A helpful analogy for the homosexuality issue can perhaps be that of wearing braces for those who have crooked teeth.
But before I go on with the analogy of the braces, let me first elaborate on homosexuality. Homosexuality is considered to be a form of developmental disorder. Both biological predispositions and environmental factors contribute to the emergence of homosexuality. As the name “developmental disorder” implies, the homosexual’s development from childhood through adolescence may not follow the trajectory and norms as others have, and therefore causing homosexual tendencies and desires.
But what do I mean by “biological predispositions”? During pregnancy, the mother may slip and fall and any physical trauma to the womb may induce a higher proportion of female hormones to enter the foetus, leading to a “feminised brain” in the male child. This is suggested to cause the pre-homosexual boy to have certain feminine traits, though not necessarily growing up to be effeminate or “sissy”. Of course other “biological predispositions” such as character, personality, and temperament also influence how the homosexual turns out to be — perhaps he is born sensitive, not so athletic and is good at art etc.
Environmental factors often work together with biological predispositions in the emergence of homosexuality. The sensitive, artistic boy who does not like sports may not have many male friends. Females tend to be more receptive to the pre-homosexual boy and he finds himself accepted more amongst girls rather boys. Perhaps the pre-homosexual boy may also come from a family where the father is physically absent or emotionally distant. He does not have an older male figure to be a positive role model for his masculinity and he is also brought up and nurtured by a dominating mother who spends much time with him.
Some psychologists would call homosexuality as a gender inferiority complex or masculinity inferiority complex. Having said this, I am not suggesting that homosexuals are necessarily effeminate or “sissy”. It is just that homosexuals were not affirmed or approved as masculine boys when they were young. During their childhood and/or adolescence, homosexuals were not nurtured to feel confident of their masculinity, that they could ever meet the expectations or standard of being a “man”.
Why homosexuals fall in love with other men is because legitimate emotional needs they had during their formative years were not met. In other words, these emotional needs to bond with other males have become eroticised after puberty. These sexualised emotional needs now become lust for other men. Homosexuals yearn and long and crave for the love of other men to “fill the void” inside them. Homosexuals tend to be attracted to athletic, cheerful, good-looking, popular straight men because subconsciously the homosexuals wish they are like these straight men. This serves as the basis of homosexual attraction.
Homosexuals are not gays because homosexuality in its traditional sense of the word has always been understood to refer to behaviour or inclination. Gay is an identity. It is politicised and ideologically driven to represent a subculture. In other words, being gay is a choice and we need to always be discerning that NOBODY is born a gay. Whether a person is born to have homosexual thoughts and feelings is much more debatable and allows room for discussion. But just because a person experiences homosexual tendencies or desires does not necessarily mean that he must identify himself as a gay. Such labelling or categorisation traps or imprisons a person who is confused over his sexual orientation.
Back to the analogy of the braces. Some are born with smaller jaws than others and therefore they may grow up to have overcrowded teeth. Dentists would encourage parents to let their children wear braces. It is not out of vanity that children or teenagers wear braces. Of course wearing braces would make a person look better, but more importantly braces help to align the teeth so that the person will be able to chew food properly and have better oral hygiene etc.
In a sense, depending on how a person look at it, this issue of wearing braces has both biological and environmental factors. A person is born with smaller jaws than others — this is genetic. But what about the environmental factor? The child whose parents are ignorant and disallows him to wear braces or are too poor to afford braces may mean that the child who has overcrowded teeth will not be able to align his teeth. This may cause him not to be able to chew his food properly and he may also experience difficulties maintaining oral hygiene when he grows up.
Of course, nobody in this world is perfect, and this includes teeth. People may have charming, sparkling smiles but it does not mean their teeth are necessarily perfectly aligned. Yet, if overcrowded teeth is a problem, then all of us will agree that wearing braces is good for the child or teenager. And if the person, for whatever reason, is unable to wear braces, then we should encourage him to do so and help him to have access to dental treatment in order to wear braces.
So the issue of overcrowded, crooked teeth and wearing braces has both biological and environmental factors. Similarly, there are also biological and environmental factors which contribute to the emergence of homosexuality.
When a person experiences homosexual thoughts and feelings, this is due to years of biological predispositions and environmental influences. In a sense, the emergence of homosexuality is “silent”. We know about the sunrise because we see sunlight falling on our eyes. But by the time we see the sunlight, the sunrise is already over. In other words, we can never see the sun actually rising.
Because homosexuality is a developmental disorder, or as some psychologists would describe as masculinity inferiority complex, it is not a fixed, rigid condition that can never be changed. The basis of homosexuality is EMOTIONAL DEFICIT which occurs over time during the person’s formative years. In other words, nobody is born a gay. Homosexuality is a process which takes place over time during childhood and adolescence.
The risk of saying all of these is to pathologise homosexuality. That is, I hope I do not make homosexuality sound like some sort of disease or disability. But if we agree with the analogy of wearing braces, then the problem of overcrowded, crooked teeth due to small jaws is similar to a person who is born with certain character and personality traits who is more predisposed to be emotionally sensitive etc. And as for the parents who are ignorant and not well educated and disallows the child to wear braces or for the parents who are poor and cannot afford dental treatment, can be seen to be like the pre-homosexual boy who was never nurtured by his father (or any male role model) to be masculine, who did not have many male friends, and who spent most of his time with the mother. This is what I think about the analogy of wearing braces and how it runs parallel to the issue of homosexuality.
So the question really is — why is homosexuality “wrong” or “bad”? And why encourage homosexuals to change?
It is certainly not wrong for a person to have crooked teeth (and quite subjective here, too, since nobody has perfect teeth anyway…). But is it necessarily good? It is not wrong, but it may be bad. A person who cannot have a confident smile may feel inferior to others. Or a person who is not wearing braces may not be able to chew food properly and may have difficulties with oral hygiene. So, it may be good that a person wear braces after all since there are compelling benefits in the long run.
Is it wrong or bad to be a homosexual? It is difficulty to address this without going into religion and morals. But since homosexuality is a developmental disorder and masculinity inferiority complex, perhaps we need to encourage the person to overcome his homosexual thoughts and feelings and become more “normal”. (Once again, what is “normal” exactly?)
Homosexual tendencies or feelings are not “normal” since they are symptoms of something which has gone wrong. The person SHOULD be heterosexual, not homosexual or bisexual. But because of certain biological predispositions or environmental factors, the child is unable to develop “normally”. Similarly for the child who has smaller jaws than others, his teeth becomes crooked because they are overcrowded. But if the parents do not allow or afford braces, his teeth cannot develop normally. I see crooked sexuality and crooked teeth as “developmental disorders” in the sense that their development did not go the right way. Their development was “arrested” or deviant.
For the person who has overcrowded and crooked teeth, there is help and hope to have a good smile and good oral hygiene. Braces are available. So similarly, there is help and hope to change, for the homosexual who is not contented with his unwanted homosexual tendencies and desires to overcome his struggles.
Now, what is wrong with the gay identity and gay culture then?
The gay identity and culture is a social construct. There is nothing inherent or intrinsically “gay” about it. How it all started was due to the Stonewall riots where homosexuals rebelled against the police to hold their parade in the 1960s. This was how the modern gay identity and culture emerged. Despite the fact that homosexuality had always existed in history and how homosexuality may even be prevalent in ancient China and classical Greece, there was never anything gay in history. Gay is a 20th century invention.
Can you imagine people who have overcrowded and crooked teeth being proud of their identity and refused to wear braces? Of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with crooked teeth. It is your choice to not wear braces. BUT can you imagine these people creating an identity for themselves? Perhaps they may call themselves the Crooked (because of their crooked teeth). They start going around telling parents that they should not make their children wear braces. These Crooked activists begin asserting their rights to have Crooked parades on the streets to flaunt their crooked teeth.
These Crooked teeth people have created an identity and culture out of their crooked teeth. From crooked (with a small ‘c’) to Crooked (with a capitalised ‘C’). They wear clothes in a certain fashion, they behave in a certain manner. They hold parades to exhibit their crooked teeth. They are against all parents who make their children to wear braces. These Crooked teeth activists accuse parents of being narrow minded and discriminatory. They advocate that children and teenagers should have the freedom to exercise their rights to make decisions on their own whether to have crooked or straight teeth. These Crooked teeth activists claim that anybody who thinks that chewing food properly and having good oral hygiene are prejudiced against people who have crooked teeth. They insist that people with smaller jaws to have the liberty to choose whether to wear braces or not.
Of course people who have crooked teeth must be able to choose and make decisions for themselves whether they want to wear braces or not.
But what I am trying to illustrate is how these imaginary Crooked teeth activists are like the gays. Crooked teeth activists must “convert” all who have crooked teeth to be Crooked. Similarly, gays must “convert” all who experience homosexual thoughts and feelings to be gay. The gays say, “If you like boys, you MUST be gay.” The gays say, “Your homosexual tendencies or desires mean that you are born a gay.”
Well, all of the above is not true.
Even straight teenagers and youths may experience homoerotic thoughts or feelings, and they may even engage in homosexual acts with other men, but it does not mean that they are gays. It does not even necessarily mean they are homosexuals!
So let us be aware of what homosexuality is and what being gay means. Let us be conscious of the fact that if a person who has homosexual tendencies and desires, we should always encourage him to change, to offer him help and hope that overcoming his homosexual struggles is possible, just as we would encourage a child or teenager who has crooked teeth to wear braces.
But they cannot help it man. They are 'born' that way. It is not exclusive to humans. Just watch NatGeo even some lionesses are homosexuals. Asking a homosexual to change is similar to asking a heterosexual to become a homosexual. Just realise that it is by nature and live with it.
The long winding passages tat is written is basically the impression of the author. It does not have support from science, studies or facts. It is something like philosophy, "I think tis is true, so it is true". Tis is especially for the part when he try to "explain" homosexuality. I just read wiki and come out with some of the following statements
The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated that "sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences".[82] The American Psychological Association has stated that "there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people". It stated that, for most people, sexual orientation is determined at an early age.[83] The American Psychiatric Association has stated that, "to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse".[64] Research into how sexual orientation may be determined by genetic or other prenatal factors plays a role in political and social debates about homosexuality, and also raises fears about genetic profiling and prenatal testing.[84]
Homosexual and bisexual behavior are widespread in the animal kingdom: a 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them
In a 2008 study, its authors stated that "there is considerable evidence that human sexual orientation is genetically influenced, so it is not known how homosexuality, which tends to lower reproductive success, is maintained in the population at a relatively high frequency". They hypothesized that "while genes predisposing to homosexuality reduce homosexuals' reproductive success, they may confer some advantage in heterosexuals who carry them". Their results suggested that "genes predisposing to homosexuality may confer a mating advantage in heterosexuals, which could help explain the evolution and maintenance of homosexuality in the population".[85] A 2009 study also suggested a significant increase in fecundity in the females related to the homosexual people from the maternal line (but not in those related from the paternal one).[86]
Hello,
How are you? i hope all is well with you, i hope you may not know me, and i don't know who you are, My Name is Miss cyentha weah i am just broswing now i just saw your profle it seams like some thing touches me all over my body, i started having some feelings in me which i have never experience ian me before, so i became interested in you, l will also like to know you the more,and l want you to send an email to my email address([email protected]) so l can give you my picture for you to know whom l am. I believe we can move from here!I am waiting for your mail to my email address above. (Remeber the distance or colour does not matter but love matters alot in life)
miss cyentha.
Originally posted by Uraniumfish:But they cannot help it man. They are 'born' that way. It is not exclusive to humans. Just watch NatGeo even some lionesses are homosexuals. Asking a homosexual to change is similar to asking a heterosexual to become a homosexual. Just realise that it is by nature and live with it.
I agreed with Uraniumfish.
I agree with the American Psychological Association in how it accounts for homosexuality, that homosexuality comes about through the combination of biological, environmental and cultural factors.
Homosexuality is a developmental disorder in the sense that the prehomosexual child did not grow up secure in his gender roles and therefore lacked confidence in his sexuality. There could be many reasons which explain why this happens to the prehomosexual boy.
My point is simply and only this: that a homosexual can change.
There is help and hope for any homosexuals struggling against unwanted homosexual thoughts, feelings and desires. I only wish to encourage any homosexuals who want to overcome their homosexual tendencies to persevere.
I personally recommend counselling, psychotherapy and having close male heterosexual friends for moral, emotional and spiritual support.
Originally posted by thetruthsetsyoufree:
My point is simply and only this: that a homosexual can change.
why is there a need to compel someone to change? just to fit into someone, or some religion's view of what life should be?
if a homosexual is comfortable with what he/she is, what does that matter to you?
what the difference between you and the Aryan race who believe that everyone should be blond and blue eyed?
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
why is there a need to compel someone to change? just to fit into someone, or some religion's view of what life should be?if a homosexual is comfortable with what he/she is, what does that matter to you?
what the difference between you and the Aryan race who believe that everyone should be blond and blue eyed?
I do not force homosexuals who do not want to change, to change.
I only seek to encourage homosexuals who want to change, to change.
I would like to let those who struggle with their unwanted homosexual tendencies and desires know that help and hope is available.
Originally posted by thetruthsetsyoufree:I do not force homosexuals who do not want to change, to change.
I only seek to encourage homosexuals who want to change, to change.
I would like to let those who struggle with their unwanted homosexual tendencies and desires know that help and hope is available.
You would think if they considered themselves homosexuals they already do not want to change.
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
You would think if they considered themselves homosexuals they already do not want to change.
When I say "homosexuals", I refer to any person having a homosexual orientation and face same-sex attraction, and may even engage in homosexual behaviour.
However, "gays" are different -- gays consider themselves as an ethnic group, a sub-culture, a politicised movement. It is nearly impossible for those identitied as gays to have the desire for change.
Because the terms "homosexuality" and "gay" are used interchangeably, even within the academic circle, people are often confused who a homosexual is, and who a gay is.
A homosexual may not be a gay, whereas a person who supports gay rights does not necessarily have to be homosexual.
I appeal to all homosexuals whose conscience is haunting them to seek change, for change is POSSIBLE.
Here is help and hope for homosexuals:
Originally posted by thetruthsetsyoufree:I do not force homosexuals who do not want to change, to change.
I only seek to encourage homosexuals who want to change, to change.
I would like to let those who struggle with their unwanted homosexual tendencies and desires know that help and hope is available.
those who want to change do not need you to encourage.
those who don't want to change you encourge also no use.
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
those who want to change do not need you to encourage.those who don't want to change you encourge also no use.
We need to win many souls to Christ and TS is doing the right thing to preach against sins.
Not everybody believed in your soul theory. There r religion believing women should be covered from head to toe to prevent sinning. So u should force your sisters, friends and family members to cover up ?
And I seek to correct miscoceptions about homosexual. Crooked teeth seems to be a fun analogy and it really can be "cured" by using braces. However it is clear tat there r many differences in human tat cannot be cured. Such instances r like left handed. No matter how u force them, they will feel more natural using the left hand then the right as it is their master hand. Instead of making things difficult for them, why not just embraces tat tis is god's will and it make them become homosexual or left handed naturally. U suggest a mother slip and fall but again tis is god's will. And psychology had stated tat there is no correlation between homosexual and family history or abuses.
And there is no such thing as a "cure" for gay. U can force a left handed person to write using his right hand or force a homosexual to marry the opposite sex, but u r just making their lives difficult making learning more difficult for left handers or having unhappy family life for the homosexual.
And u know there r groups of of people encouraging left handed people simply to be left handed and not be shamed by it. Similarly there r groups of people who encourage homosexual to face the truth and not be shamed by it. Tis is simply because sometimes society and religion give a stigma to such people and they fought back against such discrimination
(bible have 100+ reference favoring right hand and against left hand. Satan is left hand of god, satan baptise with left hand and salt is thrown over left shoulder etc. Incredibly nuns force left handed to be a right hander and try to broke them out of it)
Originally posted by Uraniumfish:But they cannot help it man. They are 'born' that way. It is not exclusive to humans. Just watch NatGeo even some lionesses are homosexuals. Asking a homosexual to change is similar to asking a heterosexual to become a homosexual. Just realise that it is by nature and live with it.
Originally posted by Stomp661:I agreed with Uraniumfish.
considering that you agreed with Uraniumfish that some are born that way..... and that asking homosexuals to change to hetero is the same with asking hetero to change to homo....
Originally posted by Stomp661:We need to win many souls to Christ and TS is doing the right thing to preach against sins.
how is it that being homosexual is a sin, if one is considered to have been born that way?
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
how is it that being homosexual is a sin, if one is considered to have been born that way?
Leviticus 18:6 reads: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. It is an abomination." that's what it says in the bible.
Though it is also said in MARK 10:1-12 that "Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced."
Frankly, religion shouldn't have any say in homosexuality (or anything for that matter), seeing how they can't even make up their mind in what sin is.
Originally posted by ThunderFbolt:Leviticus 18:6 reads: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. It is an abomination." that's what it says in the bible.
Though it is also said in MARK 10:1-12 that "Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced."
Frankly, religion shouldn't have any say in homosexuality (or anything for that matter), seeing how they can't even make up their mind in what sin is.
and frankly... i don't know what you are trying to say....
if this argument (this entire thread) is on basis of Christian doctrine, then OK.... I am guessing most churches will consider homosexuality as a sin.
however, this argument is NOT from the theological standpoint.......
stomp661 is arguing from a theological viewpoint... just tat the theory shouldn't apply to everyone
I am a Christian.
I believe that homosexuality is a sin because it is against God's given and ordained nature for human sexuality (i.e. heterosexuality).
The Bible explicitly condemns homosexual behaviour in both the Old and New Testaments. What may be unclear is, perhaps, whether homosexual orientation is a sin or not.
The theological argument against homosexuality is meant for Christians, and I would gladly post what I have to say in a Christian forum.
As this is a non religious forum, I do not intending to speak about homosexuality in terms of what the Bible says. Rather, I am interested in homosexuality as psychopathology -- that is, developmental disorder and gender inferiority complex due to neurotism and poor relationships with same-sex parent or peers during childhood and formative years.
I would like to appeal to homosexuals who are not happy and contented with their unwanted homosexual thoughts and feelings to change. I would like to encourage struggling homosexuals to persevere because there is help and hope to overcome homosexual tendencies and desires.
http://unhappygay.wordpress.com
Originally posted by stupidissmart:Not everybody believed in your soul theory. There r religion believing women should be covered from head to toe to prevent sinning. So u should force your sisters, friends and family members to cover up ?
And I seek to correct miscoceptions about homosexual. Crooked teeth seems to be a fun analogy and it really can be "cured" by using braces. However it is clear tat there r many differences in human tat cannot be cured. Such instances r like left handed. No matter how u force them, they will feel more natural using the left hand then the right as it is their master hand. Instead of making things difficult for them, why not just embraces tat tis is god's will and it make them become homosexual or left handed naturally. U suggest a mother slip and fall but again tis is god's will. And psychology had stated tat there is no correlation between homosexual and family history or abuses.
And there is no such thing as a "cure" for gay. U can force a left handed person to write using his right hand or force a homosexual to marry the opposite sex, but u r just making their lives difficult making learning more difficult for left handers or having unhappy family life for the homosexual.
And u know there r groups of of people encouraging left handed people simply to be left handed and not be shamed by it. Similarly there r groups of people who encourage homosexual to face the truth and not be shamed by it. Tis is simply because sometimes society and religion give a stigma to such people and they fought back against such discrimination
(bible have 100+ reference favoring right hand and against left hand. Satan is left hand of god, satan baptise with left hand and salt is thrown over left shoulder etc. Incredibly nuns force left handed to be a right hander and try to broke them out of it)
Theologically speaking, being left handed is not a sin. Homosexuality is a sin. Being left handed is a biological variant. Homosexuality is not genetically determined. Nobody is born a homosexual, but there are those who are born left handed. It is different to ask a homosexual to repent and change because homosexuality is not within the God created and ordained nature of human sexuality. Left handedness may or may not be a disadvantage, but it displays diversity in God's creation.
Psychologically speaking, homosexuality is a developmental disorder. It is not the same as having crooked or overcrowded teeth and therefore needing braces, but as homosexuality is the result of "something gone wrong", it can be changed and "cured", so to speak. I encourage homosexuals who wish to change to go for counselling and psychotherapy. There are many homosexuals who want to change but do not know how to. I seek to offer help and hope for these homosexuals that recovery is possible.
http://unhappygay.wordpress.com
As this is a non religious forum, I do not intending to speak about homosexuality in terms of what the Bible says. Rather, I am interested in homosexuality as psychopathology -- that is, developmental disorder and gender inferiority complex due to neurotism and poor relationships with same-sex parent or peers during childhood and formative years
Since u claim it is a psychopathology problem caused by developmental disorder, gender inferiority complex due to neurotism and poor relationships with same-sex parent or peers during childhood and formative years,
then prove it. Show us the claim from a reputable, scientific organisation website tat claims the above. Otherwise it is obvious u get those information from religious website and they r simply unscientific.
I get one from the american psychology society and it already shown clearly
to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse".[64] Research into how sexual orientation may be determined by genetic or other prenatal factors plays a role in political and social debates about homosexuality, and also raises fears about genetic profiling and prenatal testing
In a 2004 study, the female subjects (both gay and straight women) became sexually aroused when they viewed heterosexual as well as lesbian erotic films. Among the male subjects, however, the straight men were turned on only by erotic films with women, the gay ones by those with men.
However, the APA also says that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation".[37] American medical organizations have further stated therapy cannot change sexual orientation, and have expressed concerns over potential harms.[32] The director of the APA's LGBT Concerns Office explained: "I don't think that anyone disagrees with the idea that people can change because we know that straight people become gays and lesbians ... the issue is whether therapy changes sexual orientation, which is what many of these people claim".[38] The American Psychiatric Association (APA) states, in a 2000 position statement, that they oppose "any psychiatric treatment, such as "reparative" or conversion therapy, which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that a patient should change their sexual orientation.[39] Similarly, United States Surgeon General David Satcher issued a report stating that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed".[40]
Theologically speaking, being left handed is not a sin. Homosexuality is a sin.
Sin is abstract and depend on wat u believe in. Some people view alcohol is sin. Some view eating pork or beef as sin. Some view touching dogs is sin. Some view people must eat kosher food. Some view not thinking of god for a second is sin. Some view when u r born u have sinned.
Not everybody view homosexual as a sin. U must understand the world doesn't revolve around your individual belief
Homosexuality is not genetically determined. Nobody is born a homosexual, but there are those who are born left handed.
Again u made a baseless claim. Prove tat homosexual cannnot be inborn. Again prove from a reputable scientific organisation and its website.
I have made a claim from
In a 2008 study, its authors stated that "there is considerable evidence that human sexual orientation is genetically influenced, so it is not known how homosexuality, which tends to lower reproductive success, is maintained in the population at a relatively high frequency". They hypothesized that "while genes predisposing to homosexuality reduce homosexuals' reproductive success, they may confer some advantage in heterosexuals who carry them". Their results suggested that "genes which increase the likelihood that a man will be homosexual may confer a mating advantage in heterosexuals, in particular scientists suggest that genes that predispose women to have many children can make their sons gay
from the bryn mawr college and italian university of padova, published in royal society's biological sciences journal and the nuffield council of bioethics
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3735668.stm
http://lib.bioinfo.pl/auid:8527482
Although in the report they r modest and suggest the link between homosexual and genetic, there is substantial study on the matter and multiple studies tat suggested gene play a part in homosexual
It is different to ask a homosexual to repent and change because homosexuality is not within the God created and ordained nature of human sexuality. Left handedness may or may not be a disadvantage, but it displays diversity in God's creation.
r u god ? How do u know tat left handed is diversity in god's creation while homosexual is not within god construct ? I said tat left handed and homosexual r god creation and I do not see why anyone should favour a group and condemned the other
Actually, the president-elect of the APA in 1973, Dr. John P. Speigel, was a “closeted homosexual with a very particular agenda.”
Here is an article which documents what exactly happened regarding APA's decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM in 1973:
The Annals of Homosexuality
http://www.narth.com/docs/annals.html
Here is an article about a former APA president Robert Perloff condemning APA for banning research on homosexuality, which reinforces my point that it was a political and ideologically driven decision to remove homosexuality, rather than because of scientific evidence:
http://www.narth.com/docs/barring.html
Here is an article about homosexuals having more mental health problems than non-homosexuals, which suggest that homosexuality is psychopathology:
Homosexuals and Mental Health Problems
http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html
There are biological predispositions in homosexuality, but it does not MAKE a person homosexual. In other words, it is not causative, though through a combination of environmental, social-interactionist, and cultural factors, a person can become a homosexual over time. The development of homosexuality takes time, it is a process.
A person is not born a homosexual because homosexuality is not genetically determined. Predispositions and determination are two different terms with different meanings and implications,
In May 2001, what the Associated Press’s science writer called “an explosive new study” was announced in New Orleans at the American Psychiatric Association’s annual conference. This study drew worldwide media attention. Dr. Robert Spitzer — the prominent psychiatrist who led the team that removed homosexuality from the psychiatric manual of disorders in 1973 — concluded that a homosexual orientation (not just homosexual behavior) appears to be changeable for some people. “Like most psychiatrists,” he said, “I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted — but that no one could really change their sexual orientation. I now believe that’s untrue — some people can and do change.”
The change of viewpoint for Dr. Spitzer began on the opening day of the American Psychiatric Association’s annual conference in 1999 when Spitzer was drawn to a group of ex-gays staging a demonstration at the entrance to the conference building. The picketers were objecting to the APA’s recent resolution discouraging therapy to change homosexuality to heterosexuality. They carried placards saying, “Homosexuals Can Change — We Did — Ask Us!” Others said, “Don’t Affirm Me into a Lifestyle that was Killing Me Physically and Spiritually” and “The APA Has Betrayed America with Politically Correct Science.” Some of the psychiatrists tore up the literature handed out to them by the protestors, but others stopped to offer the protestors a few quiet words of encouragement.
Dr. Spitzer was skeptical, but he decided to find out for himself if sexual orientation was changeable. So he looked for subjects who claimed to have experienced a significant shift from homosexual to heterosexual attraction, and the shift had to have lasted for at least five years. He used subjects located by the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, ex-gay ministries, and various clinicians working in private practice.
Spitzer interviewed 200 subjects (143 men and 57 women) who were willing to describe their sexual and emotional histories, including their self-reported shift from gay to straight. Most of the interview subjects said their religious faith was very important in their lives, and about three-quarters of the men and half of the women had become married by the time of the study. Most had sought change because a gay lifestyle had been emotionally unsatisfying. Many had been disturbed by promiscuous, stormy gay relationships, a conflict with their religious values, and the desire to be (or to stay married).
Typically, the change effort had not produced significant results for the subjects during the first two years.They said they were helped by examining their family and childhood relationships and understanding how problems in those relationships had contributed to their gender-identity difficulties and their sexual orientation. Same-sex mentoring relationships, behavior-therapy techniques, and group therapy were also mentioned by them as particularly helpful.
To Spitzer’s surprise, good heterosexual functioning was reportedly achieved by 67 percent of the men who had rarely or never felt any opposite-sex attraction before the change process. Nearly all the subjects said they now feel more masculine (in the case of men) or more feminine (women).
“Contrary to conventional wisdom,” Spitzer concluded, “some highly motivated individuals, using a variety of change efforts, can make substantial change in multiple indicators of sexual orientation, and achieve good heterosexual functioning.”
Spitzer added an important qualifier: that change from homosexual to heterosexual is not usually a matter of “either/or” but exists on a continuum — that is, a slow, progressive diminishing of homosexuality and an expansion of heterosexual potential that is exhibited to widely varying degrees. Dr. Spitzer emphasized that complete sexual-orientation change — cessation of all homosexual fantasies and attractions (which is generally considered anunrealistic goal in most therapies) is probably quite uncommon. Still, when subjects did not actually change sexual orientation — for example, their change had been one of behavioral control and self-identity, but no significant shift in attraction — they themselves nevertheless reported an improvement in overall emotional health and functioning.
The Spitzer study is believed to be the most detailed investigation of sexual orientation change to date.“Patients should have the right,” he concluded, “to explore their heterosexual potential.”
Significantly, if Spitzer’s own son were gay and interested in changing, he said, he would support his son in seeking therapy and attempting to change his orientation from homosexuality to heterosexuality.
:: Sexualization of Emotional Needs Sexual needs are natural to sexual beings. They are the result of the biological drive and the human need for romantic intimacy. There is nothing unhealthy or unusual about them.
Sexualized needs, however, run a different course. These emotional needs are expressed indirectly through sexual activity, acted out through a sort of sexual pantomime. The needs themselves are usually legitimate, but the vehicle used to express them is not. We can see several examples of sexualized emotional needs in everyday life. Plenty of men use sex as a means of reassuring themselves that they are virile, competent, masculine. They delight in sexually conquering women, then bragging about their conquests to other men, causing them to feel manly and complete. Of course, their desire for confidence is a legitimate, understandable one. But sexually exploiting women is an illegitimate means of satisfying that desire. Likewise, many women are promiscuous not because they are sex-starved, but because during sex they are made to feel special and cared for. Again, their needs are perfectly normal, but their method of satisfying those needs is immoral, even dangerous.
This is true of other emotional needs that people express indirectly. Some people, for example, try meeting their need for comfort through food, gorging themselves whenever they are depressed or angry. The use of food has become their emotional outlet, and eating disorders may result. Other people sexualize objects rather than people, finding erotic excitement through fetishes (shoes, leather items, etc.). No one can say exactly why people prefer those methods. All that can be said is that somewhere along the line they found a combination of emotional and sexual fulfillment through unnatural means. What they are seeking — comfort, peace of mind, sexual pleasure — is not wrong in and of itself. It’s the way they’re seeking it that is unnatural.
Exactly how and under what circumstances do these needs become sexualized? Why are they sexualized in some people but not in others? No one can say for sure. We do know that erotic feelings provide some of our earliest experiences of pleasure. Infants and children explore their bodies, lingering over the body parts that feel especially good. This gives them a sense of warmth and comfort, the “good” spots providing especially pleasurable sensations. I believe that we associate warm, positive feelings with sexual response long before we even know what sex is, because we associate our sexual organs with pleasure and comfort.
It should be no surprise, then, that when a person longs for intimacy with another, that longing may include a desire to share sexual pleasure. For most people, that longing is directed toward members of the opposite sex. Normal development usually includes, as stated earlier, an early phase of bonding with the same sex. By the time this need for same-sex bonding has been satisfied and the child is ready for relations with the opposite sex, he is also entering puberty with its accompanying sexual drives. Perfect timing! Right when we’re emotionally prepared for romantic love, our bodies are following suit.
But what happens when we’re not emotionally prepared for relationships with the opposite sex? What if, by the time we reach puberty, our need for same-sex love is still unsatisfied and predominant? Our bodies won’t wait for our emotions to catch up. Instead, we may develop strong sexual desires which may cross, like wires, with our emotional needs. In that case, the emotional need for closeness and identification with other people of our sex becomes a sexualized need, with members of our own sex being the object of both our sexual and emotional desires.
And so the emotional responses to early perceptions become sexual responses as well. The need for bonding and identifying with the same sex, accelerated by gender identity problems, becomes a sexual desire. The need to find an ideal male/female figure becomes a need to sexually merge with that figure. And the need for a nurturer, mentor, or comrade becomes a desire for sex with a nurturer, mentor, or comrade.
All of which raises our original question: Why you? No one can say without really knowing both you and your background. But based on what we have seen thus far — some prevalent theories and the experiences of others like you — we can make some educated guesses.
It probably started with your perceptions. You began to see yourself as a child without resources. You know better than I exactly what resources you were lacking: affirmation, attention, a figure to identify with, or maybe a combination of all three. You couldn’t articulate it back then; you only knew that something was missing. And that “something” probably centred around a need for stronger bond with those of your own sex. Maybe you felt different from your peers or alienated from one or both of your parents, most noticeably the one of your own gender. That hurt, no doubt. You wanted closeness; you felt distance. You can’t really say, perhaps, who is to bless or who is to blame. Maybe there was obvious rejection; maybe not. But the result is the same either way.
Maybe you responded by withdrawing, creating your own world of safety and fantasy. Or perhaps you simply waited for someone special to love you and take care of you. You may even have become angry, resolving to never again let yourself feel hurt or rejected by another member of your own sex. Each of these responses affected your relationships with other boys/girls and, eventually, with other men and women. You felt different from them, too. They may never have known your feelings of differentness, but you were all too aware of them. They persisted, giving rise to an aching desire to bond, to be close, to feel accepted.
At some point, perhaps very early, maybe later, you realized that this desire was more than emotional. It was accompanied by sexual longings. Most likely, you were aware of those longings before you even knew what homosexuality was. Then one day you heard the word queer or fag, pondered its meaning, put two and two together, and realized you were one of “them.” It became your secret, most likely difficult to keep and even more difficult to bear. You didn’t ask for these feelings, but you learned that they were unacceptable to most people. That didn’t encourage you to talk them over with anyone, even those closest to you. Your secret became your private burden, one you carried for years. Perhaps even to this day.
So for you, homosexuality, whether expressed through actions or fantasies, represents legitimate emotional needs that have not been satisfied through normal means. You are not mentally ill, reprobate, or retarded. In fact, you may be a highly capable adult who functions well in most areas. But at some point you have found deep satisfaction through homosexual feeling.
Remember, homosexuality has served a function for you. Now is the time to do some serious, reflective thinking. What exactly has that function been? What kind of satisfaction have you found through your homosexual fantasies or actions? Only you can answer these questions. When you do, you will know not only what you have been seeking, but also what you still need. Count on it — giving up homosexual contacts will not kill the emotional needs that led to them in the first place. More than ever, you need to meet them legitimately as fully as possible. ::
Emotional Responses to Early Perceptions
The response to an early perception of rejection may take three forms, all of which can contribute to homosexuality: problems of gender identity, an idealized image, or same-sex deficits. 1. Problems of gender identity. Your gender identity is your basic sense or perception of your masculinity or femininity. Money and Ehrhardt describe it as “the private experience of gender role, and gender role is the public expression of gender identity.” Your gender role is the role your culture expects you to play as a man or woman, so of course it varies from culture to culture. Your gender identity is determined by your confidence in that role. Since our society places a high premium on gender roles, your ability or inability to fulfill them seriously affects your general well-being.
Gender Identity Disorder is a clinical term describing a serious conflict between a person’s assigned gender (male or female) and his desired gender. This disorder may show itself in transsexualism, or the desire of a man to actually be a woman, and vice versa. But Gender Identity Disorder is a far cry from homosexuality and is not commonly found among homosexually oriented adults.
But Dr. Friedman points out that feelings of being unmasculine or unfeminine are common among such adults. He proposes that unmasculinity, for example, is not necessarily femininity, but a lack of confidence in a boy’s/man’s own ability to fulfill the masculine role. This unmasculine or unfeminine experience, which I consider to be a problem of gender identity rather than a Gender Identity Disorder, has been noted by a number of investigators. Ten studies cited by Friedman, conducted between 1962 and 1984, have turned up the same results: a link between problems of gender identity and adult homosexuality (Friedman, 1988).
For example in 1981 Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith interviewed 979 homosexual men and 477 heterosexual men to determine which developmental ingredients may affect sexual orientation. Among their findings was evidence that “gender nonconformity” (their term) was closely linked to homosexuality:
Even among non-effeminate homosexual men this Dislike of Boys Activities is the strongest predictor of Adult Homosexuality. While their nonconformity may not have been so obvious either when they were growing up or in adulthood, it would appear that where they thought they stood on a masculine-feminine continuum when they were young was predictive of their eventual sexual orientation (Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith, Sexual Preference: Its Development in Men and Women, 1981).
How does this problem of gender identity come about? Like homosexuality, it is not inborn, but acquired through interactions, perceptions and responses. A secure masculine or feminine identity usually develops through bonding with an older figure of the same sex, usually the father or mother and emulating that older figure.
As mentioned earlier, the child views the parent as “right”; that is, if the parent seems to reject the child, the child assume it’s his fault, not the parent’s. This can undermine a child’s confidence not only as a person but also as a boy or girl. Problems of gender identity, then, begin with the child’s belief that he is unacceptable to the parent of his sex, and therefore unacceptable to all members of his sex. This robs him of confidence to fulfil his gender role, having felt no invitation to emulate and identify with his father or she with her mother, leading to acute feelings of unmasculinity or unfemininity.
These feelings are confirmed during later development. After all, confidence with peers is largely determined by confidence at home. So if a boy feels ill-equipped to deal with other boys through traditional masculine activities, he will be inclined to avoid those activities, which disrupts his abilities to bond with other boys, which reinforces his belief that he is unmasculine.
2. Idealized image. It’s not uncommon for children to idealize their parents; in fact, it’s uncommon for them not to. After all, Daddy looks pretty big and powerful to a little boy, and Mommy looks beautiful and competent to a little girl. Children naturally want to be like thier same-sex parents, at least for a time, They see them as powerful, wise, and ideal.
Normal development allows for a gradual disappointment in our parents. If you’re a parent you know that, sooner or later, you’re going to blow it. You cannot possibly be the perfect mom or dad your kids want you to be. So eventually, to some degree, they will be disappointed in you just as, to some degree, you have been disappointed in your own parents.
That is actually good for us, because through disappointment we become more realistic and mature. We learn through this disappointment to accept people’s limitations. And so a child’s ideal image of his father or mother gradually changes to a more realistic viewpoint. As he grows, he is able to see his parents’ imperfections, but since he is growing emotionally as well as physically, he can handle the knowledge that they are not perfect. That is basic process: As we grow, biologically and emotionally, we learn to accept hard realities like death, injustice, and our parents’ imperfections. The more we mature, the better able we are to let go of our early idealism.
At times, through, this process is aborted by early trauma. If a child is shocked by a sudden rejection from a parent or a parent’s early disappearnace, he might not have the capacity to handle the loss. Instead of gradually relinquishing the ideal image he had of his father, he may cling to it, hoping to someday find it again in somebody else.
3. Same-sex deficits. There is a period of life, usually between early childhood and preadolescence, during which we almost exclusively seek out members of our own sex. Boys cluster with boys, and girls cling to each other. Sometimes kids express an almost-lighthearted contempt for each other. Little boys think girls are “weird”; the girls think the little boys have “cooties.” That’s normal, even necessary. Our identity as male or female is solidified when we bond with our own gender. Only when our need for bonding with the same sex has been fulfilled can we move on to relationships with the opposite sex.
During this period I believe there are three kinds of relationships with our own sex that we especially need: a nurturer, a mentor, and a comrade.
Our same-sex nurturer will usually be our parent of the same sex. This parent welcomes us to bond with him, making us feel comfortable and accepted in his presence. Our relationship with him is marked by physical affection, play, and intimate caring. He delights in us, giving us a sense of specialness. As we become secure in his love, we develop an early conviction that we’re okay as males or females, perfectly acceptable and lovable to our same-sex nurturer and therefore to other members of our own sex.
Our same-sex mentor may also be a parent, or perhaps an instructor, coach, music teacher, older child, or any adult figure who takes a special interest in us. Through our mentor we are gradually initiated into our gender role. No matter what technical role our mentor plays (teacher, coach, big brother, etc.) our relationship with him increases our confidence with members of our sex outside of our family. His relationship is less nurturing and more instructional. He expects more out of us than our nurturer and challenges us to further develop our masculinity. He provides us with a sort of “rite of passage.”
Same-sex comrades are vital to a healthy personality. Our comrades mirror us, compete with us, bond with us, and make us feel like “one of the guys.” We grow with them, sharing our experiences of school, puberty, dating, social struggles, and so forth. They stabilize us. And our relationship with comrades spurs us on, because we inevitably compare ourselves to them, creating a healthy competition. Through our comrades we learn to feel good about ourselves and comfortable with our own sex.
If we lack any or all of these relationships, we develop what psychologist Elizabeth Moberly calls “same-sex deficits.” In her book Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic she stresses the importance of same-sex love between parent and child, and theorizes that the homosexual urge is an attempt to make up for deficiencies in the early father-son, mother-daughter relationship.
Because of those deficiencies, a child may feel that the normal avenues for same-sex love (nurturing, mentoring, comradeship) are not available to him. He thinks, because of parental rejections, that he is not qualified to engage in normal friendships with his peers. This prohibits the very thing he needs the most: love from and closeness to members of the same sex. He wants it so badly, yet he feels that if he tries to get it he will experience further rejection. This leaves him in a quandary: legitimate same-sex intimacy has become the thing he wants the most, yet he avoids the normal activities that provide it because he feels as though any attempts to participate in those activities will fail, leaving him lonely and in pain.
He responds with what Moberly calls “defensive detachment.” He detaches himself from his peers and the parent of the same sex because attempting to relate to them causes him pain. Although such relating could be the source of healing for him, he sees it as threatening, avoiding it because he refuses to reexperience the hurt he is sure will come.
He may comfort himself with isolation or by devaluing his father and peers (”They’re jerks anyway. Who needs them?”), often rejecting the very masculinity they symbolize. In a way, this protective device works well. By taking no chances, he avoids further rejection. At least he remains emotionally safe.
But his “safety zone” of isolation doesn’t kill his ever-deepening need for intimacy. In fact, the more he isolates himself, the stronger that need grows. This is not homosexuality, mind you; rather, it is the legitimate, normal need for bonding that all of us have experienced. In this case, though, the need has grown and remained unsatisfied. In each of the above cases, certain emotional responses were influenced by the perceptions a child had of himself, his parents, and others of his sex. And these responses inevitably gave way to deep and unsatisfied needs. Emotional response to early perceptions, whether they take the form of gender identity problems, idealized images, or same-sex deficits, leave a child with specific needs for intimacy with his own sex.
Originally posted by thetruthsetsyoufree::: Sexualization of Emotional Needs Sexual needs are natural to sexual beings. They are the result of the biological drive and the human need for romantic intimacy. There is nothing unhealthy or unusual about them.
Sexualized needs, however, run a different course. These emotional needs are expressed indirectly through sexual activity, acted out through a sort of sexual pantomime. The needs themselves are usually legitimate, but the vehicle used to express them is not. We can see several examples of sexualized emotional needs in everyday life. Plenty of men use sex as a means of reassuring themselves that they are virile, competent, masculine. They delight in sexually conquering women, then bragging about their conquests to other men, causing them to feel manly and complete. Of course, their desire for confidence is a legitimate, understandable one. But sexually exploiting women is an illegitimate means of satisfying that desire. Likewise, many women are promiscuous not because they are sex-starved, but because during sex they are made to feel special and cared for. Again, their needs are perfectly normal, but their method of satisfying those needs is immoral, even dangerous.
This is true of other emotional needs that people express indirectly. Some people, for example, try meeting their need for comfort through food, gorging themselves whenever they are depressed or angry. The use of food has become their emotional outlet, and eating disorders may result. Other people sexualize objects rather than people, finding erotic excitement through fetishes (shoes, leather items, etc.). No one can say exactly why people prefer those methods. All that can be said is that somewhere along the line they found a combination of emotional and sexual fulfillment through unnatural means. What they are seeking — comfort, peace of mind, sexual pleasure — is not wrong in and of itself. It’s the way they’re seeking it that is unnatural.
Exactly how and under what circumstances do these needs become sexualized? Why are they sexualized in some people but not in others? No one can say for sure. We do know that erotic feelings provide some of our earliest experiences of pleasure. Infants and children explore their bodies, lingering over the body parts that feel especially good. This gives them a sense of warmth and comfort, the “good” spots providing especially pleasurable sensations. I believe that we associate warm, positive feelings with sexual response long before we even know what sex is, because we associate our sexual organs with pleasure and comfort.
It should be no surprise, then, that when a person longs for intimacy with another, that longing may include a desire to share sexual pleasure. For most people, that longing is directed toward members of the opposite sex. Normal development usually includes, as stated earlier, an early phase of bonding with the same sex. By the time this need for same-sex bonding has been satisfied and the child is ready for relations with the opposite sex, he is also entering puberty with its accompanying sexual drives. Perfect timing! Right when we’re emotionally prepared for romantic love, our bodies are following suit.
But what happens when we’re not emotionally prepared for relationships with the opposite sex? What if, by the time we reach puberty, our need for same-sex love is still unsatisfied and predominant? Our bodies won’t wait for our emotions to catch up. Instead, we may develop strong sexual desires which may cross, like wires, with our emotional needs. In that case, the emotional need for closeness and identification with other people of our sex becomes a sexualized need, with members of our own sex being the object of both our sexual and emotional desires.
And so the emotional responses to early perceptions become sexual responses as well. The need for bonding and identifying with the same sex, accelerated by gender identity problems, becomes a sexual desire. The need to find an ideal male/female figure becomes a need to sexually merge with that figure. And the need for a nurturer, mentor, or comrade becomes a desire for sex with a nurturer, mentor, or comrade.
All of which raises our original question: Why you? No one can say without really knowing both you and your background. But based on what we have seen thus far — some prevalent theories and the experiences of others like you — we can make some educated guesses.
It probably started with your perceptions. You began to see yourself as a child without resources. You know better than I exactly what resources you were lacking: affirmation, attention, a figure to identify with, or maybe a combination of all three. You couldn’t articulate it back then; you only knew that something was missing. And that “something” probably centred around a need for stronger bond with those of your own sex. Maybe you felt different from your peers or alienated from one or both of your parents, most noticeably the one of your own gender. That hurt, no doubt. You wanted closeness; you felt distance. You can’t really say, perhaps, who is to bless or who is to blame. Maybe there was obvious rejection; maybe not. But the result is the same either way.
Maybe you responded by withdrawing, creating your own world of safety and fantasy. Or perhaps you simply waited for someone special to love you and take care of you. You may even have become angry, resolving to never again let yourself feel hurt or rejected by another member of your own sex. Each of these responses affected your relationships with other boys/girls and, eventually, with other men and women. You felt different from them, too. They may never have known your feelings of differentness, but you were all too aware of them. They persisted, giving rise to an aching desire to bond, to be close, to feel accepted.
At some point, perhaps very early, maybe later, you realized that this desire was more than emotional. It was accompanied by sexual longings. Most likely, you were aware of those longings before you even knew what homosexuality was. Then one day you heard the word queer or fag, pondered its meaning, put two and two together, and realized you were one of “them.” It became your secret, most likely difficult to keep and even more difficult to bear. You didn’t ask for these feelings, but you learned that they were unacceptable to most people. That didn’t encourage you to talk them over with anyone, even those closest to you. Your secret became your private burden, one you carried for years. Perhaps even to this day.
So for you, homosexuality, whether expressed through actions or fantasies, represents legitimate emotional needs that have not been satisfied through normal means. You are not mentally ill, reprobate, or retarded. In fact, you may be a highly capable adult who functions well in most areas. But at some point you have found deep satisfaction through homosexual feeling.
Remember, homosexuality has served a function for you. Now is the time to do some serious, reflective thinking. What exactly has that function been? What kind of satisfaction have you found through your homosexual fantasies or actions? Only you can answer these questions. When you do, you will know not only what you have been seeking, but also what you still need. Count on it — giving up homosexual contacts will not kill the emotional needs that led to them in the first place. More than ever, you need to meet them legitimately as fully as possible. ::
Emotional Responses to Early Perceptions
The response to an early perception of rejection may take three forms, all of which can contribute to homosexuality: problems of gender identity, an idealized image, or same-sex deficits. 1. Problems of gender identity. Your gender identity is your basic sense or perception of your masculinity or femininity. Money and Ehrhardt describe it as “the private experience of gender role, and gender role is the public expression of gender identity.” Your gender role is the role your culture expects you to play as a man or woman, so of course it varies from culture to culture. Your gender identity is determined by your confidence in that role. Since our society places a high premium on gender roles, your ability or inability to fulfill them seriously affects your general well-being.
Gender Identity Disorder is a clinical term describing a serious conflict between a person’s assigned gender (male or female) and his desired gender. This disorder may show itself in transsexualism, or the desire of a man to actually be a woman, and vice versa. But Gender Identity Disorder is a far cry from homosexuality and is not commonly found among homosexually oriented adults.
But Dr. Friedman points out that feelings of being unmasculine or unfeminine are common among such adults. He proposes that unmasculinity, for example, is not necessarily femininity, but a lack of confidence in a boy’s/man’s own ability to fulfill the masculine role. This unmasculine or unfeminine experience, which I consider to be a problem of gender identity rather than a Gender Identity Disorder, has been noted by a number of investigators. Ten studies cited by Friedman, conducted between 1962 and 1984, have turned up the same results: a link between problems of gender identity and adult homosexuality (Friedman, 1988).
For example in 1981 Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith interviewed 979 homosexual men and 477 heterosexual men to determine which developmental ingredients may affect sexual orientation. Among their findings was evidence that “gender nonconformity” (their term) was closely linked to homosexuality:
Even among non-effeminate homosexual men this Dislike of Boys Activities is the strongest predictor of Adult Homosexuality. While their nonconformity may not have been so obvious either when they were growing up or in adulthood, it would appear that where they thought they stood on a masculine-feminine continuum when they were young was predictive of their eventual sexual orientation (Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith, Sexual Preference: Its Development in Men and Women, 1981).
How does this problem of gender identity come about? Like homosexuality, it is not inborn, but acquired through interactions, perceptions and responses. A secure masculine or feminine identity usually develops through bonding with an older figure of the same sex, usually the father or mother and emulating that older figure.
As mentioned earlier, the child views the parent as “right”; that is, if the parent seems to reject the child, the child assume it’s his fault, not the parent’s. This can undermine a child’s confidence not only as a person but also as a boy or girl. Problems of gender identity, then, begin with the child’s belief that he is unacceptable to the parent of his sex, and therefore unacceptable to all members of his sex. This robs him of confidence to fulfil his gender role, having felt no invitation to emulate and identify with his father or she with her mother, leading to acute feelings of unmasculinity or unfemininity.
These feelings are confirmed during later development. After all, confidence with peers is largely determined by confidence at home. So if a boy feels ill-equipped to deal with other boys through traditional masculine activities, he will be inclined to avoid those activities, which disrupts his abilities to bond with other boys, which reinforces his belief that he is unmasculine.
2. Idealized image. It’s not uncommon for children to idealize their parents; in fact, it’s uncommon for them not to. After all, Daddy looks pretty big and powerful to a little boy, and Mommy looks beautiful and competent to a little girl. Children naturally want to be like thier same-sex parents, at least for a time, They see them as powerful, wise, and ideal.
Normal development allows for a gradual disappointment in our parents. If you’re a parent you know that, sooner or later, you’re going to blow it. You cannot possibly be the perfect mom or dad your kids want you to be. So eventually, to some degree, they will be disappointed in you just as, to some degree, you have been disappointed in your own parents.
That is actually good for us, because through disappointment we become more realistic and mature. We learn through this disappointment to accept people’s limitations. And so a child’s ideal image of his father or mother gradually changes to a more realistic viewpoint. As he grows, he is able to see his parents’ imperfections, but since he is growing emotionally as well as physically, he can handle the knowledge that they are not perfect. That is basic process: As we grow, biologically and emotionally, we learn to accept hard realities like death, injustice, and our parents’ imperfections. The more we mature, the better able we are to let go of our early idealism.
At times, through, this process is aborted by early trauma. If a child is shocked by a sudden rejection from a parent or a parent’s early disappearnace, he might not have the capacity to handle the loss. Instead of gradually relinquishing the ideal image he had of his father, he may cling to it, hoping to someday find it again in somebody else.
3. Same-sex deficits. There is a period of life, usually between early childhood and preadolescence, during which we almost exclusively seek out members of our own sex. Boys cluster with boys, and girls cling to each other. Sometimes kids express an almost-lighthearted contempt for each other. Little boys think girls are “weird”; the girls think the little boys have “cooties.” That’s normal, even necessary. Our identity as male or female is solidified when we bond with our own gender. Only when our need for bonding with the same sex has been fulfilled can we move on to relationships with the opposite sex.
During this period I believe there are three kinds of relationships with our own sex that we especially need: a nurturer, a mentor, and a comrade.
Our same-sex nurturer will usually be our parent of the same sex. This parent welcomes us to bond with him, making us feel comfortable and accepted in his presence. Our relationship with him is marked by physical affection, play, and intimate caring. He delights in us, giving us a sense of specialness. As we become secure in his love, we develop an early conviction that we’re okay as males or females, perfectly acceptable and lovable to our same-sex nurturer and therefore to other members of our own sex.
Our same-sex mentor may also be a parent, or perhaps an instructor, coach, music teacher, older child, or any adult figure who takes a special interest in us. Through our mentor we are gradually initiated into our gender role. No matter what technical role our mentor plays (teacher, coach, big brother, etc.) our relationship with him increases our confidence with members of our sex outside of our family. His relationship is less nurturing and more instructional. He expects more out of us than our nurturer and challenges us to further develop our masculinity. He provides us with a sort of “rite of passage.”
Same-sex comrades are vital to a healthy personality. Our comrades mirror us, compete with us, bond with us, and make us feel like “one of the guys.” We grow with them, sharing our experiences of school, puberty, dating, social struggles, and so forth. They stabilize us. And our relationship with comrades spurs us on, because we inevitably compare ourselves to them, creating a healthy competition. Through our comrades we learn to feel good about ourselves and comfortable with our own sex.
If we lack any or all of these relationships, we develop what psychologist Elizabeth Moberly calls “same-sex deficits.” In her book Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic she stresses the importance of same-sex love between parent and child, and theorizes that the homosexual urge is an attempt to make up for deficiencies in the early father-son, mother-daughter relationship.
Because of those deficiencies, a child may feel that the normal avenues for same-sex love (nurturing, mentoring, comradeship) are not available to him. He thinks, because of parental rejections, that he is not qualified to engage in normal friendships with his peers. This prohibits the very thing he needs the most: love from and closeness to members of the same sex. He wants it so badly, yet he feels that if he tries to get it he will experience further rejection. This leaves him in a quandary: legitimate same-sex intimacy has become the thing he wants the most, yet he avoids the normal activities that provide it because he feels as though any attempts to participate in those activities will fail, leaving him lonely and in pain.
He responds with what Moberly calls “defensive detachment.” He detaches himself from his peers and the parent of the same sex because attempting to relate to them causes him pain. Although such relating could be the source of healing for him, he sees it as threatening, avoiding it because he refuses to reexperience the hurt he is sure will come.
He may comfort himself with isolation or by devaluing his father and peers (”They’re jerks anyway. Who needs them?”), often rejecting the very masculinity they symbolize. In a way, this protective device works well. By taking no chances, he avoids further rejection. At least he remains emotionally safe.
But his “safety zone” of isolation doesn’t kill his ever-deepening need for intimacy. In fact, the more he isolates himself, the stronger that need grows. This is not homosexuality, mind you; rather, it is the legitimate, normal need for bonding that all of us have experienced. In this case, though, the need has grown and remained unsatisfied. In each of the above cases, certain emotional responses were influenced by the perceptions a child had of himself, his parents, and others of his sex. And these responses inevitably gave way to deep and unsatisfied needs. Emotional response to early perceptions, whether they take the form of gender identity problems, idealized images, or same-sex deficits, leave a child with specific needs for intimacy with his own sex.
I think you have a big problem about being self-righteous. Go figure which is greater, your god or your righteousness.