I am adding this article because once a gain it shows that we have a choice in life, I choose God. I put it in here because it supports information that I think my readers need to hear.
Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage
Will Increase Prevalence of Homosexuality:
Research Provides Significant Evidence
By Trayce Hansen, Ph.D.
An accumulation of research from around the world finds that societies which endorse homosexual behavior increase the prevalence of homosexuality in those societies. The legalization of same-sex marriage--which is being considered by voters in several U.S. states--is the ultimate in societal endorsement and will result in more individuals living a homosexual lifestyle.
Extensive research from Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the United States reveals that homosexuality is primarily environmentally induced. Specifically, social and/or family factors, as well as permissive environments which affirm homosexuality, play major environmental roles in the development of homosexual behavior.
A closer look at the research:
Twin study investigations of homosexuality were recently conducted in both Sweden and Finland. Such twin studies compare rates of homosexual behavior between different sibling groups who share varying degrees of genetic similarity (i.e., identical twins versus non-identical twins). By comparing such rates, twin studies help sort out the extent to which homosexual behavior is genetic and/or environmental. For instance, if homosexuality is genetic, then in cases where one identical twin is homosexual the co-twin should be homosexual nearly 100% of the time because identical twins share 100% of their genes.
But that is not what these two large-scale Scandinavian studies found. Both studies revealed that when one identical twin was homosexual the other twin was homosexual only 10% or 11% of the time. Such findings indicate that homosexuality is not genetically determined.
Instead of genetic factors, these Scandinavian studies concluded that unique environmental factors play the largest role in the development of homosexual behavior. The question as to which specific environmental factors contribute to homosexuality was not answered by these studies although some conclusions are offered by Danish and American research data to be discussed later in this article.
But first, it should be noted that although the Swedish and Finnish twin studies are among the best to date, they still have wide margins of error. In fact, the margins of error are so wide it remains entirely possible that genetic factors play no role in the development of homosexuality. That remains to be determined, but what has been resolved is that the primary factor in the development of homosexuality is environmental.
A Danish research investigation studied two million adults living in Denmark, a country where same-sex marriage has been legal since 1989. This study uncovered a number of specific environmental factors that increase the probability an individual will seek a same-sex rather than an opposite-sex partner for marriage.
For Danish men, the environmental factors associated with higher rates of homosexual marriage include an urban birthplace and an absent or unknown father. Significantly, there was a linear relationship between degree of urbanization of birthplace and whether a man chose homosexual or heterosexual marriage as an adult. In other words, the more urban a man's birthplace, the more likely he was to marry a man, while the more rural a man's birthplace, the more likely he was to marry a woman.
For Danish women, the environmental factors related to increased likelihood of homosexual marriage include an urban birthplace, maternal death during adolescence, and mother-absence.
Interestingly, this Danish research finds that urban birthplace and separation from the same-sex parent both were associated with same-sex marriage for men as well as women. (The latter finding supports psychological theories that have long asserted homosexuality is related to childhood problems--real or perceived--with the same-sex parent). In summary, this study finds that environmental factors that contribute to the development of homosexuality can be social and/or familial.
Finally, an American research study--the most comprehensive and representative survey of sexual behavior in America--reported its findings concerning homosexuality. The results of this study also support an environmental theory of homosexuality, not a genetic one. In particular, this survey identified specific types of environments that increase the likelihood of homosexual behavior. The authors describe these environments as "congenial" to the development of homosexuality.
For American men, the environmental factor most related to homosexual behavior was the degree of urbanization during the teenage years. Specifically, boys who lived in large urban centers between the ages of 14 and 16 were three to six times more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than were boys who lived in rural communities during those same ages. The authors offer the following possibility: "an environment that provides increased opportunities for and fewer negative sanctions against same-gender sexuality may both allow and even elicit expression of same-gender interest and sexual behavior (p.308)." Note the word "elicit." These researchers believe that growing up in a more pro-homosexual region may evoke or draw out homosexual behavior in young men. The implication is that some homosexual men who were reared in urban centers would not have become homosexual if reared in non-urban centers. The authors explain, "the environment in which people grow up affects their sexuality in very basic ways (p.309)."
For American women, the environmental factor most associated with a homosexual or bisexual identity was a higher level of education. And though that was also true for men, the pattern for women was more dramatic. For instance, a woman with a college degree was nine times more likely to identify herself as non-heterosexual than a woman with only a high school diploma. The specific elements that create this marked difference are unclear, but the researchers don't believe it's simply due to higher reporting of non-heterosexuality by more educated individuals. They believe one explanation is the fact that with more acceptance, even encouragement, of homosexuality at universities, more university women embrace a non-heterosexual lifestyle. For an example of how that might develop, see Dennis Prager's article entitled, "College Taught Her Not To Be a Heterosexual."
Based on the findings of this American research study, environments that sanction and/or promote homosexuality induce more individuals to engage in homosexual behavior.
Conclusion:
All of the aforementioned research studies from four different countries, each utilizing large, countrywide samples, reveal that homosexual behavior is not genetically determined. Rather, the data find that human sexuality is malleable, and environmental experiences and influences can and do shape its expression. Moreover, these findings are supported by decades of anthropological and sociological evidence that reveal that rates of homosexual behavior fluctuate--sometimes greatly--with changes in the social, cultural, and legal climate. The more an environment affirms or encourages same-sex sexuality--whether an urban center or a university campus--the more homosexuality there will be in that setting.
Social and cultural norms, as well as legal regulations, influence human behavior including sexual behavior. So not surprisingly, as the United States and other Western Countries have become increasingly pro-homosexual--socially, politically, and legally--they have experienced an upward trend in the number of individuals engaging in homosexual behavior. That trend will continue if we move beyond mere tolerance of homosexual behavior (which is appropriate) to formally honoring it by legalizing same-sex marriage.
###
References:
Butler, A.C. (2005). Gender differences in same-sex sexual partnering, 1988-2002. Social Forces, 84, 421-449.
Frisch, M. & Hviid, A. (2006). Childhood family correlates of heterosexual and homosexual marriages: A national cohort study of two million Danes. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 533-547.
Langstrom, N., Rahman, Q., Carlstrom, E., & Lichtenstein, P. (2008). Genetic and environmental effects on same-sex sexual behavior: A population study of twins in Sweden. Archives of Sexual Behavior, DOI 10.1007/s10508-008-9386-1.
Lauman, E.O., Gagnon, J.H., Michael, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Prager, D. (2005). "College Taught Her Not To Be a Heterosexual." Available on the web at: http://dennisprager.townhall.com.
Santtila, P., Sandnabba, N.K., Harlaar, N., Varjonen, M., Alanko, K., von der Pahlen, B. (2008). Potential for homosexual response is prevalent and genetic. Biological Psychology, 77, 102-105.
APA's New Pamphlet on Homosexuality
De-emphasizes the Biological Argument, Supports
a Client's Right to Self-Determination
The APA has now begun to acknowledge what most scientists have long known:
that a bio-psycho-social model of causation best fits the data.
A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., MBA, MPH
March 6, 2008 - In 1998, the American Psychological Association (APA) published a brochure titled "Answers to Your Questions about Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality."
This particular document was ostensibly published to provide definitive answers about homosexuality. However, few of the assertions made in the brochure could find any basis in psychological science. Clearly a document anchored more in activism than in empiricism, the brochure was simply a demonstration of how far APA had strayed from science, and how much it had capitulated to activism.
The newest APA brochure, which appears to be an update of the older one, is titled, "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality."
Though both brochures have strong activist overtones (both were created with "editorial assistance from the APA Committee on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns"), the newer document is more reflective of science and more consistent with the ethicality of psychological care.
Consider the following statement from the first document:
"There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."
That statement was omitted from the current document and replaced with the following:
"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. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..."
Although there is no mention of the research that influenced this new position statement, it is clear that efforts to "prove" that homosexuality is simply a biological fait accompli have failed. The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion. There is no gay gene. There is no simple biological pathway to homosexuality. Byne and Parsons, and Friedman and Downey, were correct: a bio-psycho-social model best fits the data.
On the question of whether or not therapy can change sexual orientation, the former document offered a resounding "no." However, the current document is much more nuanced and contains the following statement: "To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective."
Of course, no mention is made of the Spitzer research, the Karten research, or the recent longitudinal research conducted by Jones and Yarhouse -- all of which support the conclusion that some people can and do change.
Of the Spitzer research, psychologist Dr. Scott Hershberger (who is a philosophical essentialist on questions of sexual orientation) conducted a Guttman analysis of the study sample, and declared:
"The orderly, law-like pattern of changes in homosexual behavior, homosexual self-identification, and homosexual attraction and fantasy observed in Spitzer's study is strong evidence that reparative therapy can assist individuals in changing their homosexual orientation to a heterosexual one."
The Spitzer study found no evidence of harm. Neither did the Karten study, nor the Jones and Yarhouse study.
Furthermore, one might ask, does the APA plan to conduct studies on the effectiveness of other therapies in use? Many are entirely without validation, yet practitioners regularly receive Continuing Education credits for teaching these same therapies through APA-approved courses. Perhaps it is time for APA to hold all therapies and all therapists to the standard which they advocate for reorientation therapy.
The Right to Self-Determination is Finally Recognized
In APA's new document, there is a greater emphasis on ethicality. The pamphlet includes this key statement:
"Mental health organizations call on their members to respect a person's [client's] right to self-determination."
Certainly, client self-determination is one of the cornerstones of any form of psychological care. And any attempt to ban psychological care for those unhappy with their homosexual attractions would be a direct violation of enormous magnitude of APA's own Code of Ethics -- one which neither the federal/state governments nor the American public would respond to favorably.
Imagine a media headline, "APA Declares That Homosexuals Are Not Competent To Determine Whether Or Not They Can Seek Psychological Care to Change" or "APA Bans Choice of Psychological Care for Homosexuals."
Additions to the new APA brochure also include sections on adolescents, homosexual marriage and adoption by homosexual couples.
Interestingly enough, the section on adolescents contains fairly good information regarding the differences between homosexual attractions, homosexual orientation and homosexual identity (though the terms are not used). There is an admission of the sexual fluidity of adolescence, with different ultimate outcomes for different sexually confused adolescents.
The section on marriage is simply an advocacy statement suggesting that marriage might enhance the stability of homosexual couples.
The discussion on parenting by homosexual couples was noteworthy for its internal contradictions. There is an admission that there is a dearth of scientific data on children raised by same-sex couples, but the authors conclude that there are "few differences." How can the dearth of scientific studies allow anyone to offer such a conclusion?
Finally and most intriguing are the recommended resources for further reading. The former brochure referred readers to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; to Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, and to Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), all activist groups.
The current brochure refers readers to the American Psychological Association, Mental Health America, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
A significant portion of the new brochure was devoted to the role that prejudice and discrimination plays in the lives of lesbian, gay and bisexual people. This theme seemed pervasive throughout the document. Homosexual relationships are viewed as no different from heterosexual relationships. There is no acknowledgement of the substantial research that clearly demonstrates that homosexuals are at greater risks for some forms of mental illness (Herrell, Ferguson, Sandfort).
It's unfortunate that APA does not move beyond its single-minded focus on "discrimination and prejudice" to allow honest and open study of GLBT issues. In areas such as homosexuality, political correctness seems to have gone amok. On this front in particular, APA seems to have surrendered its professionalism and its science to political correctness.
Some Say That Truth Doesn't Matter
Consider the following statement made by a prominent member of the American Psychological Association and published by the Harvard University Press: "...it may be that for now, the safest way to advocate for lesbian/gay/bisexual rights is to keep propagating a deterministic model: sexual minorities are born that way and can never be otherwise. If this is an easier route to acceptance (which may in fact be the case), is it really so bad that it is inaccurate?"
Where are the guardians of our professional ethics? Will they really allow such Machiavellian statements to go uncritically examined? Is there an ethical violation when a self-identified psychologist and a member of APA supports activism masqueraded as science, and states that it is not so bad?
Political correctness would suggest that there will be no response from the APA.
In his book, Destructive Trends in Mental Health, former APA president Nicholas Cummings notes that he and his co-author lived through the abominable McCarthy era and the Hollywood witch hunts; still he notes, there was "not the insidious sense of intellectual intimidation that currently exists under political correctness." He says, "Now, misguided political correctness tethers our intellects."
Perhaps the British playwright, self-identified secularist atheist Pat Condell, is indeed correct: "Political correctness is like a drug that we just can't stop injecting, even though we know it's going to kill us."
In summary, if one reduces the recent APA document to one based on scientific merit and ethicality, it might translate into something like the following:
"We at APA acknowledge that there are probably many factors that lead to one to claim a gay identity, likely different for different folks. However, what is clear is that homosexuality is not simply a biological phenomenon. We are not sure about the effectiveness of reorientation therapy (or any other therapies for that matter!) but political correctness demands that APA take a position of extreme caution, even though there is no evidence to support such a position. And APA believes that though homosexuality may be fluid for some people, it is certainly not a matter of choice for anyone. However, having expressed these reservations (and fears), it is important that all mental health professionals respect client self-determination (including those who seek reorientation therapy)."
The APA should be commended for its greater reliance on science and ethicality in this document. Perhaps now is the time for the association to abide by its commitment that accompanied then-APA President Nicholas Cummings' proposal to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1974: "a proscription that appropriate and needed research would be conducted to substantiate these decisions." None, however, was ever conducted.
Such research should include a study of the efficacy of psychological care for those unhappy with unwanted homosexual attractions, as well as for its counterpart--gay-affirmative therapy for those who wish to claim a gay identity.
Latest Twin Study Confirms
Genetic Contribution To SSA Is Minor
As in previous studies, identical twins usually differ for SSA.
By N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D.
Twin studies are favorites of mine because of the potential light they throw on the origins of same-sex attractions (SSA). The latest one (Santtila et al., 2008) is three times larger than any previous study - in fact, larger than all the rest put together.
Does this latest study teach us something new? Quick answer: No. It confirms the best recent studies, which tell us that genetic factors are minor; non-genetic factors are major.
The paper's title is "Potential for Homosexual Response is Prevalent and Genetic." This implies to the average reader that homosexuality is sometimes hidden, but commonly occurring, and that it is predominantly genetic. But we shall see this title is not representative of the study's actual findings.
This is the fifth systematically sampled twin study to look at SSA independently in men and women. Of the four previous studies, two were from Australia (Buhrich, Bailey & Martin, 1991; Bailey, Dunne & Martin, 2000), and two were from the USA (Hershberger, 1997; Bearman & Bruckner, 2002).
This latest study is from Finland. Using the very centralized records typical of Scandinavian states, they assembled a large, genuinely random sample of twins (6,001 female individuals and 3,152 males) for a study that was primarily on aggression. With that constraint, they were permitted only two questions about SSA: "What same-sex sexual contact have you had in the last year?" and (in essence) "If there was no prospect of anyone finding out, and you were sexually propositioned by someone of the same sex you liked, what would be your chances of accepting?"
Before we go further, let's address one small difficulty. Unfortunately, different studies use different measures for SSA. Some ask for total number of partners - this one asked only the frequency of contacts in the last year. Other surveys ask the frequency of same-sex fantasy. This one asked respondents to fantasize (perhaps for the first time) about what sexual contact with a same-sex partner might be like. The authors then say this is measuring "potential homosexuality," but you and I would probably conclude that such a measure is fairly clearly indicating something other than SSA. This measure obviously would include bisexual people, and casts the net so wide, that it also could well be testing for something like novelty, curiosity, or sensation-seeking, rather than actual sexual orientation. In this study, 32.8% of men and 65.4% of women replied "yes" to that question about fantasy, in contrast to 3.1% of men and 1.2% of women who described themselves as actually homosexually active.
The results were:
Activity |
Genetics |
Shared Environment |
Nonshared Environment |
| Men |
27% (2.7-38) |
0% (0-18) |
73% (62-85) |
| Women |
16% (8.3-24) |
0% (0-3.6) |
84% (76-91) |
Potential |
|
|
|
| Men |
37% (12-47) |
0% (0-19) |
63% (53-73) |
| Women |
46% (32-52) |
0% (0-11) |
54% (48-60) |
Table 1. Relative influence of various factors for the Santtila and Sandnabba (2008) data. Error ranges in parentheses are the 95% (2 sigma) error range.
The table shows that the estimated genetic contributions are a few tens of percent, but that the error ranges (in brackets) are quite large and this could possibly mean the genetic contribution is zero. This is exactly the same as has been found previously. They also show that the non-shared environmental contribution (i.e. environmental factors particular to the individual) greatly predominate - in other words they are the largest group of causes of SSA.
Are genetic contribution results of say 27% important? No. In the twin studies world the influence would be classified as weak to modest. And any influence is indirect - it is likely to be something like an innate tendency to be very sensitive to the opinions of others. However, even this weak or modest genetic contribution is probably greatly overstated.
Twin study researchers usually involve the siblings of identical twin subjects as much as possible, because they are genetically related to the same degree as fraternal twins, hence like substitute fraternal twins. This sibling/twin comparison is very interesting because it tests for any special twin environment. For example, did the twins influence each other to be SSA? Or did the genetic similarity between the identical twins and siblings cause some lesser SSA in the siblings also? In this case, the siblings were tested along with the identical twins and fraternal twins and the results were meaningless-- i.e., they did not yield results compatible with genetic influence in SSA. Although the authors do not specify exactly what the problem was, it must have been severe ("...attempts at fitting uni-variate and bi-variate extended-family scripts for categorical data were not successful...." which is scientese for the explanation I give above). This would usually be enough to destroy a study of genetic influences, but rather incredibly, the authors simply and blithely ignore the siblings for the rest of the paper, and use the twins only, to present a calculated genetic influence. Rather, no genetic influence at all is shown when all the data are included.
This is an unusual problem for the method, so the authors with the general approval of the scientific community, including the referees of the paper, implicitly say "Well, there is an inconsistency here that will take years to sort out but in the interim here is what the results would be using the traditional methods if we ignore this." This is some use to the researchers, though laymen may shake their heads at the procedure.
As usual in these studies, family upbringing ("shared environment") was consistent with a zero percentage influence, as shown in the table, but I contend again as I have in previous talks and articles that many family factors are hidden in the non-shared environment contribution, and highly individualistic and important to the people concerned. Thus for example, the influence of a distant father may well be critical for many individuals - but might not affect an identical twin at all.
The results, by my calculations, do in fact, reinforce one conclusion drawn from previous studies. That is, if one identical twin--male or female--has SSA, the chances are only about 10% that the co-twin also has it. In other words, identical twins usually differ for SSA.
In spite of the above-cited criticisms, some useful points emerge from the study. The sample is probably the least biased so far. The authors believe prenatal hormonal theories as a cause of SSA do not hold up, because they should lead to greater similarity between identical twins, not less similarity as we see above. Also, we see a continuation of an already-established trend -- the more recent and better-conducted the study, the smaller the detected genetic influence on SSA. In the meantime, the reader should continue to assume that genetic causal effects on SSA are minor, and that other, very individualistic factors predominate.
Reference List
Bailey, J.M., Dunne, M.P., & Martin, N.G. (2000). Genetic and Environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 524-536.
Bearman, P.S., & Bruckner, H. (2002). Opposite-sex twins and adolescent same-sex attraction. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 1179-1205.
Buhrich, N., Bailey, J.M., & Martin, N.G. (1991). Sexual orientation, sexual identity, and sex-dimorphic behaviors in male twins. Behavior Genetics, 21, 75-96.
Hershberger, S.L. (1997). A twin registry study of male and female sexual orientation. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 212-222.
Santtila, P., Sandnabba, N.K., Harlaar, N., Varjonen, M., Alanko, K., & von der Pahlen, B. (2008). Potential for homosexual response is prevalent and genetic. Biological Psychology, 77(1), 102-105.
Updated: 4 June 2008
Updated: 6 March 2008
PROOF THAT THE MEDICAL PROFESSION DOES NOT CARE ABOUT OUR NEEDS BUT IS PUSHING THEIR OWN AGENDAS FOR MONETARY GAIN! READ THIS BOOK:
|
|
As Nature Made Him : The Boy Who Was Raised as A Girl
Author: John Colapinto |
|
X
|
|
Book Description:
In 1967, after a baby boy suffered a botched circumcision, his family agreed to a radical treatment. On the advice of a renowned expert in gender identity and sexual reassignment at Johns Hopkins Hospital, the boy was surgically altered to live as a girl. This landmark case, initially reported to be a complete success, seemed all the more remarkable since the child had been born an identical twin: his uninjured brother, raised as a boy, provided to the experiment the perfect matched control.
The so-called twins case would become one of the most famous in modern medicine and the social sciences; cited repeatedly over the past thirty years as living proof that our sense of being male or female is not inborn but primarily the result of how we are raised. A touchstone for the feminist movement, the case also set the precedent for sex reassignment as standard treatment for thousands of newborns with similarly injured, or irregular, genitals.
But the case was a failure from the outset. From the start the famous twin had, in fact, struggled against his imposed girlhood. Since age fourteen, when finally informed of his medical history, he made the decision to live as a male. John Colapinto tells this extraordinary story for the first time in As Nature Made Him. Writing with uncommon intelligence, insight, and compassion, he also sets the historical and medical context for the case, exposing the thirty-year-long scientific feud between Dr. John Money and his fellow sex researcher, Dr. Milton Diamond--a rivalry over the nature/nurture debate whose very bitterness finally brought the truth to light. A macabre tale of medical arrogance, As Nature Made Him is first and foremost a human drama of one man's-and one family's--amazing survival in the face of terrible odds. The human intimacy of the story is all the greater for the subject's courageous decision to step out from behind the pseudonym that has shrouded his identity for the past thirty years.
MORE PROOF OF WHAT I AM SAYING IN MY BOOK, " THE CHOICE"
Sacramento Day of Silence Resolution
On April 6, the Sacramento City Unified School District board is expected to approve a resolution to proclaim April 26, 2006 as a Day of Silence. ( AS FAR AS I KNOW THIS DID OCCUR)
The purpose of this Day of Silence is to “recognize the silencing of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning people due to discrimination everyday in our society.”
The resolution instructs school districts to notify staff so they can support Day of Silence and develop lesson plans that will allow students
observance. In other words, teachers will be expected to set aside their regularly-scheduled lesson plans and permit an entire school day to be hijacked by political activists with a controversial agenda.
TAKE ACTION
It is time for parents and all citizens in California to stand up and denounce Day of Silence.
We must unite and urge the school board to vote against this destructive resolution. Please take a moment to register your opposition to the hijacking of our schools. We urge you to contact the school board and, if you can, attend the meeting!
Sacramento City Unified Board of Education Office
Phone: (916) 643-9314
Email the SCUSD Board Members
SCUSD Board of Education
Board of Education Members
President
Roy Grimes
rgconsultant@sbcglobal.net
First Vice President
Manny Hernandez
manny.hernandez@comcast.net
Second Vice President
Richard T. Jennings, II
rick@fathersandfamilies.com
Jerry Houseman
jerry@housemanconsulting.com
Dawn McCoy
dawnmccoy02@yahoo.com
Miguel Navarrette
navasac@sbcglobal.net
Karen Young
jeank@sac-city.k12.ca.us
Ex-Gays Face Increasing Harassment
By Mike Hatfield
May 29, 2008 - Bart Allen is a name that most people haven't heard before. No one has made traveling plays about his tragic death nor have there been TV movies made about him nor hate crime legislation named in his honor.
Bart Allen's name, however, should be widely known and mourned. He was in the process of leaving the homosexual lifestyle when he was strangled and murdered by his gay roommate.
Allen's parents, Joe and Marion, founded Hope for the Broken Heart after his tragic murder at the hands of his gay lover. They have spoken at Exodus International events.
When Bart was struggling with unwanted homosexual feelings, he sought out a counselor for help. The counselor, however, told him he was born gay. According to Joe and Marion, "When Bart came out of her office, he looked like he had been given a death sentence. I know this lady did not realize what she was doing ... but she had told him he was born gay. She told him we were doing him an injustice by telling him this was wrong and he needed to go back [to the homosexual lifestyle].
Bart Allen did go back to homosexuality, but he couldn't accept it. His lover, however, refused to accept the fact that Bart wanted to leave homosexuality behind. While Bart was asleep, his partner strangled him to death with a dog leash.
Bart Allen's story is an extreme, but more and more ex-gays are reporting being targeted for ridicule or violence for openly leaving homosexual behaviors. In addition, professional groups are being pressured to remain silent about the possibility of change.
Regina Griggs, executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays says her organization and staff members have been repeatedly attacked because of their message: there are ex-gays.
PFOX members were assaulted at the Arlington County Fair in 2007 for distributing literature sharing hope for those with unwanted SSA.
The American Psychiatric Association was recently pressured into cancelling a seminar on the role of faith among gays and heterosexuals.
Oklahoma legislator Sally Kern has come under withering attacks by gay activists for vocally rejecting homosexuality as a fixed condition.
Stephen Black is an Oklahoman who has struggled with unwanted SSA. He doesn't like referring to himself as "ex-gay" but he confirms that there is growing evidence of widespread harassment of individuals who openly reject a gay identity.
According to Black: "Ex-gays are in fact, afraid to make themselves known. I have met with MANY people who are influential in my community and others who have church communities that would make it very difficult to talk about their recovery from homosexuality. He continues:
Yet there is even a larger and growing threatening group of gay activists who are fueling the fire of fear and oppression in our culture. They wish to silence the freedom of choice when it comes to leaving homosexuality. The idea of leaving homosexuality is very threatening to their gay insecure existence and their political agendas."
***
There are growing numbers of political gay groups that are very disturbing to me. They are actual GAY hate groups who wish to silence the voices of ex-gays. These groups are like the brazenly named "Ex-Gay Watch" and their club of bloggers who use hatefully sarcastic words in addressing ex-gays. There are even more radical groups that are extra hateful with their narcissistic sarcasms which reveal vicious vitriol fueled by people like Wayne Besen.
There are extremist individuals on both sides of the issue of homosexuality. Some radicals such as Fred Phelps demonize gays; gay groups are now treating ex-gays to the same campaign of vilification practiced by Phelps and his ilk. NARTH rejects both extremes.
A person struggling with unwanted homosexual feelings and behaviors should not have to fear "coming out" of homosexuality or being ridiculed for embracing a heterosexual identity. Yet, that is what is occurring. As more and more scientific truths are revealed about the origins of homosexual feelings, the uglier this situation may become for those who wish to leave homosexuality behind.
It would appear that, according to gay orthodoxy, you can embrace a gay identity, but once you do, you can't leave it without suffering ridicule or violence.
Additional Reading: PFOX; Exodus International; Gay Activism in the Social Sciences
