Skip to comments.Not born this way: The facts, plus help available
Posted on 06/05/2011 7:48:09 AM PDT by scripter
Without any reputable evidence, the entertainment culture, uneducated media, and sexual activists have seduced today's teenagers, in particular, to believe that people are born homosexual.
However, science has found no biological basis for homosexuality, bisexuality, or transsexuality.
Study after study has found the LGBT lifestyle to be unhealthy, with the highest rate of sexually-transmitted diseases, and higher cancer rates and earlier deaths.
While all people are worthy and valuable, the fact is people are not "born this way," as a popular song insists.
On this page you will find:
1. The facts on homosexuality
2. Resources to overcome homosexual behavior and gender identity disorder
3. An important video message titled "Does God Love Gay People?"
4. Some personal stories from people who used to live a homosexual lifestyle
Homosexuality is not innate; no biological origin
Is there a gay gene?
National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH)
'Gay' gene claim suddenly vanishes
American Psychological Association revises statement on homosexuality
WorldNetDaily.com, May 12, 2009 -- A publication from the American Psychological Association includes an admission that there is no "gay" gene, according to a doctor who has written about the issue
Facts About Youth, American College of Pediatricians, 2011
No statistically significant [gay] gene has been found
Dr. Neil Whitehead, November 2006 interview
Peter Tatchell, British homosexual activist
Turn Signal with Kim Trobee, Focus Action 2008
It would also be equally foolish to close the door and say that its simply down to biological factors, theres no other factors or influences that impact on a persons sexual orientation.
Only 1.7 percent of the 18-and-over population identify as gay
Associated Press, April 7, 2011
Homosexuality is not healthy
Health Risks of the Homosexual Lifestyle
Facts About Youth, American College of Pediatricians, 2011
The Health Risks of Gay Sex
Dr. John Diggs, Jr., MD, Corporate Research Council, 2002
Nearly 3/4 of HIV/AIDS infections transmitted by male-to-male sexual contact
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2008
Link between Sexual Orientation and Cancer
Cancer Network, May 12, 2011
Homosexual men were found to be 1.9 times more likely to self-report a cancer diagnosis than were heterosexual men .Although homosexual women did not have a higher incidence of cancer, these women did report lower overall health as cancer survivors compared to heterosexual women.
Prostate Cancer Survival May Be Especially Tough on Gay Men
HealthDay News, May 16, 2011
The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality
A catalog of research data
Family Research CouncilHomosexuals, Bisexuals More Unhealthy than Heterosexuals: Massachusetts Study
Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, December 3, 2008
Help for those struggling with homosexuality
The website Transformed Image has compiled a list of helpful links including:
» Support groups and ministries
» Published materials and videos
» Scripture for help dealing with sexual sin
» Websites of ex-homosexual outreaches
Additional help is available from:
Exodus International » | Stephen Bennett Ministries » | Michael Glatze »
Video message: Does God love gay people?
Are you struggling with homosexuality? Know someone who is? Do you think God doesn't love people who engage in homosexual behavior? We encourage EVERYONE to view this message hosted by Jonathan Ervin, a man who has practiced homosexuality and has AIDS. He is joined by Dr. Will Honeycutt, Professor Darren Wu and Dr. Karen Swallow Prior. [14:17]
This video is by TrueLife.org. It can also be viewed here.
Stories from former homosexuals
» Stephen Bennett's story
“I think there are two types of homosexuals; biological and imprinted.
A small percentage of homosexuals are biologically gay due to hormonal imbalances in the womb. Rats can be made homosexual by putting the mother in extreme stress during pregnancy, for instance.
Imprinted homosexuals are those whose first sexual experiences were homosexual. The vast majority of homosexuals are this way. “
I believe you are correct except in your ratio. Very very few homosexuals are really imprinted. Speak to the many members of SNAP, adults who were raped as kids by clergy, teachers, and other authorities. Even men who were raped for years as boys see themselves as heterosexual, but of course they have often lifelong sexual issues. It didn’t make them gay.
Most gay men did have their first sex experience with a man or other boy. Because that’s whom they were attracted to. Not the other way around. Picture a woman to whom you could never be attracted. Somehow you are young and innocent, maybe drunk, and she takes advantage of you. You would still not seek her out thereafter. Abuse doesn’t turn you gay (though it can ruin your life) or change what appeals to you.
And you are right about the influences in the womb. I am always wishing Freepers would understand the influences there, because many differences in the prenatal environment cause sexual development problems. Most homosexuality is a birth defect. Not genetic coming through genes, but epigenetic, influenced upon the growing person by differences in the womb during the week when sexual parts and brain connections are being wired.
Many animals are born with sex behavior differences due to pollution, especially the soft bodied creatures. Who do we think we are, that all the plastics and neurotoxins in our bodies would never affect our unborn? Other birth defects happen in the same way.
Not every gay was born that way. Some of them got sucked into it...
Yeah, the same can be said for any other kind of pervert as well.
Yes and no. To start with, the far greater number of congenital defects, physical and psychological, found in homosexuals, tends to indicate that there are at least some “proclivities” towards homosexuality. But that is only part of the equation.
This has been demonstrated repeatedly with mammals in laboratory conditions since the 1960s. About halfway through gestation, the testes of a male fetus will secrete a squirt of testosterone that will travel to its brain and tell it that it is a “male” brain. If this testosterone does not arrive, the brain is, by default, female.
Scientists were able to block this testosterone in male fetuses, or add some artificially to female fetuses. The end result being an animal that thinks it is of the other gender, to include its mating behavior. They were even able to block it to half the brain, so the animal would exhibit both male and female behavior.
However, and a big however, while this is enough to determine animal sexuality, it is *not* enough to determine human sexuality.
That is, a male human fetus whose testosterone is blocked naturally, or by an artificial chemical, will indeed exhibit female behavior in many ways, but it will *not* influence who they are sexually attracted to. Most likely, they will be more feminine heterosexuals.
Likewise, a female human fetus that gets a squirt of testosterone via some means, will indeed be masculine in character, but still the odds strongly favor her being heterosexual.
This indicates that gender identification in the brain is not enough to “make a homosexual”. It also dispels the idea that animal models can be used to determine human sexuality.
In turn, this supports the idea that environmental factors and upbringing do hold some key elements to determining human sexuality, strong enough to overcome gender identification.
Congenital adrenal hyperplasia causes girls to be exposed to excessive levels of testosterone in utero. Even though the condition is typically corrected at birth, when diagnosis is made, these females are much more likely to have male interests and behaviors (eg more interested in sports than average girl) and be lesbians once old enough to have a sexual preference.
For males, however, I think any biological basis is probably something other than sex hormones.
In rats, researchers have found a link between maternal stress and demasculinizing effects in the sexual behaviour of male offspring.
The mothers stress leads to a delayed testosterone surge in male rats. An East German researcher, Dorner, claimed to have found a similar stress effect in humans during the Second World War. If mothers underwent a lot of stress, he found no heterosexuality in their young offspring,25%bisexuality, and 35%homosexuality.
The remainder were too young to know what their preferences
These were spectacular results, but the study appears to be
maverick. Other studies on rats could not find the effect, and stress in human mothers delays the testosterone surge much less markedly than in rats. Dorner has also been criticized for not interviewing the mothers.
Three other studies on humans did not
find any effect.
A later and more sophisticated study, although it
found no correlations with stress for boys, did find an unsurprising relatively strong correlation between homosexual fantasy and childhood gender non-conformity
(see Chapter Three). Curiously,
in this study, there was a moderate correlation for girls between maternal stress and lesbianism, which made no sense to the authors. Girls are not exposed to a pre-natal testosterone surge, so a delayed surge makes no sense in this context.
The latest and biggest survey 31 basically concludes that
there is a small weak effect for boys and a more significant effect for girls. A similar survey for the stressful effects of an historic Dutch famine could find no effects.
In no case can the effects be described as overwhelming, which is why it has been so hard to establish. It is another minor factor in the development of homosexuality for a few people.
Exactly. There is no scientific test for yaelle’s pet theory that homosexuality is caused by plastics in the womb or whatever it is that yaelle believes.
If we are to accept that homosexual behavior is caused at birth (and there is plenty of evidence to suggest it is not) then the same standard could be used for all deviant and perverse behavior in order to gain rights.
In reality the majority of evidence points directly to behavioral choices. Since the sixties ‘sexual revolution’ we have seen all sorts of changes in the sexual beahvior of each generation of youth. From my experience in talking with younger people there does seem to be a rise in bi-sexual behavior as well as all perverse sexual activity among youths. This cannot be explained by any biological cause at all but most definetally seems to0 be due to indocrination by the left-wing.
The 1972 Ward study isn't included, just the abstract and some snippets, then the author, Dan Eden appears to take some liberties with what little is there. I'll see what I can find on the study.
But “Nature” is always against the homosexual — “two strikes.” And after generations and generations and thousands and thousands of years, the “gene,” if dominant will become nonexistent.
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!
“However, and a big however, while this is enough to determine animal sexuality, it is *not* enough to determine human sexuality.”
How do we know?
Little children who play gender-different (their interests, etc) may grow up to be straight, but a significNt amount of these little kids ( the sporty girl with the desire to wear boys clothes and short hair, the boy who loves pink and nail polish) DO find themselves attracted to their own sex at puberty.
Although there are some pre-natal hormonal effects on sexual
behaviour for lower animals, there is not convincing evidence for such an effect on sexual orientation in humans.
The studies examining the effects of high doses of female hormones to pregnant women are particularly informative because these are very high doses and any hormonal effects on sexual orientation should show up clearly. But the result is a dubious effect on women and no effects on men. Any effects on sexual orientation appear to be better explained in terms of gender non-conformitya psychological construct.
Sex hormones do increase or lower sex drive, but that
appears to be about all.
The maternal immune hypothesis seems very speculative, and
needs much more evidence before it is taken more seriously.
We leave the last word to several researchers in the field.
summarises the evidence for effects of prenatal hormone
exposure on subsequent sexual orientation as weak.
In summary, the evidence from prenatal endocrine
disorders and from the offspring of hormone-treated
pregnancies suggests that hormones may contribute
to, but do not actually determine, the course of sexual
orientation in individuals with an abnormal sex steroid history during prenatal life.
At this time, the literature does not support a causal link
between hormones and homosexuality.
Also, In clinical practice numerous patients are encountered with gross abnormalities of their hormonal profiles. As a rule this does not impact on their gender identity or sexual orientation.
So, not only your genes didnt make you do it, it seems your
hormones didnt either. In sexual orientation, the strongest stimulation appears to come from the mind and the environment.
I completely believe that it is environmentally enforced. I knew three men in my life all three of them were abused as children by men. Two of them, came out of the closet, and re-enforced their lifestyle by immersing themselves in it, seeking conditions that would reward them for the behavior, the third sought a more christian lifestyle, re-enforcing his tendencies to be heterosexual. Only one of them claimed they were “born” gay, but he was raped at age of three, so how would he know that. Like I say, it’s completely based on environment and continued re-enforcement of behavior.
I remember reading about a study done in regards to how pimps completely re-write the sexual desires and morality of their prey. It is of course done similiar to tactics on brainwashing.
But for me the study indicated even further that a person is not born that way in regards to their sexual desires. A person can be and is conditioned by their environment.
If not then how is it that pimps could actually change the natural sexuality of those that they dominate and condition? If we all are simply born with specific sexual attractions then there would be no chance of using environmental conditions to change that, yet there is plenty of proof that a person’s sexuality can be changed if there morality is changed.
It’s not my pet theory but there is some evidence that Something in the environment is causing these epidemics in other neurological differences, like autism. And sexual development happens for a very short time in fetal development. Epigenetics is a huge field right now. Darwin’s theories are somewhat challenged by what occurs in the mammalian womb. It’s fascinating.
It could be any number of things in our environment : artificial hormones as fed to food animals or found in water supply from birth control pills, maybe some of the pervasive plastics or petro-products. But something is definitely messing us up.
Please cite sources of studies, otherwise your statment is less than meaningless.
You repeatedly bring up this ‘plastics in the womb creates homosexuality at birth’ theory and even claim in this thread that you wish you could get Freepers to agree.
Sure sounds like it is your pet theory to me.
“I think there are two types of homosexuals; biological and imprinted.”
I think so too. I venture that only 5% are “born that way” and the rest are either mentally ill or imprinted.
Which ever way you look at it, they are an anomaly.
They are also human beings and should not be harassed or mistreated
I’m not gay and when I defend innocent children who have gender-varying behavior, I am taken to the woodshed and thoroughly whipped by Freepers who insist I am wrong. So a gay freeper would not be wise to come out.
As you see on this thread, a lot of people feel homosexuality is a moral weakness.