9) found that there are 36 times more heterosexual than homosexual men. But, the number of heterosexual molestations was “only” 11 times higher than homosexual molestations. Thus there was only about a 3 times greater probability (=36/11) that a homosexual man would turn out to be a pedophile than a heterosexual man. Yet another study from 1988 was reported in the “Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa” by Bradford, Bloomberg and Bourget (ref.10). They found that between 19% and 33% of all reported pedophilia is by homosexual men. With 3% of all men being homosexual, the “overrepresentation” of pedophilia among homosexuals become between 6 (=19/3) and 11(=33/3) times the frequency by heterosexual men.
It’s important to remember that since 1973, when APA suddenly declared homosexuality a normal behavior (See Myth 2 subchapter 1 below), the disciplines of psychology and psychiatry seem to have been flooded by homosexuals with a distinct agenda. It’s therefore to be expected that studies of recent date (and especially when the authors themselves are homosexuals) are strongly biased and often lacking intellectual honesty in the area of “research” on homosexuality. See Myth 3 below for several such examples. Therefore, studies on the area of pedophilia among homosexuals conducted nowadays, need to be taken with a grain of salt.
(REF.2) pages 121-140 lists over a dozen reputable studies and reports all of which points to an appreciably higher frequency of pedophilia among homosexual men. I would also suggest this reference (ref.38) (Report: pedophilia more common among 'gays' - Research purports to reveal 'dark side' of homosexual culture). A detailed analysis of a comprehensive data base (from 12 states in the USA between the years 1991 and 1996) issued by the Bureau of Justice of the US in 2000 (ref.11 and ref.12), suggests a ratio of 10:1 of the frequency of pedophilia between homosexual and heterosexual men (Nr.3).
5. Sexually Transmitted Deceases (STDs)
At that time the disease went under the name GRID (Gay-Related Immune Disorder). But very soon the gay community having suddenly become very influential managed to change the name to AIDS (Acquired Immune-Deficiency Syndrome). Today everybody knows about the tragic and worldwide HIV/AIDS epidemic.
But beyond HIV/GRID/AIDS there are many other STDs. Among them are HPVs (Human Papillomavirus), a group name for some 70 different types of virus. A study of homosexual and bisexual men in San Francisco showed that HPV was almost universal among HIV-positive men and a full 60% among HIV-negative homosexual and bisexual men. Likewise, many other STDs (Gonorrhea, Syphilis, Kaposi Sarcoma, etc.) are far more common among homosexual men. Also Hepatitis B is more common among homosexual men.
There are two major underlying reasons for the high spread of STDs among homosexual men:
5:1. The frequency of anal intercourse among homosexual men is very high. According to one report (ref.13): Increases in Unsafe Sex and Rectal Gonorrhea among Men who have Sex with Men (MSM) San Francisco, California, 1994-1997, Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, January 29, 1999,45 ] the percentage of anal sex among homosexual men (MSM) increased from 57.6% to 61.2% between 1994 and 1997. One only needs to look at RFSL’s own “Anal Manual” - prominently displayed on their website (ref.14) - to realize how widespread this practice is among homosexual men.
And anal intercourse transmits STDs to a much higher degree than vaginal intercourse. In a study presented in New England Journal of Medicine it was found that “the probability of HIV transmission in unprotected received anal penetration was between 0.008 and 0.032, or between 1 in 125 and 1 in 31 for each time of such an act” (REF.2 page 71-72). By comparison, the probability of HIV transmission in unprotected vaginal intercourse is “only” between 0.0005 and 0.0015 or between 1 in 2000 and 1 in 666. Thus anal intercourse is between 5 and 64 times more risky than vaginal intercourse.
But it’s not only through “blood to blood” or “mucus to mucus” that transmission takes place. From the publication “Anal Pleasure and Health” (Jack Morin, Anal Pleasure and Health: A Guide for Men and Women, San Francisco, Down There Press, 1998 p. 220) it reads: “Sexual activities offer many opportunities for small doses of feces to find its way to the mouth of the sexual partner. The most direct rout is via oral-anal contact”.
5:2. The high number of partners among homosexual men. We turn again to the RFSL’s website to see that such is the case and what chances homosexuals are willing to take with respect to unprotected sex (ref.15). There someone writes: ”We love each other and are tested HIV negative. We fuck without with each other but with condom with others. Negotiated security works if both have tested hiv-negative twice with three months in between and had safer sex in between. It takes up to three months for antibodies to form. Then you must be in agreement about what rules apply if you meet someone on the side. To then always fuck with condom and immediately tell your partner if you had unprotected sex, is a good agreement.”
6. Infidelity with partner.
Beyond the much higher risk of STDs among homosexual men (see above) the high infidelity in their partnerships often results in additional emotional trauma for one of the partners when a partnership is broken. Besides. there is of course emotional trauma to any adopted children. Beyond the much higher risk of pedophilia this has now also become a reality for our little ones since our Parliament ("Riksdag") in a very shameful act legalized adoption by homosexual partners. (See “The Parade of Shame” under Myth 4.2 below).
7. Social and religious acceptance.
8. An abnormal focus on sex.
9. Rectal problems.
Therefore, even when condoms are used to lower the risk of viral and bacterial infections (see above) anal intercourse is injurious, mainly for the man who is being penetrated. It often leads to "rectal incontinence" as well as anal cancer. The membrane that surrounds the rectum is almost always damaged. Even without major trauma, there are minor (sometimes microscopic) ruptures in the rectal membrane, that promotes immediate transmission of bacteria into the blood stream. Therefore, even though faithful homosexual partners have a lower risk of AIDS they often (due to their relative fidelity and trust) engage in such activities and are very vulnerable to other non-AIDS infection.
They are often victims of other serious - and sometimes deadly infections caused by feces entering the bloodstream. This includes hepatitis B and a host of otherwise unusual infections such as shigellosis, Guardia Lamblia, which together are now referred to as "Gay Bowel Syndrome (GBS)"(REF.2; pages 80-82). An article in a publication [F.N. Judson, "Sexually Transmitted Viral Hepatitis and Enteric Pathogens", Urology Clinics of North America 11,. No.1 (February 1984), pp.177-185] sums it up as follows
“Because of their larger numbers of sexual partners and sexual practices such as anilingus and anal intercourse, homosexual men are at particular high risk of acquiring hepatitis B, giardiasis, amebiasis, shigellosis, campylobacteriosis and anorectal infections with Neisseria gonorrhea, Chlamydia trachomatis, Treponema palladium, herpes simplex virus, and HPV (Human Papilloma Viruses)".
With this comparison of the lifestyles as background, you as a parent or grandparent - may form an independent opinion about which lifestyle is the one preferred for your offspring (especially boys). And especially to what extent you are prepared to go if you want to prevent a homosexual outcome. In the next chapter (Myth 2) we shall explore what you can do to influence your child (at a very early age) so that he is likely to assume your preferred sexual orientation when he enters puberty.Back to Table of Contents
In the exposé that follows, I have chosen to describe the actions you ought to take and which ones to avoid if you want your child or grandchild to choose the heterosexual lifestyle upon entering puberty. However, if you prefer the homosexual lifestyle (for example homosexual partners who have adopted children) you will want to do the opposite to what is suggested below.
the parent, particularly the father of a gender confused
son, is not aware of his son's need of help to develop
masculine traits. The father may be so busy with
providing for his family that he does not develop an
emotional bond with his son. And it's the son's
perspective that matters. The father may actually love his
son greatly and still not be aware that his son
himself does not feel close to his father or another
male role model in his life.
1. Convincing results from extensive research is suppressed by the homolobby.
This is the result of an incessant propaganda drumbeat from RFSL and SVT over the last three decades. If you are not a Swede, you should know that SVT is the Swedish TV monopoly; in effect a propaganda and indoctrination arm of RFSL. Therefore it came as no surprise when SVT was awarded the prestigious “Rainbow Award” as the best and foremost promoter of their agenda. This was awarded in connection with the “Gay Pride Week” in Stockholm, Sweden. Our capital Stockholm has become a magnet (a virtual Mecca) for homophiles from all over Europe.
The homolobby is extremely influential in our society today. At all levels. They know all too well that their political influence is in direct proportion to their numbers. Many parents and relatives become very supportive of RFSL once they learn that one of their own have become homosexual. But at the same time they believe, deep inside, that it’s a tragedy. Therefore, if you are a parent or grandparent who wishes that one day your offspring will choose the heterosexual orientation, listen carefully to what follows.
Much of the contents that follows is taken (with permission) from an American book by Joseph Nicolosi titled ”A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality” (REF.3). Nicolosi has a Ph.D. in Psychology. It should be noted that his book is based on what psychological research has shown and not based on religious concepts. Because of his views Dr. Nicolosi is now anathema to the leaders and many members of the “American Psychological Association. In 1973 a related association The “American Psychiatric Association” or “APA” voted to strike homosexuality from the officially approved list of psychiatric illnesses (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual or DSM for short). It occurred through nothing short of a coup by a limited but very vocal and angry group of homosexual members and sympathizers (REF.1 pages 32-35). Ever since that time, homosexual psychiatrist, psychologists and their sympathizers have increasingly controlled research, reports and symposia within their organizations. Through an example Dr. Nicolosi explains this shift in policy. He writes (REF.3; page 171-172):
” Political correctness continues to plague all of our mental health associations. A 1999 American Psychiatric Association annual convention was scheduled to include a debate on whether sexual orientation could be changed through therapy. But that debate was cancelled when two of the scheduled speakers withdrew, saying that the subject of homosexuality-as-changeable was too politically charged for a scientific meeting. Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover and I were originally proposed as members of that panel, but the gay-activist psychiatrists refused to participate if either Satinover of I took part in such a discussion.
For more information on this subject click on this link (Nr.4 on the side bar).
If the suppression of the truth by the homolobby in the US is so prevalent, imagine how it must be in our country. There’s probably not a single psychologist or psychiatrist in Sweden who wants to (or dares) cooperate with parents who bring their boy to their office for concern about developing feminine behavior in their child. Therefore, you as a parent or grandparent are left to yourself to address this concern about your offspring’s future sexual orientation.
After this somewhat lengthy introduction, let’s now take a look at what honest research reveals and what you can do today to prevent initial pre-homosexuality and subsequent homosexuality from developing in your children. Let’s first look at the root (genesis) of homosexuality among boys.
2. Research report by Bieber et al (REF.4)
In addition to the considerable size in scope and the expertise of the authors, the study is significant for two important reasons:
2:1. It was conducted between 1952 and 1962. This was before it became political taboo to consider homosexuality an undesired behavior that should be prevented. After 1973, when APA removed homosexuality as abnormal from their DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), it became virtually impossible to conduct studies of this kind. And if any group of researchers would dare to conduct something similar today, they would be incredibly ostracized by their peers. But the findings are still valid today and extremely important for parents seeking to avoid homosexuality from developing in their boys.
Just look at what RFSL today writes on their website (ref.16) and you’ll understand what I’m talking about:
It’s obvious that today many young people - who are actually not pre-disposed to become homosexuals (i.e. they were never “pre-homosexual” due to an unfortunate upbringing) - nevertheless choose that lifestyle anyhow because it’s such a fad today. Or at least they try it out, many of whom then get trapped in its snares (see item 7 under free literature on the menu side bar). The conditions behind such clearly chosen lifestyle are not really addressed on this website. It can only be stopped if activities such as those of RFSL are brought under control and outlawed in the interest of a wholesome society. So, it’s safe to say that when the study was conducted in the 1950-ies and 60-ies, homosexuality still carried a stigma and nobody wanted to choose or even try out that lifestyle. Just like nobody chooses to be an alcoholic. In the Bieber study no fewer than 106 homosexual men were studied at length, together with a control group of 100 heterosexual men. The basic question was all along: Why had the 106 men become homosexuals. What, if anything, in their background or upbringing had caused them to be physically attracted to other men?
The findings were remarkable in that there was one common denominator for the homosexual orientation of all of these 106 men. Bieber and his team found that they had all (without exception) had an emotionally absent father or no father at all during their upbringing. None of them felt close to their dad.
3. Conclusions to be drawn
If a father bonds emotionally to his son, the son is extremely unlikely to become homosexual. However, if a father does not bond to his son, that will not necessarily lead to homosexuality. After all, as many as 37 % of the 100 heterosexual men in the study stated that they hated their father (compared to 59% in the homosexual group). But the homosexual men somehow failed to bond to their fathers.
In other words: The lack of father-son bonding is a necessary - but not always sufficient - cause of homosexuality.
Beyond the uniform result with respect to emotional bonding between father and son many other relationship aspects varied more, although the trend is similar. Here are some of them. (The numbers do not add up to 100% since not all men could answer all questions).
To interpret this table correctly, let us first recall that when a boy did not bond with his father, it did not automatically mean that he became homosexual. Indeed most of the men who did not bond, nevertheless became heterosexual. (Remember: failing to bond is a necessary but not sufficient condition for homosexuality). So, what other factors are at play in determining the sexual orientation? What other factors promotes a heterosexual outcome?
For example, take a look at the sixth question! (Father expressed affection for the patient)). Among the homosexual men about 25% had experienced such affection. That did not prevent them from becoming homosexuals since they had not felt bonding to their father even though they had experienced expressions of affection. But about twice as many (51 of 100) among the heterosexual control group had experienced such affection. Clearly, even though the son fails to bond to his father, a father's expression of affection promotes a heterosexual outcome.
So, based on the table, we conclude that the following factors (even though the son fails to bond) promotes a heterosexual outcome:
1. To be the father's favorite sibling (although it is not a virtue per se for a parent to have favorites).
2. To feel accepted by the father.
3. Make sure that the son does not hate his father (notice that as many as 37% in the heterosexual group hated their fathers and nevertheless became heterosexual).
4. Make sure the son accepts his father.
5. The father expresses affection for his son.
6. The father has as much respect for his son as for other male siblings.
7. The son will cope more easily with his father than with his mother.
8. The son will consider his father admirable.
All of these relational aspects are typically a natural consequence of bonding. But in cases where bonding does not happen, these other secondary aspects will enhance a heterosexual outcome. Very sadly, many fathers of sons who fail to develop a masculine identity, have no clue of what is going on. They needed so much time and energy for their work (maybe due to a large family to provide for), that they have little or no time for that particularly vulnerable son. Then there are those fathers who prefer to go and play golf in his spare time, rather than taking his son fishing. We shall discuss below, why a boy's failure to identify with the masculine gender at a very early age, is a root cause of homosexuality.
But first let’s look at why this study demonstrates that homosexuality is not hereditary. If it were indeed hereditary there would be many men in the homosexual group (“H”) who as children would have experienced emotional bonding to their fathers.
So, let me now summarize as follows:
I will explain below (Item 5) why this strong link exists. But let me say here that my heart bleeds for those little boys who lack a male role model in their lives. And my blood boils when I see how these boys are relentlessly sought out by RFSL in an attempt to recruit as many of them as possible into their ranks.
4. THE PARADE OF SHAME
This is how the Parade of Shame looked when the Parliament voted on proposition 2001/02:123 (ref.17)
As can be seen from this official tally, it was only the 37 MPs (Members of Parliament) from the Christian Democrats who opposed homoadoption. Honor to them. The “Moderate Party” actually did not want to allow homo adoption per se but only to allow homo guardianship of our children. An incredulous position. Think about it! Would the Moderate MPs have agreed to homosexual people guarding their own children or grandchildren?
Imagine if it were your own son! If you yourself - due to circumstances beyond your control - would have to let someone else care for your son. And if you could choose between a husband and wife in an apparent normal marriage on one hand and a pair of homosexual men on the other. How would your choose? When you really think about what happened on that fateful day (June 5, 2002) you realize what a reckless and callous act it was against the most vulnerable of our little ones. By all the parties in our Parliament except the Christian Democrats. How can the other MPs live with themselves? See themselves in the mirror daily and realize how they sold out our defenseless children.
The legislative history of this despicable law
It should also be noted that the following major organizations, with their expertise on the wellbeing of children, had expressed strong opposition to the proposal for homoadoption: Save The Children (sw: Rädda Barnen), The Children’s Ombudsman (Barnombudsmannen), The Network of Adoption Organizations (Nätverket för Adoptionsorganisationer).
Furthermore, opposition had also been expressed by the following organizations: The Social Department, The National Committee of International Adoptions, The Swedish Association of Physicians, Swedish Society of Psychologists, Sociologists for Family Justice, National Society of Family Counselors, AFO Organization for Adopted Children and Foster Children, Organization of Adopted Children from Korea, Forum for Adoption, The Family Organization for International Adoption, Children First, The National Organization for Justice for Children (BRIS), The Secretaries for Family Justice, Counseling Center for Adoption, The Network Voice of Adopted Children, Friends of the Children.
For example, The Swedish Society of Psychologists commented as follows: “The proposal is based on a worldview where the child is peripheral and parenthood is at the center. The text of the proposal shows a complete lack of understanding of a child’s need”. (sw: Promemorian har tillkommit utifrån en världsbild där barnet är perifert och föräldrarskapet står i centrum. Författningstexten uppvisar en total avsaknad av förståelse för och kunskap om barns behov. )
And in an interview in the newspaper The World Today (Sw: Världen Idag) (ref.18) on May 18, 2005 Lars Ahlin, chairman of the Swedish Society of Psychologists, commented on the sharp response submitted by his organization: “We normally don’t express us in such terms if we don’t believe that it was a major shortcoming of the proposal. Our lack of knowledge of how a child is impacted by being reared by two parent of the same sex is a big problem. We have opted to assume the child’s perspective since there is insufficient knowledge in research based on the evidence. Of course it’s a moral dilemma but we must not experiment on children. If we had known for sure that the children would not be exposed to unnecessary risks it would have been different. But the children cannot speak up for themselves.
It has been said that that the mothers produce boys but fathers produce men. At a very early age the child starts to realize that the world is divided into natural opposites of boys and girls, men and women. At that point it’s not enough for the boy to observe the differences. He must also decide where he belongs in this gender divided world. The girl has a much easier task. Her prime bonding is already to her mother so she does not need to go through the additional developmental task of being “de-identified” from the person closest to her the mother to become identified with the father. But for the boy it’s decidedly different. He must be separated from his mother and grow in difference from his prime love object if he one day will stand a chance of becoming a heterosexual man. This explains why there are more homosexual men than women. The first task in the development into a man is to not develop into a woman.
It’s here that the enormously important task for the father begins. And if the father is not there, another male must fill the role. It’s extremely important. Because the little boy is in constant need of help and encouragement in his development into a man. The father must let him understand that one day he will be like daddy. For example, the little boy and his daddy may take a shower together so that he may discover that he and daddy look the same and that one day he will become like daddy. That he is simply created that way and it can’t be changed. This also means that the son develops great confidence in his father. Daddy becomes a role model for his boy. Mommy must gradually decrease her influence over her son, starting at about 2 years of age. The father must display warmth and care towards his son and not hesitate to hug him. Someone has said that if the boy is never hugged by his dad, other men may hug him, in a very different way, later on in life. If this natural and necessary development is not encouraged, the boy may come to suffer from “Gender Identity Disorder” (GID), which is the first step for the pre-homosexual boy.
5:2. Problems with gender identity often seem to affect boys with a sensitive temperament more than other boys. Such boys are especially vulnerable if they experience that their dads reject them rather than encouraging them. Such a situation may easily arise if, for example, a boy has different talents and natural gifts than their father and brothers. The father is often interested in sports and may already have older boys whom he loves to take to soccer practice and soccer games. If the father’s third or fourth son instead is interested and gifted in arts or music it’s so easy for dad to neglect his little boy and fail to encourage him in what he finds interesting. Instead, the father must especially take time and pay interest in his little boy’s interest and talents and encourage him in that area. And to let his boy meet with other boys with the same interest. So he will become “one of the boys”. The boy must not be surrendered to his mother’s care and become “mom’s little boy”. In short: the father must help develop his son’s masculinity in a way that builds a warm trust, respect and affection between them. All of it to make sure that the boy will one day want to be like his dad.
The problem with gender identification comes in different forms at different levels. In extreme cases called Gender Identity Disorder (GID) the boys start playing with his sister’s dolls, dress in girl’s dresses and so on. It’s very important that the parents together agree to stop such behavior in love and without rejecting the boy or teasing him. But it’s more common with milder forms of such behavior which is referred to as “gender conflicted” or “gender confused”. But all boys with any kind of gender confusion are at risk of becoming “pro-homosexual”. Such a boy will soon feel that he is not like the other boys. He may become isolated from and teased by other boys for a developing femininity. All of this will further reinforce for him that he is different. Oh, how such a boy is in desperate need of a man who can reassure him that he is just like other boys and that he will grow into becoming like all men. How I wish that all men were aware of this need, not only in the lives of their own sons, but also in those vulnerable boys who don’t have a father. And that they would do all they can to prevent RFSL from laying their hands on such boys.
Without help, the ”pre-homosexual” boy will feel more at ease and more secure among girls. But he is torn inside. On one hand he wished that he were like other boys but believes that he probably is not. And when puberty then sets in the picture changes. The erotic appeal is always towards something that’s different than myself. And if a boy has been associated more with girls while growing up and felt strange and odd among other boys, then his sexual attraction will be towards other men.
The homosexual lobby sometimes argue that they do a favor for pre-homosexual boys by giving them comfort while developing (so they argue) an inborn, homosexual identity that was there from birth. But it’s up to you as parents (and grandparents) to prevent that. But you must first be convinced that homosexuality is not repeat NOT something that’s in the genes at birth. To that end you need to read about “Myth number 3” below.
6. The common role of both parents
Such unfortunate children need special attention by the parents to help heal deep emotional scars. Unfortunately it’s the children from broken homes who are the most vulnerable ones for a variety of reasons. It’s not always an adult male who violates children. An older child or an adolescent, many of whom have already been molested themselves, may also commit such acts. So, in today’s society with its loose morals, its intense focus on everything sexual, and such widespread acceptance of deviancies, you should be very aware of what kind of person is around your child when you are not present. Both the mother and the father play an extremely important role here.
The third most important factor (in preventing homosexuality) is the relationship and interaction between the parents. A happy and loving relationship between husband and wife is a good antidote against a pre-homosexual development. Especially for the son. The father’s treatment of his wife will leave indelible impressions on the boy. He will see and learn, while growing up, how it should work. How it was meant to work. The mother should, more than anything, show respect for her husband and encourage her son to “go and see daddy” when he has an important question or problem. The mother must “let go” of her son early on. She must break the bonding to herself and let her son start bonding with his daddy instead. This must start after the first 2-4 years of the boy’s life. But it’s wrong to say that starting later is too late. It’s never too late but gets increasingly harder the more the years go by without the boy “unbonding” from his mother. The mother should also resist temptations to “take control of the house” even though she may have a better education, a better job or be smarter than her husband.
All of this interplay will make the boy want to become like his dad. It helps the boy to become self-assured and safe in his developing masculinity, while at the same time loving and caring as he observes how his dad treats his wife. It’s exceedingly beautiful when these forces are at work the way it was meant to be. But no marriage is perfect. At least not all the time. Some lapses in the ideal “role playing” will of course not make a boy homosexual. But the ground rules of the interaction between the parents in preventing homosexuality in their offspring is apparent and well understood.
How about the boy who through a myriad of reasons - does not have both a mother and a father? Well, the task is harder but far from hopeless. After all, most boys growing up with a single parent will of course not become homosexual. It can also be argued that a boy with an abusive father is worse off than a boy with no father at all. This is especially true for the boy who has been traumatized through molestation by his father or stepfather. A single mom does well if she can get her boy to know a male relative well (uncle, grandfather etc). Actually any man whom she trust could become a substitute role model for her boy. Also, if the boy with a single mom has many sisters, the mother does well to keep an eye on her boy so that he does not get caught up in the girls’ doll toys but instead has his own boy toys. A single father has another set of problems. A boy needs of course a mother too. But the loving and caring single father has an easier time to prevent homosexuality in his son than does the single mother. Remember: mothers make boys but fathers make men.
The activities of the gay lobby (mainly RFSL) in our schools today, combined with the glamorization of the homosexual lifestyle in media and the entertainment business have made it much more difficult for parents today to prevent their offspring from being pulled into the homosexual lifestyle. I recently came across this article (ref.19) in “The Evening Daily” (Sw: Aftonbladet), a daily newspaper in our country. Here they recommend the very worst kind of medicine for the pre-homosexual boy. It reads:
“When was the last time that you gave a doll to your son? Expert: We subconsciously raise our children through outdated gender roles”.
How important it seems to be for this “expert” that we raise our boys in new gender roles! To become more feminine. To attempt to lead them into gender confusion. There’s just no other conclusion that can be drawn from this garbage. And this drumbeat goes on and on at all levels in schools, society, the media and the entertainment business. The homosexual community knows all too well that homosexuality develops from pre-homosexuality which in turn originates from gender confusion. Through their diabolic activity they go after our children in a flagrant attempt to increase their membership and power. At the expense of the most vulnerable little ones among us. How evil can it get?
My hope and dream is that one day there will be a “Save The Children Fund” to counteract all this garbage. It should target the children in the danger zone. It can happen in many ways but the aim would be to help boys connect with male role models to help them develop into men. It could mean things like sponsoring summer camps, where the leaders are happily married and stable heterosexual men with a high moral standard and a desire to help fatherless boys. For additional information about the role of the father read “Childhood Experiences of Homosexual Men” by Dale O’Leary for NARTH (ref.20)
7. Attacks by the homolobby in USA against people who disagree with their agenda
The results of such honest studies are not considered “politically correct” in our society today. And Bieber was treated accordingly. For example, when Bieber many years after the publication gave a lecture at an APA conference under the subject ”Homosexuality and Tran Sexuality” he was rudely interrupted by agitators from the homosexual lobby within APA. Another researcher - Ronald Bayer who was then a fellow at the Hastings Institute in New York - describes the episode in his book (Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis, New York: Basic Books, 1981; page 102-103; REF.1 page 33) in this way:
“Bieber’s efforts to explain his position….were met with derisive laughter….[One] protester to call him a _____.
But the panel was not enough. Bayer continues:
On May 3, 1971, the protesting psychiatrists broke into a meeting of distinguished members of the profession. They grabbed the microphone and turned it over to an outside activist who declared:
The activists then secured an appearance before the APA’s Committee on Nomenclature. Its chairman allowed that perhaps homosexual behavior was not a sign of psychiatric disorder, and that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) should probably therefore reflect this new understanding.
Soon thereafter the APA deleted homosexuality as a disorder from the DSM, not based on scientific information but due to the rude activism by the homosexuals within APA. It’s intriguing to read the full story in REF.1 page 32-35.
And thus a new epoch began in which an overwhelming majority of psychiatrists and psychologists no longer dare to help parents to prevent a homosexual development in their children.
8. Attacks by the homolobby in Sweden against people who disagree with their agenda
Prior to 1944, homosexual acts between adults was criminalized and was regarded as something unnatural and depraved. In due course of time the psychological perspective on homosexuality came to dominate, where origin of homosexuality was considered to be a psychological disturbance rooted in traumatic experiences in childhood. In Medical Encyclopedia (Sw: Medicinsk Uppslagsbok) edition of 1969 by Ack Renander (long considered the standard medical concordance in Sweden) we find the following definition: ” Infirm sexual urge, directed towards the same sex”, and in Norstedt’s Encyclopedia (Sw: Norstedts Uppslagsbok) from 1973, homosexuality was explained as: ”Distorted sexual urge towards same sex. Opposite: heterosexuality, normal sexual urge”.
Fast forward to the Pride Festival 2001, the homosexual extravaganza in Stockholm. In the tent belonging to The Liberal Youth Association (Sw: Liberala Ungdomsförbundet) the main attraction was to throw darts on big photos of Alf Svensson, the Pope and Ulf Ekman (the leader of “The Word of Life; the new charismatic denomination of Sweden). In this case you can certainly talk about hatred and encouragement to violence, both against selected people and groups of people represented by these leaders. One may wonder what the reaction in media would have been if a religious conference would have a similar attraction with photos of some “christianphobes” from RFSL with the text: “hit the fags”. Something like that is of course impossible among people of faith. However, RFSL does not hesitate to instigate hatred against religious people. They completely lack tolerance of certain groups of people.
Additional examples of instigation of hatred by homosexuals in Sweden today: In the youth magazine “Lava”, issued in June 2003 by the City of Stockholm (and thus paid for with taxpayers’ money) showed a cartoon of Siwert Öholm having sex with Alf Svensson. Under the cartoon they had written the following text, written by the singer and “debater” Ujje Brandelius, “..… it’s all about cleaning up and doing away with a Christian, stale, rotten, male, old stinking damned moral system from the face of our earth”. The cartoon and the text was reported by Hans-Göran Björk (who is, among other things, columnist for the “World Today”, with strong ties to “The World of Life”) to both the Secretary of the Department of Justice (Sw: Justitiekanslern; JK) and to the Ombudsman for Justice (Sw: Justitieombudsmannen; JO). Both of them thought that the expressions to do away with the Christians from the face of the earth was quite acceptable. Compare that to the severe legal actions against Pastor Åke Green when he spoke out against homosexuality and other sexual sins.
In Sweden today, many official power centers and branches of the government are strongly influenced by the homolobby’s agenda. From The Swedish Supreme Court (Sw: HD or Högsta Domstolen) on down. And not just on a political level. The majority in the “Church of Sweden” - mainly financed with taxpayers’ money since centuries back are strongly influenced by the homolobby interest. However, even in this church there is an appreciable number of members, as well as ministers, who disagree with the policies that emanate from the leadership.
Among other things it stipulates that they must “respect differences in individual, role model, and cultural aspects with regards to level of functioning, gender and sexual orientation”. It may sound like a lot of gobbledygook (and it does in the Swedish original text as well). Except that the mantra is “respect sexual orientation”. Combined with “information to the public” on “guidance regarding complaints about psychologists” it has an ominous connotation for any psychologist wanting to help a parent to prevent homosexuality in their child.
So far we have dealt with Myth Number 1 (that both lifestyles are equally desirable) and Myth Number 2 (that you cannot influence your child’s future sexual orientation). So, let’s move on to Myth Number 3.
1. The bias/spin of research results by the homolobby
The message here is crystal clear: Since those with an opposing point of view are intolerant bigots in the first place, let’s not let them have a voice in the media. Folks, we have come to this intolerant point of view by the gay lobby in our dangerous downward spiral in society.
The directive from New York Times to their reporters and journalists to no longer use the expression “gay rights” runs contrary to the original recommendations in the early book by Kirk and Madsen (“After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ‘90s”). I can think of no better exposure of the shrewd marketing methods used by Kirk and Madsen than a book by David Kupelian titled “The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom”. For a good synopsis of the book click here (ref.22).
David Kupelian writes in his book: “You might wonder: Where and when will this ‘gay rights’ public relations steamroller stop? The end game is not only to bring about the complete acceptance of homosexuality, including same-sex marriage, but also to prohibit and even criminalize public criticism of homosexuality, including the quotation of biblical passages disapproving of homosexuality. In other words, total jamming of criticism with the force of law. This is already essentially the case in Canada and parts of Scandinavia.”
So today, woe to the journalist who dares to express thoughts that are not politically correct. It can ruin the career for anybody. In our own country the situation is even worse than in the US. Therefore, it came as no surprise when Swedish TV (“SVT”) with monopoly of being financed through mandatory license fees - was awarded the prestigious “Rainbow Reward” for so successfully promoting their agenda.
In a way it’s understandable that journalists and entertainers working in the media and entertainment business work overtime to make others accept their lifestyle. Who does not want to be accepted? It’s just so sad that it’s happening at the expense of the most vulnerable children and that it infringes on parents and grandparents right to know the facts.
What transpired at a research symposium in 1996 on the subject “sexual orientation” is very instructive in illustrating the forces and methods at work. One of the researchers, Scott Hersherger, suggested that the courts will be hard-pressed to uphold discrimination against a group if the group is identified by biological rather than behavioral traits. He said to the sympathetic crowd: "Public opinion polls, plus empirical research, always tell us that there is a positive correlation between people's beliefs in the immutability of a trait and their acceptance of that trait. So, the more a person believes homosexuality or sexual orientation is biological, the more positively he or she will feel about it." In other words, the message was: Let's produce studies to show that “homosexuality or sexual orientation is biological and not a chosen lifestyle!” So, it’s no surprise that we have a lot of "funny science" coming our way. All in an attempt to make people believe "”. Whether the research is honest is beside the point for many of them. It seems like any explanation of homosexual behavior - except that of the Bible (Romans Ch.1) - is acceptable to many "scientists" in psychology. And to a gullible media and public! All of this in order to excuse a lifestyle choice that's harmful to both the individual and society. Consider all the research money (often from homosexual sources) allocated to this kind of research.
Research activities regarding homosexuality fall into two major categories: 1) Psychological/Environmental Theories and 2) Biological Theories. Our discussion up to this point (e.g. Bieber et al) has dealt with the psychological/environmental theories. We now move on to biological theories which can be subdivided into three areas of research
Adult hormonal hypothesis. For a while it was speculated that there was a difference in the sex hormones between heterosexual and homosexual adults. It has now been shown that such is not the case and this field of inquiry is therefore irrelevant today.
Genetic Hypothesis. This is the area of research that has been of most interest over the last several decades. So we will now focus on this particular area. It’s also the area in which definitive conclusions can be drawn.
3. Bailey-Pillard (1991)
To that end other studies on the subject were conducted. One of them was a study in 1991 by Michael Bailey from Northwestern University and Richard Pillard from Boston University School of Medicine. Their Report (REF.5; pages 72-78) received a very widespread publicity and is the one the homosexual lobby still refers to in the media (to a gullible public). Pillard was homosexual. In their report (ref.23) they presented the following results.
Monozygotic twins (identical twins): 52% PC (29 of 56 = 52%)
Bailey and Pillard used the term PC, (Probandwise Concordance) which means as follows:
At the time, many saw the study results as proof that homosexuality is (if not 100%) at least to a large extent genetic. What was not known by the public, but covered up by Pillard, was the fact that there was a very strong “sample bias”. Other subsequent researchers failed to produce similar results. It was then revealed that Bailey and Pillard had recruited their sample population by advertisement in pro-gay magazines, introducing an apparent sample bias in their study.
It’s important that the implication of this be understood. It was important for the gay community to prove the genetic hypothesis for three reasons: 1) if the cause of homosexuality was genetic, society ought not be concerned about homosexual men recruiting young adolescent youth into their ranks and 2) the about ten times higher incidence of child molestations among homosexuals would not contribute to predisposing the child to homosexuality if it was genetic in its origin and 3) there would be a general acceptance of the gay lifestyle since it was not a choice but they were born that way.
4. Bailey-Dunne-Martin (2000)
Notice the very different findings in the (non-biased) study on Australian twins. Among the males, Bailey et al now found that out of 27 male pairs of identical twins, with at least one homosexual male, only 3 had a twin brother who was also homosexual. In other words: only 3 out of a total of 27 (or 11.1%) homosexual men had his twin brother also homosexual. Therefore only 11% (=3/27) concordance. The 20% “Probandwise Concordance” reported for the study on Australian males in the table comes from Bailey, Dunne and Martin’s new method of counting every concordant pair twice in both numerator and denominator. Thus we get 3+3=6 in the numerator and 27+3=30 in the denominator (6/30=20% shown as PC in the table. But for comparison purpose with the previous study we must compare the 29 of 56 (52%) in the study by Bailey-Pillard with the 3 of 27 (11%) in the Bailey-Dunne-Martin study.
But in the final analysis we want to compare the 11% concordance in the Bailey-Dunne-Martin with the frequency of homosexuality among the population at large. The 11% concordance no longer suggest a genetic influence. Even though the 11% is higher than the frequency of male homosexuality among the population at large, we must consider that identical twins typically have a very similar upbringing and environment . The 11% (as opposed to 2%-4%) could very easily account for that. If anything this result by Bailey-Dunne-Martin suggests that there is no discernable genetic link at all. Notwithstanding this new result, the spin and politicizing of this issue in the media have not ended. After all, we are talking about “gay gene science” (funny science) and in today’s society, the idea of “political correctness” takes precedent over scientific facts.
The Bailey-Dunne-Martin study did not hesitate to expose the prior fake study by Bailey and his homosexual former colleague Pillard. In the conclusions of their findings they state: “This suggests that concordances from prior studies were inflated due to concordance dependant ascertainment bias” (that is sample bias). They further stated: “This study did not provide statistically significant support for the importance of genetic factors for homosexual orientation.”
So, in summary, this study by Bailey, Dunne and Martin (without a sample bias) not only disproves the previous study by Bailey and Pillard, but it is also strong evidence that homosexuality is not a result of genetic coding.
This does not of course exclude the possibility (maybe even probability) that other genes may contribute to the development of pre-homosexuality in childhood. For example, boys born with a very sensitive temperament may suffer more than most boys from rejection by an irresponsible father, which in turn make them more vulnerable to gender confusion and even Gender Identity Disorder (GID) as discussed previously. An analogy is that a boy born with genes making him very tall, stands a greater chance of becoming a good basketball player. But not without first deciding to play basketball.
5. Yet another fake study (Hamer, Hu, Magnusson, Hu and Pattatucci)
As would soon become evident, the study by Hamer et al was yet another example of fraudulent play with number. Soon after Hamer’s et al publication in Science the same publication published a rebuttal by researchers from Yale Columbia and Louisiana State Universities. They wrote among other things [REF.1 pages 111-112]:
Then, about a year later (in March 2000) came the Bailey-Dunne-Martin study on identical twins in Australia (see above) that permanently debunked any hypotheses and theories about the possibility of a “gay gene” and seems to have conclusively ended further scientific controversy on this matter. This is not to say that the spin and politicizing of this issue in the media have ended. After all, we are here talking about “gay gene science” (funny science) and in today’s society, the idea of “political correctness” takes precedent over scientific facts. Since the fraudulent Hamer’s report is still so widely propagated in the media as the truth and that a genetic link to homosexuality has been established, I have taken a closer look at Hamer’s research. You’ll find it in this link (No.5; "Critique of Hamer's research"). If you have the time and effort to dig into the analysis you’ll discover what “funny research” we are talking about.
6. Bearman-Bruckner (2001)
And Bearman and Bruckner (similar to Bailey-Dunne-Martin in their report) wrote as follows about the Bailey-Pillard report:
But amazingly, despite the numerous debunking of the Bailey-Pillard study, the homolobby continues to refer to it. And the mainstream media does not have a clue.
The deliberate misinterpretation by mass-media of LeVay’s research is yet another example of how the promotion of homosexuality renounces any demand for objectivity and honesty. They are looking for a needle in an ocean but will never find it. I strongly recommend chapter 4 in REF.1 by Jeffrey Satinover (“Finding a Needle in the Ocean”).
8. Prenatal Hormonal Hypotheses
For example, in a study by Dorner (REF.5; page 66) about post-war Germany, it was found that there were somewhat more male homosexuals than expected. It was suggested that this might have been due to unusual “hormonal fluctuations” in their mothers’ womb due to the horrific circumstances during the end of WWII. But such a phenomenon might just as easily have been caused by the fact that after the war so many boys grew up without a father in their lives and therefore suffered from gender identity deficiency (a psychological/environmental manifestation). Notice the mere speculation in such studies ! There is no reason why stress in the mother’s womb would cause homosexuality. It like saying that if German boys in postwar Germany played more and better basketball than before, the stress in their mother’s womb caused better basketball ability in the offspring.
Sometimes it’s outright comical. Another study in the area of "prenatal hormonal hypothesis" was recently published by Anthony Bogaert from Brock University in Canada. He suggested that one of seven homosexual men (statistically speaking) had become homosexual because the mother had previously had other boys. And for each older biological brother the probability for homosexuality for the younger boy is supposedly increased by one third. The result for the group with “older biological brothers” had a statistical “beta-value” with a lower limit of a puny 0.03 (if the value had been zero or negative there would have been no statistical significance whatsoever). However, it’s remarkable how the study was trumpeted and written up by mainstream media. In a letter of support by homo sympathizers they cited the study as support that ”about one million Americans either are homosexuals today or will grow up to become homosexuals because their mother had boys before they themselves were born. At the same time nothing is said about the fact that a father with older sons may have a greater tendency to forget about developing his youngest son’s sexual identity. Of course it’s harder for a father with many children.
Besides, I recently read a review of Bogaert’ s new study in Los Angeles Times including the following statement: “Identical twins share the same DNA and if one of the twins is homosexual the other twin is also homosexual in 52 percent of all cases according to a study from 1991. Among non-identical twins the frequency drops to 22 percent and for other brothers to 9 percent”. These numbers are of course from the Bailey-Pillard study of 1991 (see item 3 above), a study that has been so thoroughly debunked by subsequent studies (see items 4 and 6 above). I just cannot believe that such misinformation in mainstream mass media is not intentional. It’s a deliberate act to disregard the facts in order to be politically correct.
9. Trend in Recent Homosexual ”Research”
REF.2 pages 95-120 (Do homosexual parents pose risks to children?) contains an extensive discussion and exposure of the pro-homosexual parenting agenda.
REF.6 - No Basis: What the studies Don't tell us about same-sex parenting" is a systematic (report by report) analysis and rebuttal of 49 different research reports and their shortcomings. The authors of this book are Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai, both with a Ph.D. from University of Chicago. For all 49 reports they revealed shortcomings in one or many of these areas:
1. Unclear hypotheses and research designs
The main problem with studies of this kind is that homosexual parenting is a new phenomenon. Thus adequate sample sizes are not available. And the time span of parenting by homosexual parents is still very short, so no reliable statistics is yet available.
But more important than the studies themselves is how the ”findings” are presented in mass media. Because the presentation in mass media is what governs public opinion. So often the writer of an article in a paper - or the reporter doing an interview with an “expert” - imposes his own opinion through the tone in his article or his selection of people to interview. Through carefully selected quotations and the way the contents in a research report is presented the ”objective” reporter greatly contributes to the formation of public opinion in this for the little children so extremely important area.
Lerner and Nagai (the authors of the book) surveyed newspaper articles about homosexual parenting between the years 1979 and 1999. They found that a great majority of the articles generalized by contending that all scientific studies conducted so far demonstrate that children reared by homosexual parents are no different than children with heterosexual parents. And it’s often stated without reference to a particular report. The positive bias/spin that these flawed reports receive in the media has greatly reduced public opposition to homosexual parenting of orphaned children. The enormous tragedy for these children - oftentimes already emotionally scarred cannot be overstated.