A Vaccine to prevent Homosexuality!
A cure for Homosexuals and Lesbians
Also: Church fathers before 300 AD condemned Homosexuality as sin
Also: The DNA Myth: Homosexuals are made
Inoculate your children NOW!
"A former homosexual who has carried on an effective ministry for five years among homosexuals reported, 'I have counseled over three hundred homosexuals and have yet to find one that enjoyed a warm love relationship with his father.'" (The Unhappy Gays: What Everyone Should Know About Homosexuality, pages 71-76) Email replies welcome.
1. How can I prevent my children from becoming homosexual?
a. There is a "vaccination" for homosexuality!
b. But first, you must realize that no one is born homosexual and being homosexual is a moral choice.
c. "How many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb? The answer: Only one, but the light bulb has to really want to change. Many pastors, like Carl, find this to be true with homosexuals. The number one criterion for the success in crisis intervention is the desire of the homosexual person to change. Without that, all the good intentions and techniques by the counselor will have little effect. That desire to rebuild from ground up evidently was missing in Ted." (J. D. Berkley, Called into crisis, 1989, Vol. 18, p 103)
2. Less than 1% are homosexual!
a. A new Statistics Canada health survey is the first to effort to measure the sexual orientation of the population.
b. According to figures from the Canadian Community Health Survey, released Tuesday June 15, 2004, one per cent of Canadians say they are homosexual.
c. The Canadian Community Health Survey, is based on information collected from 135,000 people and is considered to be extremely accurate.
d. Homosexual activists continue to use the 10% figure, even though they know is as invalid as it is a deliberate fraudulent.
3. Vaccination for homosexuality? YES!
a. The vaccination for homosexuality is in fact this: Fathers, spend time with your children and hug and kiss and cuddle them and show them love and affection!
b. While worldly fathers are so afraid to hug, kiss and cuddle their sons for fear they turn him into a sissy.
c. The opposite is in fact true! Fathers in the world worry about their sons becoming homosexual and emotionally withdraw and become tough and macho with their sons. This will actually make your children more likely to turn into homosexuals!
d. Amazingly, Hollywood movies and sit-coms have begun to cast their frequent homosexual characters as having normal loving relationships with their fathers. Just another example of how producers of Hollywood are attempting to change society's views contrary to the facts of homosexuality.
e. "A former homosexual who has carried on an effective ministry for five years among homosexuals reported, 'I have counseled over three hundred homosexuals and have yet to find one that enjoyed a warm love relationship with his father.'" (The Unhappy Gays: What Everyone Should Know About Homosexuality, pages 71-76)
f. The scientific research contained in a book called, "The Unhappy Gays" confirms this. The book also makes it clear that homosexuals are "made not born" homosexual. Fathers play a significant role in the raising of children in many areas and a father's actions can be critical in preventing his children from becoming both homosexual or lesbian.
4. Can you cure a Homosexual or a Lesbian?
a. You cure diseases, but behaviours choices like homosexuality is are changed through freewill.
b. Homosexuality is not a mental illness.
c. Homosexuality is not a disease.
d. Homosexuality is not a determined by DNA.
e. Homosexuals are made not born.
f. Gay marriage is an abomination before God.
g. Homosexuality is a sin. So is adultery!
h. You cure an adulterer the same way you cure a murderer or a homosexual! Change your behaviour choices!
i. How do you cure a homosexual? Stop committing the sin of fornication!
j. Homosexuals need to believe that they can actually change their sexual orientation, but this will require them to realize that the "gay lobby" has been lying to them about going strait.
What biopsychiatrists, drug companies and governments say about homosexuality:
1. "Clinical studies (Green 1987; Stoller 1968, 1975a, 1975b, 1979) describe that boys with gender identity disorder often have an overly close relationship with their mother and a distant, ambivalent relationship with their father. Stoller (1968) argued that the boy who is excessively close to his mother, in absence of the father, may have difficulty in separating himself from the female body and feminine behavior." (Textbook of Clinical Psychiatry, Hales, Yudofsky, 2003 AD, p 746)
2. "Because psychiatrists, particularly white male psychiatrists, are homophobic - the American Psychiatric Association (APA) once labelled homosexuality as a "mental illness" or "mental disorder" - and have used forced electroshock on lesbians, trying to coerce them into adopting a heterosexual life style." (25 good reasons why psychiatry must be abolished, Don Weitz)
a. ""Hot" Controversies For the most part, the preparation of DSM-1V was remarkably free of controversy. The adoption of the three-stage method of empirical review replaced passionate argument with the deliberative poring over and interpretation of piles of tables and figures. Literally hundreds of questions were settled with consensus decisions that may not have pleased everyone but were generally regarded as fair and consistent with the data. The "hot" controversies presented in this chapter did not occur among the Task Force and the Work Group members but rather were played out in a larger arena. For the most part, scientific issues were settled without much controversy. The controversial issues touched on value questions that went far beyond the diagnostic system and could not be answered with empirical data currently available. It is of some interest that all of the hot controversies surrounding DSM-111, DSM-11I-R, and DSM-IV have been in some way related to sexual orientation or gender. It appears that attempts to categorize human behavior related to such sensitive topics are inherently fraught with the potential to arouse widespread interest and disagreement. In this chapter, we present our perspective on the decision-making process about how best to handle two controversial categories included in DSM-11I-R Appendix A: late luteal phase dysphoric disorder and self-defeating personality disorder. The fate of these categories became at least temporarily the focus of extensive media coverage. It is unfortunate, but perhaps not surprising, that the issues involved in these controversies were presented in an often distorted fashion seemingly intended to highlight acrimony rather than to offer a balanced perspective of the pros and cons. Although we are mindful that our own views may be biased by our close participation in these discussions, it may nonetheless be useful to provide an insider's view of the process and substance of these controversies." (DSM-IV-TR Guidebook, 2004 AD, p 427)
3. "There are no well-established or exhaustive explanations for the development of gender identity disorder. As noted earlier in this chapter, gender identity appears to be established and influenced by psychosocial factors during the first few years of life. However, many authors have argued that biological factors, if not causative, may predispose an individual to a gender identity disorder. It is important to realize, however, that researchers still have been unable to identify a biological anomaly or variant associated specifically with gender identity disorder." (Textbook of Clinical Psychiatry, Hales, Yudofsky, 2003 AD, p 746)
4. "Etiology: As with adult gender dysphoria, the etiology of childhood gender identity disorder is unclear. The theories outlined earlier in this chapter for adults who have gender identity disorder also apply to children. Additional factors that have been suggested are parents' indifference to or encouragement of opposite-sex behavior; regular cross- dressing as a young boy by a female; lack of male play-mates during a boy's first years of socialization; excessive maternal protection, with inhibition of rough-and- tumble play; or absence of or rejection by an older male early in life (Green 1974). Gender identity disorder in children has been posited as being the result of child and family pathology (Zucker and Bradley 1995)." (Textbook of Clinical Psychiatry, Hales, Yudofsky, 2003 AD, p 748)
5. "Physical Appearance: Fridell (1996) concluded that girls with gender identity disorder often were seen as less attractive than those in a control group." (Textbook of Clinical Psychiatry, Hales, Yudofsky, 2003 AD, p 749)
6. "Course: Retrospective studies of transsexuals (Green 1974) have shown a high incidence of childhood cross-gender behavior. Follow-up studies of children with gender identity disorder have found a high incidence of continued manifestations in adulthood, with a higher incidence of homosexual or bisexual behavior and fantasies than those in a control group (Green 1985)." (Textbook of Clinical Psychiatry, Hales, Yudofsky, 2003 AD, p 749)
Anita Bryant, 1977: "Save Our Children" from homosexual recruitment.
After being hit in the face with a fruit pie, she started to pray seconds later:
"Father, I want to ask that you forgive him and that we love him and that we're praying for him to be delivered from his deviant lifestyle." (Des Moines, Iowa, October 14, 1977)
What Causes Homosexuality? THE UNHAPPY GAYS pages 71-76
Returning again to the subject of temperament, I would like to reinforce my statement that not all those with predominant Melancholy temperaments in the arts, etc., are homosexual. I introduced the concept here not to embarrass or burden people with a Melancholy temperament, but to encourage parents of Melancholy children to go out of their way to love them. I have noticed that every homosexual I have encountered or have discussed with other counselors possesses an enormous hunger for love. This powerful drive to love and to attract love is typical not only of homosexuals but of Melancholy's.
Is homosexuality Genetic or learned?
I learned it...that's NOT the way God made me!
Learn more: Homosexuals are made
A. Inadequate Parental Relationships
1. Parents are easily the most important external force in the life of any child and, as would be suspected, contribute largely to the homosexual or heterosexual predisposition of their children. A professor of psychiatry at one of the nation's leading medical schools stated, "Current research indicates that the family most likely to produce a homosexual comprises a very intimate, possessive and dominating mother and a detached, hostile father. Many mothers of lesbians tend to be hostile and competitive with their daughters. The fathers of female homosexuals seldom appear to play a dominant role in the family and have considerable difficulty being openly affectionate with their daughters."
2. Most of the new books on homosexuality contain the report by Dr. Irving Bieber, who studied the family backgrounds of 106 male homosexuals. According to his discoveries, eighty-one mothers were dominating, sixty-two were overprotective, sixty-six made the homosexual their favorite child, eighty-two of the fathers spent very little time with their sons, and seventy-nine maintained a detached attitude toward them.22
3. As important as the father is in the life of a child, even he must take second place to mother during the first three years of life. she feeds the baby at her breast and spends far more time with him in infancy than does his dad. Consequently, mothers actually have more to do with producing a predisposition toward homosexuality than fathers. Two kinds of mothers are particularly harmful-smother mothers and dominating mothers.
B. Smother Mothers
1. Every child needs love, but few things are worse than an overprotective, smothering affection that is showered on an infant, not for his benefit but for the mother's. Many a love-starved young mother satisfies her love hunger on her child until he is the primary object in her life. The more she bestows her affection, time, and attention on her child, the more she neglects her husband. This may turn him further from her and the child, compounding the problem.
2. Dr. Howard Hendricks used to say in Family Seminars which he and I held together that ' ' whenever a mother makes her son number one in her life, she begins to raise a pervert. " In other words, it is normal for a boy to be number two in the heart of his mother, for he doesn't feel threatened when he knows father is number one. But when mother and father cannot preserve a love relationship and she makes the child number one, he is in trouble. He may begin to identify with her, take an interest in feminine things, and develop effeminate mannerisms. Such concerns start early in life and are very difficult to break. One veteran homosexual in the counseling room complained that his mother was "overprotective and smothering.'' He illustrated the latter by saying, "She never hesitated to embarrass me. she thought nothing of unzipping my pants to tuck in my shirt. Between that and wiping my nose, she was all over me.''
3. Throughout history, researchers have repeatedly verified that homosexuals are ''mama's boys" whose mothers doted on them in their youth. Tchaikovsky, Michelangelo, and Freud are notable examples. Insecure mothers who have a need to be needed take out that compulsion on their infant or small child to the detriment of the child's personality. Some call it love, but it is not! In reality, it is a form of selfishness, and it probably constitutes one of the leading causes in the rise of homosexuality.
4. In recent years it has become fashionable for an unwed mother who heeds the advice of sexual permissivists to raise her child alone. I always wince when I see this, not because a mother can't raise her son alone (my brother and I were raised by a widowed mother, and my brother was only seven weeks old when Father died, so I know it can be done), but most of those girls have the wrong motive. They are usually love-starved girls who want something living to love and often end up "smother loving" a child into a predisposition toward homosexuality.
C. Dominant Mothers
1. One of the sociological phenomena of our times is the enormous increase in the dominant role of the mother and the renunciation by the father of his responsibility to lead.
2. In some cases dominance is forced upon women because of an irresponsible husband. But nothing ruins the sexual adjustment of children more surely than an oppressive wife and mother.
3. Such children build up an intense hostility toward the opposite sex that either makes it difficult for them to show love and affection in marriage or creates a predisposition toward homosexuality.
D. A Passive or Absent Fathers
1. Father may only be the secondary influence in the life of his children, but since he is second in importance, we should consider him carefully. I have never counseled a homosexual, read one's case history, heard another counselor discuss a client, or listened to the testimony of a former homosexual but that I was informed that the deviant had either a bad relationship with his father or none at all. No doubt some homosexual somewhere has climbed over the positive force of his father's love and masculine role example to become homosexual, but in the many cases I have studied, I cannot name one. A father's most precious gift to his son or daughter is not food, shelter, and education, but love-and he must prove that love by spending time with his child.
2. A former homosexual, now a minister who is effectively helping homosexuals out of their life style, relates a most traumatic childhood experience that shows the importance of the father. Long before he ever felt a "twinge of homosexuality," he was out in the garage with his father, overhauling the car. From under the car came the commanding voice, "Hand me the crescent wrench." He had no idea what a crescent wrench was, so he replied, "I can't find it." His hostile father erupted in an angry spirit, sprang to his feet, and located it in clear view. Cuffing his son on the side of the head, he called him a vile name, rebuked him for being so stupid, and shouted, "Go into the house and help your mother with the girls' work. You obviously aren't cut out for a man's job. " When a small boy's father claims he is more girl-like than male, what is he to believe? Today, having shed the homosexual practices of many agonizing years, this man is still effeminate in his mannerisms, but he struggles valiantly to be accepted as "straight."
3. Father's love and approval of his manhood is very important to any boy, particularly one who manifests other tendencies which may develop a predisposition toward homosexuality. Dr. Irvin Bieber, a psychiatrist acclaimed by the Miami Herald as "one of the most authoritative students of homosexuality in America," said, "Homosexuals are not born that way; they are made that way largely by their parents. "
4. According to a nationally known psychiatrist, the background of homosexuals fits a common pattern. Father is frequently absent from the home, and thus Mother turns to the boy as an outlet for her emotional needs. A boy needs to identify with his father's masculinity; we need to bring Father back into the home, and the father and son must spend time together. A former homosexual who has carried on an effective ministry for five years among homosexuals reported, "I have counseled over three hundred homosexuals and have yet to find one that enjoyed a warm love relationship with his father."
5. The best way to stamp out homosexuality in this country is for parents to get back to the business of making parenthood their priority. Children raised in loving, well-disciplined homes where Mother and Father are themselves good role models for their children rarely become homosexual. Unfortunately, unloved children subjected to the selfish neglect of their parents are vulnerable to a predisposition toward homosexuality. This year divorce may reach 1,100,000, bringing to eleven million the number of children to be raised by one parent. It is estimated that because of divorce, twenty-five to thirty million children up to eighteen years of age will spend a portion of their childhood raised by one parent.
6. A psychiatrist told me, "Every homosexual I know has come from a broken home." My own experience is not that conclusive but I have found that every homosexual I know came from an unhappy home where fighting and hatred abounded between the parents, who usually proceeded with a divorce.
E. Permissive Childhood Training
1. The most harmful concept in the field of child raising during the past 100 years has been permissiveness. It is hard to believe that such a destructive doctrine could catch on so quickly and sweep the country with such force. Although thoroughly discredited now, it has wrought havoc on millions. Perhaps its popularity can be attributed to the fact that the discipline of children is burdensome to parents. But only parental discipline will enable young people to grow up to become responsible, self-disciplined adults.
2. A recent study of criminals indicated that those individuals treated to a well-moderated program of love and discipline in their youth reflected the lowest tendency toward crime. Interestingly enough, the same would be true of homosexuals. I have found in digging into their backgrounds that they were either rejected or pampered as children. I have met only one homosexual who was not a self-indulgent, self-centered, undisciplined individual. The only motivation that seems to make them forceful is their pursuit of sexual gratification and their demand to be accepted by society as "perfectly normal." This lack of discipline makes it easy for many with a predisposition toward homosexuality to take up the practice at the first opportunity, and it is largely the reason they find it so difficult to extricate themselves from it when they finally wake up to the realization it is an "ungay" life style.
FATHERS OF HOMOSEXUALS and LESBIANS:
A Collective Clinical Profile
by Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.
It is widely agreed that many factors likely contribute to the formation of male homosexuality. One factor may be the predisposing biological influence of temperament (Byne and Parsons, l993). No scientific evidence, however, shows homosexuality to be directly inherited in the sense that eye color is inherited (Satinover, 1996).
Recent political pressure has resulted in a denial of the importance of the factor most strongly implicated by decades of previous clinical research--developmental factors, particularly the influence of parents. A review of the literature on male homosexuality reveals extensive reference to the prehomosexual boy's relational problems with both parents (West 1959, Socarides 1978, Evans 1969); among some researchers, the father-son relationship has been particularly implicated (Bieber et al 1962, Moberly 1983).
One psychoanalytic hypothesis for the connection between poor early father-son relationship and homosexuality is that during the critical gender-identity phase of development, the boy perceives the father as rejecting. As a result, he grows up failing to fully identify with his father and the masculinity he represents.
Nonmasculine or feminine behavior in boyhood has been repeatedly shown to be correlated with later homosexuality (Green, l987, Zuger, l988); taken together with related factors--particularly the often-reported alienation from same-sex peers and poor relationship with father--this suggests a failure to fully gender-identify. In its more extreme form, this same syndrome (usually resulting in homosexuality) is diagnosed as Childhood Gender-Identity Deficit (Zucker and Bradley, 1996).
One likely cause for "failure to identify" is a narcissistic injury inflicted by the father onto the son (who is usually temperamentally sensitive) during the preoedipal stage of the boy's development. This hurt appears to have been inflicted during the critical gender-identity phase when the boy must undertake the task of assuming a masculine identification. The hurt manifests itself as a defensive detachment from masculinity in the self, and in others. As an adult, the homosexual is often characterized by this complex which takes the form of "the hurt little boy" (Nicolosi, 1991).
During the course of my treatment of ego-dystonic male homosexuals, I have sometimes requested that fathers participate in their sons' treatment. Thus I have been able to familiarize myself with some of the fathers' most common personality traits. This discussion attempts to identify some clinical features common to those fathers of homosexuals.
For this report, I have focused on sixteen fathers who I consider typical in my practice--twelve fathers of homosexual sons (mid-teens to early 30's), and four fathers of young, gender-disturbed, evidently prehomosexual boys (4- to 7- year-olds). The vast majority of these fathers appeared to be psychologically normal and, also like most fathers, well-intentioned with regard to their sons; in only one case was the father seriously disturbed, inflicting significant emotional cruelty upon his son.
However as a group, these fathers were characterized by the inability to counter their sons' defensive detachment from them. They felt helpless to attract the boy into their own masculine sphere.
As a whole, these fathers could be characterized as emotionally avoidant. Exploration of their histories revealed that they had typically had poor relationships with their own fathers. They tended to defer to their wives in emotional matters and appeared particularly dependent on them to be their guides, interpreters and spokespersons.
While these men expressed sincere hope that their sons would transition to heterosexuality, nevertheless they proved incapable of living up to a long-term commitment to help them toward that goal. In his first conjoint session, one father cried openly as his 15-year-old son expressed his deep disappointment with him; yet for months afterward, he would drive his son to his appointment without saying a word to him in the car.
Further, while they often appeared to be gregarious and popular, these fathers tended not to have significant male friendships. The extent to which they lacked the ability for male emotional encounter was too consistent and pronounced to be dismissed as simply "typical of the American male." Rather, my clinical impression of these fathers as a group was that there existed some significant limitation in their ability to engage emotionally with males.
From their sons' earliest years, these fathers showed a considerable variation in their ability to recognize and respond to the boys' emotional withdrawal from them. Some naively reported their perception of having had a "great" relationship with their sons, while their sons themselves described the relationship as having been "terrible." Approximately half the fathers, however, sadly admitted that the relationship was always poor and, in retrospect, perceived their sons as rejecting them from early childhood. Why their sons rejected them remained for most fathers a mystery, and they could only express a helpless sense of resignation and confusion. When pushed, these men would go further to express hurt and deep sadness. Ironically, these sentiments--helplessness, hurt and confusion--seemed to be mutual; they are the same expressed by my clients in describing their own feelings in the relationship with their fathers.
The trait common to fathers of homosexuals seemed to be an incapacity to summon the ability to correct relational problems with their sons. All the men reported feeling "stuck" and helpless in the face of their sons' indifference or explicit rejection of them. Rather than actively extending themselves, they seemed characteristically inclined to retreat, avoid and feel hurt. Preoccupied with self-protection and unwilling to risk the vulnerability required to give to their sons, they were unable to close the emotional breach. Some showed narcissistic personality features. Some fathers were severe and capable of harsh criticism; some were brittle and rigid; overall, most were soft, weak and placid, with a characteristic emotional inadequacy. The term that comes to mind is the classic psycholanalytic term "acquiescent" - the acquiescent father.
Homosexuality is almost certainly due to multiple factors and cannot be reduced soley to a faulty father-son relationship. Fathers of homosexual sons are usually also fathers of heterosexual sons--so the personality of the father is clearly not the sole cause of homosexuality. Other factors I have seen in the development of homosexuality include a hostile, feared older brother; a mother who is a very warm and attractive personality and proves more appealing to the boy than an emotionally removed father; a mother who is actively disdainful of masculinity; childhood seduction by another male; peer labelling of the boy due to poor athletic ability or timidity; in recent years, cultural factors encouraging a confused and uncertain youngster into an embracing gay community; and in the boy himself, a particularly sensitive, relatively fragile, often passive disposition.
At the same time, we cannot ignore the striking commonality of these fathers' personalities.
In two cases, the fathers were very involved and deeply committed to the treatment of their sons, but conceded that they were not emotionally present during their sons' early years. In both cases it was not personality, but circumstance that caused the fathers' emotional distance. In one case the father was a surgeon from New Jersey who reported atteding medical school while trying to provide financial support for his young family of three children. The second father, an auto mechanic from Arizona, reported that when he was only 21 years old, he was forced to marry the boy's mother because she was pregnant. He admitted never loving the boy's mother, having been physically absent from the home, and essentially having abandoned both mother and boy. Both fathers, now more mature and committed to re-establishing contact with their sons, participated enthusiastically in their therapy. But in both cases, the sons had, by then, become resistant to establishing an emotional connection with their fathers.
My overall impression of fathers in conjoint sessions was of a sense of helplessness, discomfort and awkwardness when required to directly interact with their sons.
These men tended not to trust psychological concepts and communication techniques and often seemed confused and easily overwhelmed with the challenge to dialogue in depth. Instructions which I offered during consultation, when followed, were followed literally, mechanically and without spontaneity. A mutual antipathy, a stubborn resistance and a deep grievance on the part of both fathers and sons was clearly observable. At times I felt myself placed in the position of "mother interpreter," a role encouraged by fathers and at times by sons. As "mother interpreter," I found myself inferring feeling and intent from the father's fragmented phrases and conveying that fuller meaning to the son, and vice versa from son to father.
Some fathers expressed concern with "saying the wrong thing," while others seemed paralyzed by fear. During dialogue, fathers demonstrated great difficulty in getting past their own self-consciousness and their own reactions to what their sons were saying. This limited their empathetic attunement to the therapeutic situation, and to their sons' position and feelings.
As their sons spoke to them, these fathers seemed blocked and unable to respond. Often they could only respond by saying that they were "too confused," "too hurt," or "too frustrated" to dialogue. One father said he was "too angry" to attend the sessions of his teenage son--a message conveyed to me by the mother. At the slightest sign of improvement in the father-son relationship, a few fathers seemed too ready to flee, concluding "Everything is okay - can I go now?"
Before conjoint father-son sessions begin, the client should be helped to gain a clear sense of what he wants from his father. To simply expose the father to a list of complaints is of no value. He should also decide on a clear, constructive way to ask for this. Such preparation shifts the son from a position of helpless complaining, to staying centered on his genuine needs and the effective expression of them.
Eventually, within the course of conjoint sessions a particular point will be reached which I call "the deadly dilemma." This deadlock in dialogue--which seems to duplicate the earliest father-son rupture--occurs in two phases as follows:
Phase 1: With the therapist's assistance, the son expresses his needs and wants to his father. Hearing his son, the father becomes emotionally affected, so much so that he cannot respond to his son's disclosure. He is overwhelmed by his own reactions, becoming so "angered," "hurt," "upset," or "confused" that he cannot attend to his son's needs. Blocked by his own internal reactions, he is unable to give what his son asks of him.
Phase 2: In turn, the son is unable to tolerate his father's insular emotional reaction in place of the affirmative response he seeks from him. To accept his father's non-responses, the son feels he must abandon the needs he has expressed. The only recourse for the son is to retreat again to the defensive distancing which is already at the core of the father-son relationship. The son cannot empathize with the father's non-responsiveness because to do so is painfully reminiscent of childhood patterns that are associated with his own deep hurt and anger: namely the imperative, "My father's needs must always come before mine." The son's hurt and anger is in reaction to what appears to him to be "just more lame excuses" for Dad's inability to give the attention, affection or approval he has so long desired from him. Indeed, to the son this seems like Dad's old ploy, with all the associated historical pain.
This deadly dilemma originated, I believe, during the preverbal level of infancy. As one father's recollections confirmed, "My son would never look at me. I would hold his face with my hands and force him to look at me, but he would always avert his eyes." Other men have described an "unnatural indifference" to their fathers during their growing-up years.
During the course of therapy with these fathers, I began to see the deep hurt in them--a hurt that came from their sons' indifference to their attempts (however meager) to improve the relationship.
Reflecting on his now-elderly father, one client sadly recalled:
"I feel sorry for my father. He always had a certain insensitivity, an emotional incompetence. Many of the interactions at home simply went over his head. He was dense, inadequate. I feel a pity for him."
These fathers appeared unwilling or unable to be open and vulnerable to their sons; unable to reach out, to hear their sons' pain and anger with respect to them, and unable to respond honestly. Their emotional availability was blocked and they were unable to turn the relational problem around. Rather they remained removed, seemingly dispassionate and helpless.
In conjoint sessions, none of the fathers were incapable of taking the lead in dialogue. When dialogue became stagnant, they were unable to initiate communication. I believe the consistent inability of these fathers to get past their own blocks and reach out to their sons played a significant role in these boys' inability to move forward into full, normal masculine identification and heterosexuality.
Bieber, I. et al (1962) Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals. New York: Basic Books.
Byne, W. and Parsons, B., "Human sexual orientation: the biologic theories reappraised," Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 50:228-239, March l993.
Evans, R. (1969). Childhood parental relationships of homosexual men. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 33:129-135.
Green, Richard (l987) "The Sissy Boy Syndrome" and the Development of Homosexuality. New Haven, Ct.: Yale U. Press.
Moberly, Elizabeth (1983) Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic. Greenwood, S.C.: Attic Press.
Nicolosi, Joseph (l991) Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality; A New Clinical Approach. Northvale, N.J.: Jason Aronson, 1991.
Satinover, J. (1996). Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Socarides, Charles (1978). Homosexuality. New York: Jason Aronson.
West, D.J. (1959). Parental figures in the genesis of male homosexuality. International Journal of Social Psychiatry 5:85-97.
Zucker, K. and Bradley, S. (1995) Gender Identity Disorder and Psychosexual Problems in Children and Adolescents. N.Y.: The Guilford Press.
Zuger, Bernard (l988) Is Early Effeminate Behavior in Boys Early Homosexuality? Comprehensive Psychiatry, vol. 29, no. 5 (September/October) p. 509-519.
17 Reasons why Gay Marriage is an abomination before God and man:
Reasons why it is wrong to legalize gay marriage and why bill C-250 is an attack upon Christian’s freedom of speech.
1. Some politicians say they must legalize gay marriage because the UN has said so. The UN doesn’t have the right to determine human rights because this would infringe upon the Sovereignty of Canada. Therefore, just because the UN wants to grant special status to homosexuals, doesn’t mean Canada must also. Legalizing gay marriage, therefore, is a choice the Liberal government of Canada has made.
2. Marriage is not an “inalienable right”, nor is it a “benefit right”. Marriage has always been a discriminatory institution. The proof of this is the fact that brothers and sisters or cousins are forbidden to marry. So forbidding homosexuals from marrying is also constitutional. What is even more puzzling is that the prohibition against homosexuals and siblings/cousins/incest originated with Christians strictly on moral grounds found in the Bible. If two heterosexual consenting cousins can be discriminated against and be prevented from marrying, then so too can homosexuals.
3. Bill C-250, will protect sexual orientation in general, without specifying which ones. Pedophilia and homosexuality are equally protected by Canadian law. Gay activists reply by saying that pedophiles cannot marry consenting minors because such is actually prohibited by “other laws” and such is not seen as a violation of the “charter of rights”. This proves that the “other laws” that prohibit gay marriage and such are not a violation of the charter of rights. The USA is presently changing the constitution to forever forbid gay marriage proving it has nothing to do with equality.
4. Parliament does not have the right to redefine marriage, simply because it recognized marriage at confederacy and it deserved the protection from the state. The Fathers of confederacy recognized that marriage already existed and it deserved to be protected and they merely supplied the definition that already existed. Since the government issues birth certificates, it does not have the right to determine what a human is by virtue of issuing birth certificates. If parliament redefines marriage, they may be in “patent violation” by using the same trade name “Marriage” with different ingredients! Canada doesn’t hold the patent to Marriage, it is merely operating under a “trade license” granted us from a higher power. (God) For Canada to change the definition of marriage, is like manufacturing cans labeled “Coke” under trade license, but when you drink it, it tastes like coffee. Remember, the Jean Chretien ran for the office of prime minister, not the office of God. He has no right to change the definition of marriage.
5. The gay agenda on one hand, wants the Bible labeled as hate literature because, they say, it clearly condemns homosexual activity, then on the other hand, they stand beside their various church leaders who say the Bible does not condemn homosexual sex, and that it is a matter of Bible interpretation. They will preach it both ways whenever they need to. This is as dishonest as it is hypocritical, because the Bible’s condemnation of homosexual sex is as clear as its condemnation of adultery or murder. (Lev 18:22-23; Lev 20:13; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:9-10; Rom 1:26-27). The complete lack of integrity of these same homosexual theologians, is seen in that Jesus actually defined marriage as a union between a male and a female and He said this is the definition that has existed since the beginning of time. (Matthew 19:4-6)
6. Pro-Gay agenda theologians say the Bible doesn't really condemn homosexual sex and quote passages where we are commanded to “love all men” ... including homosexuals. This is as illogical as it is irrelevant, because God loves the sinners whom He will send to eternal hell for punishment. Jesus words, "If you love Me, you will obey me." Show that it is homosexuals who are not loving Jesus by living in direct disobedience to His moral instructions. So yes, God and Christians love all men, including homosexuals murders and rapists. God loves the person but hates the sin... Homosexuality is sin.
7. Christians have good reason to fear Bill C-250. Liberal MP, Beth Phinney did not give any reassurances that Christians would be protected from prosecution if they publicly criticized homosexual sex. She said this scary thing: “What if what you write causes someone to murder or beat up a homosexual?” The reply, “Is someone guilty of inciting hate against “adulterers” if they publicly criticized adultery as sin and someone reads this and murders their adulteress spouse?” Of course not, a little common sense is needed here. The conclusion is the Liberal government's Bill C-250 is indeed, all about silencing anyone who opposes the gay agenda. It is a clear violation of religious freedom of speech.
8. Bill C-250 is not about Gay rights, because they were already protected before the constitution was changed by Trudeau. Bill C-250 is about silencing, by threat of jail, anyone who condemns the homosexual lifestyle. Therefore, elected officials who refuse to openly oppose Bill C-250, are not only supporting it by their silence, they are doing exactly what the author of the Bill intended, not criticizing the homosexual agenda. These politicians are not only agreeing with the bill, but are already obeying it with their silence before it is passed.
9. In some Muslim dominated countries where Shariah law is in place, Christians are told they must not sing any louder than can be heard outside the walls of the church buildings. Christians are told they must keep their Christianity to themselves and will be thrown in jail if they preach to anyone outside their home or church buildings. This is a reprehensible violation of religious freedom. Well Bill C-250 will create the same situation right here in Canada by making it illegal to label homosexual sex as sin and an abomination to Jesus Christ. Here is the paradox: The Christian's religious freedom of speech, will be violated in Canada, via Bill C-250, not by some repressive Islamic government, but by the humanistic and secular government of Canada. Two extremes, same result. In both cases Christians are persecuted and prevented from expressing their faith in public.
10. The gay agenda has knowingly deceived the public into thinking that 10% of the population are gay, when in fact the true figure of less than 2% has been scientifically for 25 years. They have also deceived the public into thinking that the consensus of solid scientific fact proves homosexuals are born gay. The truth is that both homosexual sex and adultery are actions that result from moral choices you make at that moment. Even if homosexuals were born that way, God calls all men, both homosexuals and heterosexuals, to live in a way different from what they feel for the moment. It is this self control that causes heterosexuals to not commit adultery, even though they were born with the desire to do so. So the question of whether homosexuals are born that way is irrelevant because heterosexuals are born with a natural desire to commit adultery but because of morals, do not.
11. If Bill C-250 passes, Christians can continue to condemn adultery and premarital sex, as sin, but not homosexual sex. If they do, they will be charged of "promoting hatred against an identifiable group." Suddenly Christians will get a criminal record and be classed among the likes of Earnest Zundel and the KKK. In other words, a Christian can criticize two unmarried heterosexual teenagers for having sex, unless they are homosexual, then they go to jail. The result is a moral paradox where sex between two unmarried persons is sin, unless they are homosexual, then its OK.
12. We, the majority, who oppose Bill C-250, will no doubt be called, “homophobic”. And before you get upset, consider that a word is defined by its usage. The Gay agenda labels as “homophobic”, anyone who is opposes the gay agenda to change the definition of marriage. So this means over 70% of the Canadian population are homophobic. Let these 70% plus, of “homophobic Canadians” wear the label with pride!
13. Homosexual activists, politicians and the media have given assurances that if Bill C-250 passes, it will not hinder free speech. Yet, religious and political leaders who have spoken out against gay marriage recently, have been attacked. This shows the true intent of Bill C-250.
14. Gay agenda promoters “righteously” claim that Gay marriage is all about equality, meaning homosexuals should have the right to marry like normal couples, as a matter of equality. I don’t see Gay agenda lobbyists, defending the rights of polygamists or pedophiles who are prevented from marrying. When will gay activists demand polygamists or pedophiles to be allowed to marry on the basis of equality?
15. Prime Minister Jean Chretien and gay activists appear to take pride in defending the right of religious leaders to refuse to marry gays. Yet, it is clear that the supreme court, based upon Trudeau’s gay constitutional amendments, has no choice but to deny such a right exists. I predict this will force the Prime Minister to invoke the “notwithstanding clause”. Church leaders could no more discriminate against someone solely on the basis of being homosexual, as they could on the basis of sex or skin colour. All three are on an equal level of protection. However, if I am wrong, and the supreme court does grant the right to religious leaders to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation by refusing to marry them, then these same leaders also have the right to publicly state WHY they discriminate against homosexuals. In this way, Christians can reclaim their right of freedom of speech!
16. We often wonder what it means to be Canadian. Well, one of the trademarks of most Canadians, is their unwillingness to speak their opinions on key moral issues. Worse still, many Canadians really have no opinions at all! I often hear stuff like, “each to his own” “I don’t know” “I just go with the flow”. Well its time to speak up! With homosexuality being promoted by force under the threat of legal action in kindergarten to our 5 year old children, and Bill C-250 that removes the right of anyone in Canada to speak against the homosexual lifestyle under the threat of jail, we are clearly on the road to Sodom and Gomorrah. Perhaps the following words that are spoken at every marriage ceremony are appropriate right now: “Speak up now, or forever hold your peace”! I fear Canadians are placing themselves under the curse of God as a nation.
17. Teaching our children that homosexuality is normal. Homosexuality violates society’s definition of normal, since it represents less than 1% of the population. Homosexuality violates evolution, because it represents exactly the opposite of Darwin's “survival of the fittest, given that homosexual relationships do not reproduce. Homosexual sex violates the Bible, since it is clearly identified as sin.
Also: Church fathers before 300 AD condemned Homosexuality as sin
Also: The DNA Myth: Homosexuals are made
Email replies welcome.