EXPOSING MYTHS ABOUT
SEXUAL ORIENTATION (EMASO)

If you have arrived at this website for the purpose of looking at the scientific evidence why such a thing as a homo gene has never been found nor will it ever be, then click here if you want to go directly to this evidence (myth 3, items 4 and 6).

If you are not a Swede or don’t live in Sweden, click here for some background about this website.

It’s my hope that the information that follows speaks to you with an openness that’s not meant to hurt anyone.  It’s the concern about our children and grandchildren that compels me to bring forth the truth as I have come to know it.

---

WARNING !
This website in NOT for children.  Some of the material presented here is taken from the official website of the principal homosexual organization in Sweden, RFSL, which is generously funded with taxpayers’ money.  The material is very lewd and sleazy in nature and is shown here for the following reasons:
1. It is an example of what we Swedes have to put up with and fund with our tax money.  It stands as a warning example of what can happen to a nation when rampant sodomy is given favored status.
2. It is intended to show concerned parents the lifestyle from which they ought to be highly motivated to save their children.
3. For concerned health officials it illustrates why the next serious sexually transmitted epidemic is just waiting to happen.  As you will see and understand, the various forms of anal practices - in which more than two thirds of male homosexuals engage - have far reaching public health implications.

Keep in mind that the depraved lifestyle - so prominently and unashamedly promoted by RFSL, not only on their website but also in their disseminated material - is something that's part of our public school curriculum.  The filth and smut abound as you will find. To most people, the RFSL material is no doubt very disgusting and repulsive.  But for the vulnerable children in our midst, many of whom already struggle with gender identity problems, when they come home from school and go to the RFSL website, the material to them is nothing short of pornographic in nature.

But if you want to avoid altogether the references to RFSL's materials you will find ample warnings. 

---

Recent News:
One of the program items during the Pride Festival in Stockholm last summer was a discussion panel consisting of leaders from most political parties in our country. One of the topics of special interest to RFSL, but not an issue of interest to Swedes in general, was whether young boys should be made to wear girls’ skirt when coming to pre-school or elementary school. It’s no coincidence that such a topic, otherwise a silly item for party leaders to debate, is very close to RFSL’s heart. Because the homosexual community knows all too well that their homosexuality typically started with gender confusion at a very early age. And by introducing such a program early on in school, the vulnerable boys might one day become homosexual themselves and further swell the ranks of the homosexual lobby with all the associated increase in power, money and influence. You can read much more about such gender confusion (the origin of most homosexuality) under Myth 2 below.

Introduction
My name is Ron Linden.  I am a Swedish citizen from Skåne, the southernmost province of our country.  I got my engineering degree from Chalmers University in Gothenburg Sweden, followed by research in California where I received my Ph.D. in 1982 from the University of California, Davis.  But since a few years back my research has been in a field much different from Engineering.  My recent research has been in the field of Behavioral Science.  In particular I’ve researched the area of homosexuality and the roots and origins of the same.  And what I’ve learnt came as quite a surprise to me.  It’s contrary to commonly held beliefs by most people and often runs contrary to what’s considered “politically correct” in our days.  It has transformed me from being an indifferent person about this issue into becoming a homophobe, in the sense that I am very afraid of the devastating impact on the next generation of the of the popularization of the homosexual lifestyle in today's media and entertainment industry.

I therefore feel an obligation to share with others – and in particular with parents and grandparents – what I’ve found.  In particular I want to expose three commonly held myths.  To withhold this important information would be morally wrong and would deprive parents and grandparents of important knowledge on how they can prevent a homosexual outcome in their offspring.  Especially fathers play a very important role in developing masculinity in their boys and thereby prevent a homosexual outcome when their sons enter puberty. What I will talk about is based solely on research and scientific studies and reports.  With the exception of the last sidebar link, it’s not based on religious or moral attitudes on this issue.  My emphasis will be on homosexuality among men where the origin and development is well documented.  The development of lesbianism among girls is more complex.  It's believed that child molestation and abuse by a male in general, plays an even major role for girls.

This presentation is intended as an information source for parents and grandparents and not for adults who have already developed a homosexual orientation. I repeat: This information is not for you if you are already involved in the homosexual lifestyle unless you want to be free from your lifestyle.  If so, go to this website www.akegreen.org and click on "Help Organizations" on the left side menu bar.

Not for Children
What I will present is not suitable material for children to read.  The principles you will learn about should be applied to your children but the information itself is solely meant for you as a parent. My presentation is divided into the following parts:

1.  Which sexual orientation is the most desirable for your child or grandchild?  Without proper information about the homosexual lifestyle, and the practices associated with the same, you will not be able to decide to what extent you want to go to promote the development of one of the two orientations (homo or hetero).  

2.  How can you, during your child’s formative years, lay the groundwork for the sexual orientation that will develop when puberty sets in? 

3.  Is a child born homosexual or heterosexual?  Is it in the genes?  

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The introduction and the three parts (myths) are divided into the following subparts (by clicking on any of the parts or subparts you will be taken directly to that topic): 

Introduction
References
Tour of Sweden


Myth Number 1: The heterosexual and homosexual lifestyles are equally wholesome and desirable.
1. Average life expectancy
2. Use of illegal drugs
3. Frequency of suicide
4. Frequency of pedophilia
5. Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)
6. Infidelity with partner
7. Social and religious acceptance
8. Abnormal focus on sex
9. Rectal problems

Myth Number 2: You cannot influence your child as to what sexual orientation he will choose when puberty occurs.
1. Convincing results from extensive research is suppressed by the homolobby
2. Research report by Bieber et al (REF. 4)
3. Conclusions to be drawn
4. THE PARADE OF SHAME
5. More about the father’s role
6. The common role of both parents
7.  Attacks by the homolobby in USA against people who disagree with their agenda
8.  Attacks by the homolobby in Sweden against people who disagree with their agenda

Myth Number 3: Sexual orientation is something inherited.  It’s determined by the genes.
1. The bias/spin of research results by the homolobby
2. Kallman
3. Bailey-Pillard (1991)
4. Bailey-Dunne-Martin (2000)
5. Yet another fake study (Hamer, Hu, Magnusson, Hu and Pattatucci)
6. Bearman-Bruckner (2001)
7. Simon LeVay (1991)
8. Prenatal Hormonal Hypotheses
9. Trend i Recent Homosexual ”Research”

---

Introduction

References
In the presentation I will refer to three types of references.

Type 1. To keep the main presentation within limits I have placed some of the background material in links that you will find on the left sidebar menu.  Whenever you see an underlined number (like No.1) you will find additional information on this issue by either clicking right there on the link or going to the left sidebar and click on the same number there.

Type 2. I have used material from several books as sources for the presentation.  References to these books appear as "REF." (upper case letters), followed by a number and then the page number in the book where you can find the information.  Most of these books in turn have many references of their own. 

Type 3. Some of the source material that I consider especially significant is referred to with the designation "ref." (lower case letters) followed by a number.  I also use this type of reference to particular websites on the internet.  Some of these references, especially RFSL’s web pages, have a habit of being withdrawn whenever they get in hot water for their lurid material.  So, I don’t know whether a particular link is current (i.e. up and running) and have therefore “frozen” the page in time for you.  But the material I have included was posted on the web as recently as March 2007.  All the references of this type (type 3) have a direct link if you just click on the ref. number. A listing of all the three types of references (“Nr”, “REF” and “ref”) can be found by clicking on the link at the bottom of the left side bar.

Back to Table of Contents

Tour through Sweden
We plan to visit many cities in Sweden where we will make our free literature available.  See our schedule under the link titled “Tour through Sweden” on the top menu bar.  We will also put an ad in local newspaper when we come to your city.  But sometimes the local newspaper may not accept our ad.  After all, we are talking about information that RFSL and their sympathizers do not want parents and grandparents to know about. 

Update note: The tour was ended in 2006 and will not be completed due to ongoing threats by the homo mafia in our country. For further information about the tour see link on top menu bar titled “homolobby or homomafia?” 

Back to Table of Contents

---

Let’s now start with Myth Number 1.

Myth Number 1: The heterosexual and the homosexual lifestyles are equally desirable  

Why is it necessary that we take a look at the prevalent homosexual acts?
In their book “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear of Gays in the ‘90s” (New York: Penguin, 1989) – which has become the de facto bible of the homosexual agenda – the marketing geniuses Kirk and Madsen write (page 146):
“When you’re very different, and people hate you for it, this is what you do: first get your foot in the door, by being as similar as possible; then, and only then – when your one little difference is finally accepted – can you start dragging in your other peculiarities, one by one.  You hammer in the wedge narrow end first.  As the saying goes, allow the camel’s nose beneath your tent, and his whole body will soon follow.”

They continue (page 155):
“We mean the conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.  We mean subverting the mechanism of prejudice to our own ends – using the very processes that made America hate us to turn their hatred into warm regard – whether they like it or not.”

And Kirk and Madsen further explain (page 155-156):
“In Conversion, we mimic the natural process of stereotype-learning, with the following effect: we take the bigot’s good feelings about all-right guys, and attach them to the label ‘gay’ either weakening or, eventually, replacing his bad feelings toward the label and the prior stereotype ….Whereas in ‘Jamming’ the target is to show a bigot being rejected by his crowd for his prejudice against gays, in ‘Conversion’ the target is to show his own crowd actually associating with gays in good fellowship.  Once again, it’s very difficult for the average person, who, by nature and training, almost invariably feels what he sees his fellows feeling, not to respond in this knee-jerk fashion to a sufficiently calculated advertisement”.

And with respect to the truthfulness of the ads, Kirk and Madsen arrogantly proclaim (page 154):
“It makes no difference that the ads are lies.  Not to us because we’re using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones.”

Well, here in Sweden the camel is already fully inside our tent.  Here the lies have, by and large, already been swallowed by us gullible Swedes.  Here the RFSL has already “dragged in all the peculiarities one by one”.  It’s only by describing them that you (as a parent) will be motivated to save your child from such a lifestyle.  Only when you realize that “the ads are lies” will you seek and find the tools necessary to prevent a homosexual development in your child.

So, let’s now compare the two lifestyles.  But let’s first establish that - in spite of all the ad lies from RFSL and their supporters - the homosexual and heterosexual people are of equal value.  All people have equal value.  We should all agree on that.  However, if we talk about what is the desirable sexual orientation both for individuals and for society, opinions differ. There are those who would argue that the homosexual lifestyle, with its lack of taboos and freedom to enjoy any kind of sex, is the more desirable lifestyle. But there are also those who believe that the heterosexual lifestyle is to be preferred, both from the individual’s point of view as well as from society’s point of view.

Let us therefore compare the two lifestyles so that you, as a parent, can decide for yourself what you believe is the desired outcome in your own offspring and take action accordingly.  Since we are talking about what you as a parent find desirable we shall only touch on what is best for you and your offspring and not the impacts on society at large (e.g. medical costs for sexually transmitted diseases, the cost to society for drug abuse, how other medical research has suffered lack of resources due to the intense focus on AIDS etc.).A comparison of the two lifestyles reveals the following:

Area of comparison	Homosexual	Heterosexual
1. Average life expectancy	55 years (men)	75 years (men)
2. Use of illegal drugs	greater	smaller
3. Frequency of suicide	greater	17.6 (per 100K/yr)
4. Frequency of pedophilia	>3 to >10	1
5. Sexually transmitted deceases (STD)	greater	smaller
6. Infidelity with partner	greater	smaller
7. Social and religious acceptance	smaller	greater
8. Abnormal focus on sex	greater	smaller
9. Rectal problems	greater	smaller

Many of the categories are interdependent.  For example: drug abuse, suicide, and sexually transmitted deceases all affect the average life expectancy.  And in certain social and religious environment (with a low acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle), the frequency of suicide among already established homosexuals may be higher, which is compensated for by a much lower percentage of homosexuals.  In other words: The absolute number of suicides in such a culture is probably lower.   But once a person becomes homosexual he/she is more likely to commit suicide.  We must also remember that we are talking about statistical averages.  In other words: the probability of a particular outcome.  For example, there are homosexual men with no STD while there are heterosexual men with many of them.

The root problem with the male homosexual lifestyle – apart from moral and fidelity aspects – are the various forms of anal sex.  This is very central to their lifestyle as evidenced by the focus on the “Anal Manual” (ref. 13) at RFSL’s official website.  About two thirds of all male homosexuals engage in various forms of anal intercourse and activities.  From this practice follow many health related maladies and associated problems.  The next epidemic for mankind is just waiting to happen.

Let’s now take a closer look at each of the 9 areas of comparison.

Back to Table of Contents

1. Average life expectancy.
The 75 years in the table for heterosexual men is actually based on statistics from USA for all men.  And I could not find any direct statistics for homosexual men, probably due to historic problem of classifying men as homosexual due the stigma that used to be associated with such a lifestyle.  However, I found two separate sources for a 20 years shorter life span for homosexual men: (ref.1) (Psychological Reports (2005; 96:693-697) and (ref.2) (1997; International Journal of Epidemiology 1997; Vol. 26, 657-61) both of which are referred to in (ref.3) (Yet Another Study Confirms Gay Life Expectancy 20 Years Shorter).

Back to Table of Contents

2. Use of illegal drugs. 
We only need to go to RFSL’s own website to realize how commonplace illegal drug use is among homosexuals.  If there is any organization in our country that could be considered representative for the homosexual community it must be the RFSL.  After all, they are the organization who regularly receives generous amounts of taxpayers’ money from our government to finance activities such as their website and various other recruitment programs.  Let’s take a look at their website here (ref.4).  Here you can see for yourself a list of the most common illegal drugs with a description of how to use the particular drug.  Take for example Ecstasy (by the way they misspell the word Ecstasy) which is a very prevalent drug on the homosexual social scene.  The given recommendation for its use is: “Drink water regularly but not more that half a liter every hour”.  And then they have other recommendations on how to use amphetamine, cocaine, crystal meth, GHB, LSD and so on.  I searched the websites of many other organizations in our country – National Organization of Motorists, Swedish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and many, many other organizations – but not a single one of them give recommendations to their member on how to use illegal drugs.  So, the obvious question is: “why is there such strong correlation between illegal drugs and the homosexual lifestyle?”

The answer is found on another one of RFSL’s web pages.  I must admit that I hesitated to include this material.  It is indeed repulsive to most normal people.  But after all, it’s from RFSL’s own website and it explains better than words why illegal drugs are so prevalent.  Here on this RFSL page (ref.5) they write:

“Licking the ass - Rimming
For the non-initiated participant, the meeting between the tongue and the asshole is a mystery, painful and even repulsive.  However, for the experienced participant it’s heaven on earth.  One of the favorite positions among rimmers is when one of them sits hunched above the other’s face and spread his cheeks apart.  By doing so the rimmer can reach with his tongue everywhere."

In other words: “for the novice it’s repulsive but for the experienced participant it’s like heaven on earth”.  And this very fact - that it’s repulsive for the novice – explains why illegal drugs are conveniently used to facilitate the practice.  The same thing goes for many of the other activities that homosexuals engage in (for example the so called “fisting” etc.).  It’s well recognized that experienced older men love to initiate younger men and boys to the “mystery” of various sexual practices. Like when our Supreme Court Justice Leif Thorsson sought and paid for homosexual favors from a young 20 years old boy in Stockholm (No.1).  We’ll look more at this phenomenon later.  As you read the RFSL website you realize that there is a progression in homosexual practices.  The vile and depraved acts of yesterday will not suffice today.

Back to Table of Contents

3. Frequency of suicide.
We know that the suicide rate is 17.6 per 100,000 of all citizens per year (4-5 times higher among men than among women).  Quite understandably, there is no reliable statistics on suicide frequency among homosexuals.  Many suicides are among young people who are wrestling with a nascent homosexuality because (tragically) they were never given the help and opportunity to develop their masculinity.  So, it’s hard to know the real cause of suicide among such adolescents.  However, studies have been conducted about unsuccessful suicide attempts were the person survived (of course) and the cause for the attempt could be ascertained (ref.6; "The Relationship Between Suicide Risk and Sexual Orientation: Results of a Population-Based Study").  All of the studies conclusively point to a much higher rate of attempted suicide among homosexual men and adolescents. Some of the underlying causes of the emotional trauma associated with suicides by homosexuals are:

1). When a “pre-homosexual” boy enters puberty he has often already experienced plenty of rejection by his male peers.  During his formative years he often felt like he was not like the other boys.  This has already caused emotional trauma for him.  He urgently needs help from another man (or men) to be affirmed in his masculinity.  Instead, what he too often receives is RFSL propaganda that pulls him deeper and deeper into the homosexual lifestyle.

2). If he then ”comes out” as a homosexual he often experiences further scorn and rejection from many people.  He may even be rejected by member of his own family.  Even many church members unfortunately don’t know how to give the proper help.  But even with total acceptance, most homosexual men will never be happy because they feel deep inside that something is wrong and unnatural. 

3). When he then progresses in the homosexual lifestyle he finds that it never leads to true satisfaction.  Since it’s against nature there will never be emotional satisfaction.  And what worked yesterday will no longer satisfy today and he will typically progress into increasingly depraved acts and feel even more dissatisfied. 

There is a fallacy promoted by the gay agenda that full and unreserved tolerance and acceptance will lead to fewer suicides.  It may be that the rate (or frequency) itself might decrease somewhat.  But it also leads to many more boys developing homosexuality.  Parents will come to consider it fully normal and natural and not do what they can to prevent it.  And although the frequency might come down somewhat, the fact that many more will be drawn into the homosexual lifestyle means that the total number of suicides will increase.

In this context I want to discuss a little more the proper attitudes towards homosexuals by caring and loving heterosexuals.  Of all the e-mails I have received from my countrymen, through contacts on this site, one gentleman (apparently Christian) wrote: “Isn’t it a problem (from a Christian point of view) that the ones who have suffered the most from an unfortunate upbringing (i.e. absentee father) will also be the ones to suffer the most risks of developing homosexuality.  The question of how to show Christian love and care to a homosexual person is very difficult”.

It’s apparent what’s on the writer’s mind.  When an adolescent displays pre-homosexual tendencies, and we know (or have reason to believe) that it’s rooted in an inadequate upbringing, should we not embrace the lifestyle and make it easier for him (or her) to accept the homosexual lifestyle.  There are two issues involved in the writer’s contribution: a) Our attitudes and b) The fairness of it all.

a) Our attitudes
The answer (in my point of view) has a lot to do with whether or not one believes that homosexuality is something inherited (something in the genes) and therefore nothing can be done about it.  The many people (probably a majority in many Western countries) who have fallen for such disinformation – so successfully promoted by the homosexual lobby – believe that they express love and concern by facilitating and supporting the homosexual lifestyle.  But those among us who don’t accept homosexuality as something inherited and about which nothing can be done, have a different response.  Once you realize that it can indeed be prevented in the first place, and even “repaired” once developed, your attitude and actions are very different.  It’s no longer a question of showing pity to the unfortunate homosexuals, but a strong and true compassion to prevent it from developing in the little boy and girl, and (if already developed) help a person to escape from the snares of a deprived lifestyle.

This thought is well communicated in the touching story about “Randy” in Chuck Colson’s book “The Good Life”.  By permission from Prison Fellowship, this chapter (titled “Morality and the Natural Order”), has been translated into Swedish and is made available upon request.  See the sidebar under “Free Literature” for information on how to order.   If you understand English I strongly recommend that you buy the book (“The Good Life” by Chuck Colson, the founder and chairman of the successful Prison Fellowship).

So, what it all boils down to is this: Do you or don’t you believe that homosexuality is something that can be prevented in the first place and “repaired” if already developed?  To that very end I have written about Myth 2 and Myth 3 below to help you understand why it can indeed be prevented.  And also why it’s so important for the homosexual lobby that such information be withheld from you.

b) The fairness of it all
It’s true that it’s not fair that some boys will have a very wholesome upbringing with a father (or other close male) giving him the necessary affirmation in the development of his masculinity, while other boys tragically lack such role models.  Some poor boys are even molested in childhood which leaves horrendous scars for life.  This tragic situation ought to inspire caring adults, especially men, to take an unfortunate boy “under his wings” and give him the emotional support that a boy desperately needs from a male.  But to do so you first need to understand that you can make a difference.  You can indeed prevent a homosexual development in a child.  To not care and try to prevent it, under the false pretense that some children are genetically destined to become homosexual, is the greatest of tragedies in our country today.  This must be changed to counteract the evil misinformation disseminated by groups like RFSL. They want their ranks filled and are daily recruiting our young and most vulnerable ones.  They know all too well that for each new adolescent they recruit into their ranks, they often also get a great number of sympathetic members from the child’s family and their friends.  Numbers means clout and political power.

Back to Table of Contents

4. Frequency of pedophilia.
Most people realize intuitively that the frequency of pedophilia is greater among homosexual than among heterosexual men.  The total number of pedophilia is of course higher among heterosexual men – and then with girls.  But the frequency is much higher among homosexual men by a factor of at least 3 and maybe as high as 10 or even more.  Since pedophilia is still illegal, whenever a crime is investigated it’s very difficult to ascertain whether the perpetrator is homosexual or heterosexual.  A homosexual perpetrator is more likely to hide his true sexual orientation.  But we can look at the kind of pedophilia at hand and then apply some logical reasoning.  Molestations of children are almost always perpetrated by men.  Women somehow tend to not suffer as much from this deviancy.  When women molest, and it does happen, the media tends to be more interested in the tantalizing aspects of the crime than the abhorrence of the rape as such. 

Whenever a boy is molested by a man, the act itself is by nature a homosexual act whether or not the perpetrator becomes identified as a homosexual man per se.  Just think about all the catholic priests who have molested boys.  Obviously it was by someone with homosexual tendencies even though the priest would never admit that he is homosexual.  Likewise, the molestations of virtually all girls are crimes of heterosexual pedophilia. 

So, it therefore follows that a look at the ratio of molestations of boys to molestation of girls ought to give us some insight.  If anything, the molestation of boys by men are likely to be more underreported that the molestation of girls by men.  It should be noted though that there are some bisexual molesters who seek out both boys and girls.  Statistics indicate that molestations of boys are not too far below molestations of girls even though there are between some 25 to 50 times more heterosexual than homosexual men in the general population. 

Even a politically correct liberal media outlet like Los Angeles Time had to admit that.  On August 25-26 1985 they reported on a survey of 2,628 adults across the US.  A full 27% of the women and 16% of the men claimed to have been sexually molested as children.  In other words, only about 1.7 times (=27/16) more girls than boys had been molested.  Since 25/1.7=14.7 and 50/1.7=29.4 it follows that homosexual men are between 14.7 and 29.4 times more likely to become pedophiles than heterosexual men.  A crude analysis like this is, as stated above, based on the assumption that all molesters were males.  However, in the LA Times study 7% of the girls were molested by a woman and also 7% of the boys were molested by a woman.  So, male molesters were 93% as opposed to the previously assumed 100% of the total number of molesters.  Through this “adjustment” they found that 4 out of every 10 molestations in the study were committed by homosexuals.  So, with 40% divided by a 2-4% homosexual population it becomes between 10 (=40/4) to 20 (=40/2) times more likely that any given homosexual man is a pedophile than any given heterosexual man.  This compares to the “unadjusted” numbers above (14.7 to 29.4 times more likely).  For a further discussion of this one and other scientific studies on the subject click here. And for even more evidence click here (PDF-file 210 KB). The conclusions of a wealth research into this subject are so uniform and undeniable. In short: the evidence is overwhelming.

One thing should be noted.  Much of the statistics in previous studies are based on a data base before there was an explosion of homosexuality due to the media’s popularization of this lifestyle.  Today, the percentage of homosexuals may far exceed the historic levels of 2%-4% of the population.  Therefore, if – as an example - the percentages today are between 4% and 8% homosexuals and it’s applied to the same data base, the results are reduced by a factor of 2 from 10-20 times to between 5-10 times higher probability of pedophilia among homosexual men.  But such a calculation is of course an artifact.  Because, as the percentage of homosexuals among the population at large increases, so does that the total number of crimes of pedophilia by homosexuals.  Therefore, the probability will always be some 10-20 times higher that a homosexual man is a pedophile than a heterosexual man.

It’s apparent from the numbers that most homosexuals are of course not pedophiles.  So, to be part of a group with such an elevated frequency of pedophilia is (quite understandably) often disturbing to non-pedophilic homosexuals.  This is similar to the situation with the “North American Man-Boy Love Association” (NAMBLA) which is an embarrassment to many non-pedophilic homosexuals.  However, the acceptance of pedophilia is slowly but surely gaining acceptance in our decadent society.  So, it won’t be long before NAMBLA will no longer be an embarrassment. 

Let’s now look at some examples and then I’ll present my own statistical analysis on an extensive and interesting data base.

4:1. In a statement on RFSL’s own  website they express admiration of older men having sex with young boys.  They write: ”In ancient Greece the love between older men and young boys was greatly appreciated” For further information click here (No.2)

4:2.  It’s no secret that just Thailand - with its infamous child prostitution - is such a popular travel destination among homosexual men.  On this information page (ref.8) - directed towards homosexual men - we read why the country is so popular.  It reads in part:

About the gay scene.
We wish and intend to make your visit to our gay community as happy as possible. Many guests are familiar with gay life in Phuket, but for those new explorers, we have some thoughts we would like to share

Please remember that the Thai-men you will meet in the bars are working men and your satisfaction and happiness is their income. If you talk with a man for a while in the bar, buy him a drink, leave him a tip, or both.
You will as everywhere find many kinds of (Thai-) men: masculine men, feminine men, masculine boys, feminine boys and lady-boys. And do not be surprised that some of the Thai-men who go with a gay-tourist are straight…. (comment: They are called “Thai-men” even if many of them are still boys).

Patong has bars with cabaret shows, go-go boys, sexy shows, bars and restaurants, and almost all have Thai-men who would go with a guest. If a Thai- man appeals to you, find out through the captain or owner if he speaks English. It is always best to be straightforward with the Thai-man and the owner of the bar. Find out what the Thai-man likes and does not like. Also find out if he will spend the night, or just spend a shorter time together with you. If you do not find out about this in advance you may be confused and disappointed later. There is always a fee to the bar that is not negotiable if you want to take away a Thai-man working in that bar. There may be some flexibility with your payment to the Thai-man. It may involve only sex, staying the night, or perhaps you will have company for your entire holiday. Please remember, he has friends or family, and will need some time for his daily life too. Payment can be at the end of your adventure, but it is more thoughtful to consider payment as you both go along…
Different Thai-men you will meet here have as well as all other men different intentions with seeking contact with you. Making contact to find: love, the pleasure of sex, money for their living or a combination of all.
We as western-gay are normally very used to seek sexual contacts just for the pleasure of sex or as a part of seeking love but we are not very prepared that that may involve money. Here that is a reality. And regardless if you want to be a part of that or not it probably make your stay here in the gay community easier if you are mentally aware already when you enter….
We hope you will have a really nice time here and that our thoughts will help you to make it even better”

Additionally, after the Tsunami hit Thailand the gay community was forced to postpone a big gay festival in Phuket, much to the disappointment of many of our gay people.  Something that was regretfully announced on RFSL’s website.

4:3. The Netherlands and Belgium are countries well-known for continuously lowering the ”age of consent” between grown-up and children (presently 12 years).  It therefore didn’t come as a surprise that Bo Svensson - Chief Justice of the Swedish Supreme Court and an apparent defender of the sex trade – seems to take his cues from the Belgian judicial system.  He discussed it in an interview where he defended his buddy on our Supreme Court, Leif Thorsson, who had bought sex from a young student boy in Stockholm. (No.1).

4:4. Recently The Journal of Homosexuality ran a special edition of their publication devoted to ”The paedophilia debate”.  The publisher, John DeCecco also serves on the editorial board of “Paedika: The Journal of Paedophilia”, a Dutch publication that sponsors “paedophilia research” in an attempt to make pedophilia more acceptable in society.  This special edition reflects an essential, influential and growing segment of the homosexual community that neither hides, nor condemns pedophilia (REF.1 page 63).

The homosexual lobby likes to emphasize that there are more heterosexual than homosexual pedophiles in society.  And if we talk about the total number of such crimes it’s of course true.  And a gullible public leaves it at that.  But if you look at the rate (or frequency) of pedophilia, homosexual pedophilia is far more common.  By a factor probably somewhere around 10.

The reason for a substantial variation from study to study is – as stated before - that it is difficult to ascertain exact numbers in the data base.  This may cause some people to wrongly discredit the whole issue of a serious increased frequency of pedophilia among homosexual men.  But all the studies have the same clear trend.

To be sure, there are some studies on the low side of the factor of 10.  One such study (REF.1 page 64-65 and ref.9) found that there are 36 times more heterosexual than homosexual men.  But, the number of heterosexual molestations was “only” 11 times higher than homosexual molestations.  Thus there was only about a 3 times greater probability (=36/11) that a homosexual man would turn out to be a pedophile than a heterosexual man.  Yet another study from 1988 was reported in the “Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa” by Bradford, Bloomberg and Bourget (ref.10).  They found that between 19% and 33% of all reported pedophilia is by homosexual men.  With 3% of all men being homosexual, the “overrepresentation” of pedophilia among homosexuals become between 6 (=19/3) and 11(=33/3) times the frequency by heterosexual men.

It’s important to remember that since 1973, when APA suddenly declared homosexuality a normal behavior (See Myth 2 subchapter 1 below), the disciplines of psychology and psychiatry seem to have been flooded by homosexuals with a distinct agenda.  It’s therefore to be expected that studies of recent date (and especially when the authors themselves are homosexuals) are strongly biased and often lacking intellectual honesty in the area of “research” on homosexuality.  See Myth 3 below for several such examples.  Therefore, studies on the area of pedophilia among homosexuals conducted nowadays, need to be taken with a grain of salt.

(REF.2) pages 121-140 lists over a dozen reputable studies and reports all of which points to an appreciably higher frequency of pedophilia among homosexual men.  I would also suggest this reference (ref.38) (Report: pedophilia  more common among 'gays' - Research purports to reveal 'dark side' of homosexual culture).  A detailed analysis of a comprehensive data base (from 12 states in the USA between the years 1991 and 1996) issued by the Bureau of Justice of the US in 2000  (ref.11 and ref.12), suggests a ratio of 10:1 of the frequency of pedophilia between homosexual and heterosexual men (Nr.3).

Back to Table of Contents

5. Sexually Transmitted Deceases (STDs)
HIV infection has of course been in the spotlight over the last two and a half decades since its spread in the so called “homosexual bath clubs” in New York in 1981 and soon thereafter in San Francisco.  The extremely dangerous and self-destructive practice by homosexual men was the major driving force in the critical and rapid initial epidemic.

At that time the disease went under the name GRID (Gay-Related Immune Disorder).  But very soon the gay community – having suddenly become very influential – managed to change the name to AIDS (Acquired Immune-Deficiency Syndrome).  Today everybody knows about the tragic and worldwide HIV/AIDS epidemic.

But beyond HIV/GRID/AIDS there are many other STDs.  Among them are HPVs (Human Papillomavirus), a group name for some 70 different types of virus.  A study of homosexual and bisexual men in San Francisco showed that HPV was almost universal among HIV-positive men and a full 60% among HIV-negative homosexual and bisexual men.  Likewise, many other STDs (Gonorrhea, Syphilis, Kaposi Sarcoma, etc.) are far more common among homosexual men.  Also Hepatitis B is more common among homosexual men.

There are two major underlying reasons for the high spread of STDs among homosexual men:

5:1. The frequency of anal intercourse among homosexual men is very high.  According to one report (ref.13): Increases in Unsafe Sex and Rectal Gonorrhea among Men who have Sex with Men (MSM) San Francisco, California, 1994-1997, Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, January 29, 1999,45 ] the percentage of anal sex among homosexual men (MSM) increased from 57.6% to 61.2% between 1994 and 1997.  One only needs to look at RFSL’s own “Anal Manual” - prominently displayed on their website (ref.14) - to realize how widespread this practice is among homosexual men. 

And anal intercourse transmits STDs to a much higher degree than vaginal intercourse.  In a study presented in New England Journal of Medicine it was found that “the probability of HIV transmission in unprotected received anal penetration was between 0.008 and 0.032, or between 1 in 125 and 1 in 31 for each time of such an act” (REF.2 page 71-72).  By comparison, the probability of HIV transmission in unprotected vaginal intercourse is “only” between 0.0005 and 0.0015 or between 1 in 2000 and 1 in 666.  Thus anal intercourse is between 5 and 64 times more risky than vaginal intercourse.

But it’s not only through “blood to blood” or “mucus to mucus” that transmission takes place.  From the publication “Anal Pleasure and Health” (Jack Morin, Anal Pleasure and Health: A Guide for Men and Women, San Francisco, Down There Press, 1998 p. 220) it reads: “Sexual activities offer many opportunities for small doses of feces to find its way to the mouth of the sexual partner. The most direct rout is via oral-anal contact”.

5:2. The high number of partners among homosexual men.  We turn again to the RFSL’s website to see that such is the case and what chances homosexuals are willing to take with respect to unprotected sex (ref.15).  There someone writes: ”We love each other and are tested HIV negative.  We fuck without with each other but with condom with others.  Negotiated security works if both have tested hiv-negative twice with three months in between and had safer sex in between.  It takes up to three months for antibodies to form.  Then you must be in agreement about what rules apply if you meet someone on the side. To then always fuck with condom and immediately tell your partner if you had unprotected sex, is a good agreement.”

Back to Table of Contents

6. Infidelity with partner.
The average number of partners throughout life is 50 among homosexual men and 4 among heterosexual men (REF.1; page 54).  Again, an average like this does not exclude that there are homosexual men who are faithful to their partner (although rarely if ever throughout life) and that there are promiscuous heterosexual men.  Over the last 12 months, the number of partners was 8 among homosexual men and 1.2 among heterosexual men.  Anal intercourse over the last 12 months was 65% among homosexual men (MSM or men sex with men) and 9.5% among heterosexual men (MSW).

Beyond the much higher risk of STDs among homosexual men (see above) the high infidelity in their partnerships often results in additional emotional trauma for one of the partners when a partnership is broken.  Besides. there is of course emotional trauma to any adopted children.  Beyond the much higher risk of pedophilia this has now also become a reality for our little ones since our Parliament ("Riksdag") in a very shameful act legalized adoption by homosexual partners.  (See “The Parade of Shame” under Myth 4.2 below). 

Back to Table of Contents

7. Social and religious acceptance.
Although part of a shrinking minority, there are still Swedes who don’t find the homosexual lifestyle equally acceptable.  The reasons are twofold:7:1  Some Swedes resent the fact that (on the average) the homosexual community taxes the medical, social and financial resources to a much larger extent.  The high costs of AIDS and other STDs, drug addiction etc. decreases the financial resources available for other social services and research programs.7:2. Some people in Sweden - even after an enormous shift in society’s attitudes over the last decades – still have religious roots that govern their opinion of the homosexual lifestyle.  Let’s look at the three biggest religions in our society today.

ISLAM
Islam – probably already the biggest religion in Sweden (at least as far as expression of their religion is concerned) – have some clear prohibitions against homosexual behavior:

(Koran 4:16)
If two men among you have unnatural lust (affection), they shall both be punished.

(Koran 27:55)
Would you rather come to a man in lust than to a woman.  No, you are an ignorant people.

JUDEO-CHRISTIAN
Both of these world religions traditionally condemn homosexuality.  That said, it must be recognized that most of today’s Christians (with the exceptions of the Catholics) have changed their religion and today embrace homosexuality.  To find out how this has happened over just the last 3 decades click on this link (Nr.6; Response to the Onslaught of Homosexuality from Religious Groups).  Notwithstanding the greater acceptability, all the three main religions in Sweden - at least at their original core values and historic Holy documents - condemn homosexuality.  Therefore, if your child turns out homosexual he or she is likely to have a harder time relating to at least some people in our country.

Back to Table of Contents

8.  An abnormal focus on sex.
For the homosexual person in general, sex occupies a much larger part of his life.  When an adolescent person, of either orientation, becomes sexually active, there is typically a heightened interest in sex.  While this focus for the heterosexual person subsides with marriage and the start of a family, for the homosexual person it becomes unnatural in its intensity and scope.  You never saw a heterosexual organization celebrating their orientation in a Stockholm “Straight Day Parade” with its members on a truck-bed making fucking motions in front of the Royal Palace.  The heterosexual person has so many other things and duties that occupy his life.

Back to Table of Contents

9. Rectal problems.
Even when condoms are used to lower the risk of transmission of viruses and bacteria (see above), anal intercourse still injures; especially for the person who is anally penetrated.  The rectal sphincter is created for only so much stretching to pass bowel movements.  The pressure from a penis may greatly injure the sphincter.  Even worse is the common practice of “fisting” as described in this way in RFSL’s online “Anal Manual” (ref.5)

“Fisting
Fistfucking is an advanced sex technique and means that your whole hand is inserted in the ass.  To fist or to be fisted demands great knowledge combined with calm, responsibility and consciousness.  It’s a question of practice and confidence.  To insert your fist in another man’s ass is a privilege.  The one who is being fisted shows that he trusts you and it means that you must respect his vulnerability.
A good fister is fully focused on his partner and attentive to his reactions.  The bottom line for the one who is being fisted is to be relaxed and be carried away rather than forcing the anal canal to be opened.  If you are a beginner you are advised to use an experienced fister as your teacher.  A few recommendations:
* Prepare yourself with a flushing of your intestine.
* Avoid injury by having fingernails cut short.  Remove bracelets, rings and the like.
* Use rubber gloves
* Never the same glove on two people – Switch
* Use lots of lubricants, preferably silicone based.
* If you use a water based lubricant keep a glass of water nearby to dip your hand in.
* Avoid rimming after fisting.
* Lick and fuck first.  Then you fist.”
(End of quote from RFSL’s website.)

Therefore, even when condoms are used to lower the risk of viral and bacterial infections (see above) anal intercourse is injurious, mainly for the man who is being penetrated.  It often leads to "rectal incontinence" as well as anal cancer.  The membrane that surrounds the rectum is almost always damaged.  Even without major trauma, there are minor (sometimes microscopic) ruptures in the rectal membrane, that promotes immediate transmission of bacteria into the blood stream.  Therefore, even though faithful homosexual partners have a lower risk of AIDS they often (due to their relative fidelity and trust) engage in such activities and are very vulnerable to other non-AIDS infection.

They are often victims of other serious - and sometimes deadly – infections caused by feces entering the bloodstream.  This includes hepatitis B and a host of otherwise unusual infections such as shigellosis, Guardia Lamblia, which together are now referred to as "Gay Bowel Syndrome (GBS)"(REF.2; pages 80-82).  An article in a publication [F.N. Judson, "Sexually Transmitted Viral Hepatitis and Enteric Pathogens", Urology Clinics of North America 11,. No.1 (February 1984), pp.177-185] sums it up as follows

“Because of their larger numbers of sexual partners and sexual practices such as anilingus and anal intercourse, homosexual men are at particular high risk of acquiring hepatitis B, giardiasis, amebiasis, shigellosis, campylobacteriosis and anorectal infections with Neisseria gonorrhea, Chlamydia trachomatis, Treponema palladium, herpes simplex virus, and HPV (Human Papilloma Viruses)".

With this comparison of the lifestyles as background, you – as a parent or grandparent - may form an independent opinion about which lifestyle is the one preferred for your offspring (especially boys).  And especially to what extent you are prepared to go if you want to prevent a homosexual outcome.  In the next chapter (Myth 2) we shall explore what you can do to influence your child (at a very early age) so that he is likely to assume your preferred sexual orientation when he enters puberty. 

Back to Table of Contents

Myth Number 2: You cannot influence a child’s future sexual orientation.

In the exposé that follows, I have chosen to describe the actions you ought to take – and which ones to avoid – if you want your child or grandchild to choose the heterosexual lifestyle upon entering puberty.  However, if you prefer the homosexual lifestyle (for example homosexual partners who have adopted children) you will want to do the opposite to what is suggested below.

The really inconvenient truth
As you will find under the next myth (myth number 3 below) a homosexual orientation is definitely not something that is embedded in the genes at birth.  But the tendency towards such orientation for some, typically develops in early childhood.  Adult intervention at that tender age is what can prevent it as you will see under this myth.  Indeed, it's often the lack of parental action in childhood that causes a child to develop gender confusion which - at the onset of puberty - often results in same-sex attraction.  But this truth is very inconvenient to accept and recognize for obvious reasons.  It suggests that you as a parent - or a fellow parent that you may know who has a gay son or daughter - has played a role (a role of neglect) in the upbringing of a child.  So, the strong emotional instinct is to accept the falsehood, perpetrated by mainstream media, that there never was anything that could have been done to prevent a homosexual orientation.  And as this fallacy is already so widespread and continues to be propagated by gay advocates and sympathizers, a large number of children get caught up in a "pre-homosexual" gender confusion and later on in full-blown homosexuality.  Something that could have been avoided with the correct information early on.  How tragic!

Very often the parent, particularly the father of a gender confused son, is not aware of his son's need of help to develop masculine traits.  The father may be so busy with providing for his family that he does not develop an emotional bond with his son.  And it's the son's perspective that matters.  The father may actually love his son greatly and still not be aware that his son himself does not feel close to his father or another male role model in his life.

Back to Table of Contents

1. Convincing results from extensive research is suppressed by the homolobby.
First a word about what’s considered “politically correct” in Sweden today.  What follows is widely considered homophobic (“an unfriendly or unfavorable view of the homosexual orientation”) in our country.  Although meant as an invective it’s a proper term.  It’s the opposite of homophilic (”a friendly or favorable view of the homosexual orientation”).  In Sweden today there are many more homophilic than homophobic people.  Just the other way around from what it used to be just a generation ago.

This is the result of an incessant propaganda drumbeat from RFSL and SVT over the last three decades.  If you are not a Swede, you should know that SVT is the Swedish TV monopoly; in effect a propaganda and indoctrination arm of RFSL.  Therefore it came as no surprise when SVT was awarded the prestigious “Rainbow Award” as the best and foremost promoter of their agenda.  This was awarded in connection with the “Gay Pride Week” in Stockholm, Sweden.  Our capital Stockholm has become a magnet (a virtual Mecca) for homophiles from all over Europe.

The homolobby is extremely influential in our society today.  At all levels.  They know all too well that their political influence is in direct proportion to their numbers.  Many parents and relatives become very supportive of RFSL once they learn that one of their own have become homosexual. But at the same time they believe, deep inside, that it’s a tragedy.  Therefore, if you are a parent or grandparent who wishes that one day your offspring will choose the heterosexual orientation, listen carefully to what follows.  

Much of the contents that follows is taken (with permission) from an American book by Joseph Nicolosi titled ”A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality”  (REF.3).  Nicolosi has a Ph.D. in Psychology.  It should be noted that his book is based on what psychological research has shown and not based on religious concepts.  Because of his views Dr. Nicolosi is now anathema to the leaders and many members of the “American Psychological Association.  In 1973 a related association – The “American Psychiatric Association” or “APA” voted to strike homosexuality from the officially approved list of psychiatric illnesses (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual or DSM for short).  It occurred through nothing short of a coup by a limited but very vocal and angry group of homosexual members and sympathizers (REF.1 pages 32-35).  Ever since that time, homosexual psychiatrist, psychologists and their sympathizers have increasingly controlled research, reports and symposia within their organizations.  Through an example Dr. Nicolosi explains this shift in policy.  He writes (REF.3; page 171-172):

” Political correctness continues to plague all of our mental health associations.  A 1999 American Psychiatric Association annual convention was scheduled to include a debate on whether sexual orientation could be changed through therapy.  But that debate was cancelled when two of the scheduled speakers withdrew, saying that the subject of homosexuality-as-changeable was too politically charged for a scientific meeting.  Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover and I were originally proposed as members of that panel, but the gay-activist psychiatrists refused to participate if either Satinover of I took part in such a discussion.
So you are in graduate school and think that heterosexuality is normative?  Good luck expressing your viewpoint, publishing your thesis, and getting along with your colleagues.  You had better keep that view to yourself, or you may find yourself squeezed out of the social club from which you are trying so hard to gain approval.”

For more information on this subject click on this link (Nr.4 on the side bar).

If the suppression of the truth by the homolobby in the US is so prevalent, imagine how it must be in our country.  There’s probably not a single psychologist or psychiatrist in Sweden who wants to (or dares) cooperate with parents who bring their boy to their office for concern about developing feminine behavior in their child.  Therefore, you as a parent or grandparent are left to yourself to address this concern about your offspring’s future sexual orientation.  

After this somewhat lengthy introduction, let’s now take a look at what honest research reveals and what you can do today to prevent initial pre-homosexuality and subsequent homosexuality from developing in your children.  Let’s first look at the root (genesis) of homosexuality among boys.

Back to Table of Contents

2. Research report by Bieber et al (REF.4)
Let’s first look at an important study conducted by Irving Bieber and some seventy psychiatrists and psychologists. The comprehensive study started in 1952 and 10 years later - after many evaluations and follow-up activities - a team of eight medical psychoanalysts and one clinical psychologist on the Committee issued the report titled “Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals, New York: Basic Books, 1962. (REF.4).  

In addition to the considerable size in scope and the expertise of the authors, the study is significant for two important reasons:

2:1. It was conducted between 1952 and 1962.  This was before it became political taboo to consider homosexuality an undesired behavior that should be prevented.  After 1973, when APA removed homosexuality as abnormal from their DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), it became virtually impossible to conduct studies of this kind.  And if any group of researchers would dare to conduct something similar today, they would be incredibly ostracized by their peers.  But the findings are still valid today and extremely important for parents seeking to avoid homosexuality from developing in their boys.

2:2. In 1962 homosexuality had not yet been popularized by mainstream media or glorified by the entertainment business.  Today it’s very different.

Just look at what RFSL today writes on their website (ref.16) and you’ll understand what I’m talking about:
“Who Takes Who? – About sex for you who are young and on
A gal meets cute guy. Guy meets another guy. Guy happens to be together with a cute gal who has just been together with another gal.
Try out your sexuality !  Who you are yourself, wants to become and what you’re curious about.  The world is open and there are lots to try out and everything is possible. And of course, you regret more those things you never tried than that which you did try out.”
(End of quote from RFSL’s website.)

It’s obvious that today many young people - who are actually not pre-disposed to become homosexuals (i.e. they were never “pre-homosexual” due to an unfortunate upbringing) - nevertheless choose that lifestyle anyhow because it’s such a fad today.  Or at least they try it out, many of whom then get trapped in its snares (see item 7 under free literature on the menu side bar).  The conditions behind such clearly chosen lifestyle are not really addressed on this website.  It can only be stopped if activities such as those of RFSL are brought under control and outlawed in the interest of a wholesome society. So, it’s safe to say that when the study was conducted in the 1950-ies and 60-ies, homosexuality still carried a stigma and nobody wanted to choose or even try out that lifestyle.  Just like nobody chooses to be an alcoholic.  In the Bieber study no fewer than 106 homosexual men were studied at length, together with a control group of 100 heterosexual men.  The basic question was all along: Why had the 106 men become homosexuals.  What, if anything, in their background or upbringing had caused them to be physically attracted to other men?

The findings were remarkable in that there was one common denominator for the homosexual orientation of all of these 106 men.  Bieber and his team found that they had all (without exception) had an emotionally absent father or no father at all during their upbringing.  None of them felt close to their dad.

Sometimes, but not always, this was combined with an animosity towards their dad for a variety of reasons.  The result was based on how the men had experienced their dads.  Not the other way around.  Some dads might have thought that everything was fine and they might have believed themselves that they met their son’s emotional needs.  

The study found among other things:
“Profound interpersonal disturbance is unremitting in the homosexual father-son relationships….. Not one of the fathers (of homosexual sons) could be regarded as reasonable normal parent.“ 
It’s interesting that in the control group (100 heterosexual men) far from all of them had a good relationship to their father.  A full 37 of them (37%) even confessed that they hated their father.  On the other hand, in the homosexual group 63 of them (59%) said that they hated their father.

Back to Table of Contents

3. Conclusions to be drawn
First of all let me say that just because the father-son relationship had a common denominator for all 106 homosexual men, does not mean that there will never be an exception to the rule.  However, there is very strong evidence to conclude as follows:

If a father bonds emotionally to his son, the son is extremely unlikely to become homosexual.  However, if a father does not bond to his son, that will not necessarily lead to homosexuality.  After all, as many as 37 % of the 100 heterosexual men in the study stated that they hated their father (compared to 59% in the homosexual group).  But the homosexual men somehow failed to bond to their fathers.

In other words: The lack of father-son bonding is a necessary - but not always sufficient - cause of homosexuality. 
Think about it!  Therefore,
Dads: You can prevent homosexuality in your son by bonding with him!  But if you don’t your son is not necessarily doomed to a life in homosexuality.  There are other factors at play as well, that we will look at later.

Beyond the uniform result with respect to emotional bonding between father and son many other relationship aspects varied more, although the trend is similar.  Here are some of them.  (The numbers do not add up to 100% since not all men could answer all questions).
“H” designates the group of 106 homosexual men; “C” designates the control group of 100 heterosexual men:             

	H	C
Patient is father’s favorite	7	28
Another sibling is father’s favorite	59	36
Patient felt accepted by father	23	47
Patient knowingly hated father	60	37
Patient accepted father	20	50
Father expressed affection for patient	25	51
Father has less respect for patient than for other male siblings	42	19
Patient coped with father more easily than with mother	21	40
Patient regards father as admirable	16	47

But first let’s look at why this study demonstrates that homosexuality is not hereditary.  If it were indeed hereditary there would be many men in the homosexual group (“H”) who as children would have experienced emotional bonding to their fathers.

So, let me now summarize as follows:
If a dad is emotionally involved in his son’s development and his son bonds to him in early childhood, there is an almost 100% probability that the son will turn out heterosexual.

I will explain below (Item 5) why this strong link exists.  But let me say here that my heart bleeds for those little boys who lack a male role model in their lives.  And my blood boils when I see how these boys are relentlessly sought out by RFSL in an attempt to recruit as many of them as possible into their ranks. 

Back to Table of Contents

4. THE PARADE OF SHAME
June 5, 2002 was a very fateful day for all mother- and fatherless children in our country.  On that day the Swedish Parliament voted to pass a law that gave the green light for homosexual partners to adopt children.  The vote was 198 in favor and 38 against.  How could any responsible and ethical person deliberately deprive a child of a mother and a father when there are so many heterosexual childless couples yearning to adopt a child?  Up to that point in our history, we had typically shown great care for the well-being of our little ones.  More than anything it shows the level to which our politicians have stooped to accommodate the homosexual lobby.  What judgment must await such men and women?

This is how the Parade of Shame looked when the Parliament voted on proposition 2001/02:123 (ref.17)

Prop. 2001/02:123
LU27 Partnership, adoption etc.
Point 1 (Rejection of proposition regarding adoption and guardianship)
1. Proposal
2. Reservation (kd)
Voting:
198 in favor of proposal
38 in favor of reservation
71 abstained
42 absent
Parliament passed proposal.
Distribution of votes cast:
In favor of proposal: 118 Social Democrats, 9 Moderates, 34 Left Party, 12 Center Party, 15 Environment Party, 9 People’s Party
In favor of the reservation: 1 Moderate, 37 Christian Democrats
Abstained: 60 Moderates, 4 Center Party, 6 People’s Party
Absent: 13 Social Democrats, 11 Moderates, 9 Left Party, 5 Christian Democrats 2 Center Party, 1 Environment Party, 1 People’s Party
Anne-Katrine Dunker (m) and Runar Patriksson (fp) noted that they had intended to abstain but had been marked for a “Yes”

As can be seen from this official tally, it was only the 37 MPs (Members of Parliament) from the Christian Democrats who opposed homoadoption.  Honor to them.  The “Moderate Party” actually did not want to allow homo adoption per se but only to allow homo guardianship of our children. An incredulous position. Think about it!  Would the Moderate MPs have agreed to homosexual people guarding their own children or grandchildren?

Imagine if it were your own son!  If you yourself - due to circumstances beyond your control - would have to let someone else care for your son.  And if you could choose between a husband and wife in an apparent normal marriage on one hand and a pair of homosexual men on the other.  How would your choose?  When you really think about what happened on that fateful day (June 5, 2002) you realize what a reckless and callous act it was against the most vulnerable of our little ones.  By all the parties in our Parliament except the Christian Democrats.  How can the other MPs live with themselves?  See themselves in the mirror daily and realize how they sold out our defenseless children.

The legislative history of this despicable law 
When the Social Democrats (the majority party in Parliament) voted in their own plenum on how to cast their votes as a block in Parliament, those who wanted to pass the law prevailed by only one vote.  Those opposed were only one vote short.  That implies that just under half of the Social Democrats believed it to be in the best interest for the orphaned children to have both a mother and a father.  Nevertheless, when they voted in Parliament not a single one of them dared to vote according to their conscience.  If they had voted what their conscience told them, they would loose their job, income and all the cushy benefits as parliamentarians.  In short, their own financial benefits were more important than the wellbeing of orphaned children.

It should also be noted that the following major organizations, with their expertise on the wellbeing of children, had expressed strong opposition to the proposal for homoadoption: Save The Children (sw: Rädda Barnen), The Children’s Ombudsman (Barnombudsmannen), The Network of Adoption Organizations (Nätverket för Adoptionsorganisationer).

Furthermore, opposition had also been expressed by the following organizations: The Social Department, The National Committee of International Adoptions, The Swedish Association of Physicians, Swedish Society of Psychologists, Sociologists for Family Justice, National Society of Family Counselors,  AFO Organization for Adopted Children and Foster Children, Organization of Adopted Children from Korea, Forum for Adoption, The Family Organization for International Adoption, Children First, The National Organization for Justice for Children (BRIS), The Secretaries for Family Justice, Counseling Center for Adoption, The Network Voice of Adopted Children, Friends of the Children.
(In Swedish the name of the organizations are: Socialstyrelsen, NIA (Statens nämnd för internationella adoptionsfrågor), Svenska Läkaresällskapet, Sveriges Psykologförbund, Familjerättssocionomernas Riksförening Föreningen Sveriges Kommunala Familjerådgivare, AFO-Organisationen för adopterade och fosterbarn, Adopterade koreaners förening (AKF), Forum för adopterade Förbundet Adoptionscentrum, Familjeföreningen för Internationell Adoption, Barnen Framför Allt - Adoptioner, Riksförbundet Barnens Rätt i Samhället (BRIS), Rädda Barnen, Familjerättssekreterarna, Adoptionsrådgivningen, Nätverket Adopterades Röst, Barnens Vänner)
All of these organizations and experts opposed the law for homoadoptions. 

For example, The Swedish Society of Psychologists commented as follows: “The proposal is based on a worldview where the child is peripheral and parenthood is at the center.  The text of the proposal shows a complete lack of understanding of a child’s need”.  (sw: Promemorian har tillkommit utifrån en världsbild där barnet är perifert och föräldrarskapet står i centrum. Författningstexten uppvisar en total avsaknad av förståelse för och kunskap om barns behov. )

And in an interview in the newspaper The World Today (Sw: Världen Idag) (ref.18) on May 18, 2005 Lars Ahlin, chairman of the Swedish Society of Psychologists, commented on the sharp response submitted by his organization: “We normally don’t express us in such terms if we don’t believe that it was a major shortcoming of the proposal.  Our lack of knowledge of how a child is impacted by being reared by two parent of the same sex is a big problem.  We have opted to assume the child’s perspective since there is insufficient knowledge in research based on the evidence.  Of course it’s a moral dilemma but we must not experiment on children.  If we had known for sure that the children would not be exposed to unnecessary risks it would have been different. But the children cannot speak up for themselves.
[ in Swedish: “Så här formulerar vi oss inte om det det inte upplevs som en verklig brist i promemorian. Bristen på kunskap om hur barn påverkas av att växa upp med två föräldrar av samma kön är ett stort problem.
- Vi har valt att inta barnperspektivet på grund av att det finns för lite kunskap, den evidensbaserade forskningen saknas. Det är ju visst ett moraliskt dilemma, man kan inte göra experiment på barn. Kunde vi vara säkra på att barnen inte utsätts för onödiga risker, då hade det varit en annan situation.
- Barnen kan ju inte föra sin egen talan]

Back to Table of Contents

5. More about the father’s role
Let us now return to the question of why it’s so important that the father is emotionally engaged in his son’s development.

It has been said that that the mothers produce boys but fathers produce men.  At a very early age the child starts to realize that the world is divided into natural opposites of boys and girls, men and women.  At that point it’s not enough for the boy to observe the differences.  He must also decide where he belongs in this gender divided world.  The girl has a much easier task.  Her prime bonding is already to her mother so she does not need to go through the additional developmental task of being “de-identified” from the person closest to her – the mother – to become identified with the father.  But for the boy it’s decidedly different.  He must be separated from his mother and grow in difference from his prime love object if he one day will stand a chance of becoming a heterosexual man.  This explains why there are more homosexual men than women.  The first task in the development into a man is to not develop into a woman.

It’s here that the enormously important task for the father begins.  And if the father is not there, another male must fill the role.  It’s extremely important.  Because the little boy is in constant need of help and encouragement in his development into a man.  The father must let him understand that one day he will be like daddy.  For example, the little boy and his daddy may take a shower together so that he may discover that he and daddy look the same and that one day he will become like daddy.  That he is simply created that way and it can’t be changed.  This also means that the son develops great confidence in his father.  Daddy becomes a role model for his boy.  Mommy must gradually decrease her influence over her son, starting at about 2 years of age.  The father must display warmth and care towards his son and not hesitate to hug him.  Someone has said that if the boy is never hugged by his dad, other men may hug him, in a very different way, later on in life.  If this natural and necessary development is not encouraged, the boy may come to suffer from “Gender Identity Disorder” (GID), which is the first step for the pre-homosexual boy. 

Please notice:
5:1. As stated earlier, not all boys who lack an emotionally engaged father will have problems with gender identity.  But the boy who does have an emotionally engaged father to provide encouragement, will most likely not suffer from problems with gender identity.

5:2. Problems with gender identity often seem to affect boys with a sensitive temperament more than other boys.  Such boys are especially vulnerable if they experience that their dads reject them rather than encouraging them.  Such a situation may easily arise if, for example, a boy has different talents and natural gifts than their father and brothers.  The father is often interested in sports and may already have older boys whom he loves to take to soccer practice and soccer games.  If the father’s third or fourth son instead is interested and gifted in arts or music it’s so easy for dad to neglect his little boy and fail to encourage him in what he finds interesting.  Instead, the father must especially take time and pay interest in his little boy’s interest and talents and encourage him in that area.  And to let his boy meet with other boys with the same interest.  So he will become “one of the boys”.  The boy must not be surrendered to his mother’s care and become “mom’s little boy”.  In short: the father must help develop his son’s masculinity in a way that builds a warm trust, respect and affection between them.  All of it to make sure that the boy will one day want to be like his dad.

The problem with gender identification comes in different forms at different levels.  In extreme cases – called Gender Identity Disorder (GID) – the boys start playing with his sister’s dolls, dress in girl’s dresses and so on.  It’s very important that the parents together agree to stop such behavior in love and without rejecting the boy or teasing him.  But it’s more common with milder forms of such behavior which is referred to as “gender conflicted” or “gender confused”.  But all boys with any kind of gender confusion are at risk of becoming “pro-homosexual”.  Such a boy will soon feel that he is not like the other boys.  He may become isolated from and teased by other boys for a developing femininity.  All of this will further reinforce for him that he is different.  Oh, how such a boy is in desperate need of a man who can reassure him that he is just like other boys and that he will grow into becoming like all men.  How I wish that all men were aware of this need, not only in the lives of their own sons, but also in those vulnerable boys who don’t have a father.  And that they would do all they can to prevent RFSL from laying their hands on such boys.

Without help, the ”pre-homosexual” boy will feel more at ease and more secure among girls.  But he is torn inside.  On one hand he wished that he were like other boys but believes that he probably is not.  And when puberty then sets in the picture changes.  The erotic appeal is always towards something that’s different than myself.  And if a boy has been associated more with girls while growing up and felt strange and odd among other boys, then his sexual attraction will be towards other men.

The homosexual lobby sometimes argue that they do a favor for pre-homosexual boys by giving them comfort while developing (so they argue) an inborn, homosexual identity that was there from birth.  But it’s up to you as parents (and grandparents) to prevent that.  But you must first be convinced that homosexuality is not – repeat NOT – something that’s in the genes at birth.  To that end you need to read about “Myth number 3” below. 

Back to Table of Contents

6. The common role of both parents
The second most important element in preventing homosexuality in your child is to protect him/her from sexual predators. (A male role model is number 1).  Child molestation is on the rise.  In an extensive 1985 study by Los Angeles Time on 2,682 adults, a full 16% of all men and a whopping 27% of all women claimed to have been sexually molested as children.  Incest will not only leave physical scars.  The emotional scars may be worse.  Incest is a major cause of the development of homosexuality.  Any given child who has been violated in this way is about 7 times more likely to become homosexual.  This is especially true for girls.  Besides, a molested child has a much higher likelihood of becoming a pedophile himself.  As the saying goes: “Hurt people hurt people”.

Such unfortunate children need special attention by the parents to help heal deep emotional scars.  Unfortunately it’s the children from broken homes who are the most vulnerable ones for a variety of reasons.  It’s not always an adult male who violates children.  An older child or an adolescent, many of whom have already been molested themselves, may also commit such acts.  So, in today’s society with its loose morals, its intense focus on everything sexual, and such widespread acceptance of deviancies, you should be very aware of what kind of person is around your child when you are not present.  Both the mother and the father play an extremely important role here.

The third most important factor (in preventing homosexuality) is the relationship and interaction between the parents.  A happy and loving relationship between husband and wife is a good antidote against a pre-homosexual development.  Especially for the son. The father’s treatment of his wife will leave indelible impressions on the boy.  He will see and learn, while growing up, how it should work.  How it was meant to work.  The mother should, more than anything, show respect for her husband and encourage her son to “go and see daddy” when he has an important question or problem.  The mother must “let go” of her son early on.  She must break the bonding to herself and let her son start bonding with his daddy instead.  This must start after the first 2-4 years of the boy’s life.  But it’s wrong to say that starting later is too late.  It’s never too late but gets increasingly harder the more the years go by without the boy “unbonding” from his mother.  The mother should also resist temptations to “take control of the house” even though she may have a better education, a better job or be smarter than her husband. 

All of this interplay will make the boy want to become like his dad.  It helps the boy to become self-assured and safe in his developing masculinity, while at the same time loving and caring as he observes how his dad treats his wife.  It’s exceedingly beautiful when these forces are at work the way it was meant to be.  But no marriage is perfect.  At least not all the time.  Some lapses in the ideal “role playing” will of course not make a boy homosexual.  But the ground rules of the interaction between the parents in preventing homosexuality in their offspring is apparent and well understood.

How about the boy who – through a myriad of reasons - does not have both a mother and a father?  Well, the task is harder but far from hopeless.  After all, most boys growing up with a single parent will of course not become homosexual.  It can also be argued that a boy with an abusive father is worse off than a boy with no father at all.  This is especially true for the boy who has been traumatized through molestation by his father or stepfather.  A single mom does well if she can get her boy to know a male relative well (uncle, grandfather etc).  Actually any man whom she trust could become a substitute role model for her boy.  Also, if the boy with a single mom has many sisters, the mother does well to keep an eye on her boy so that he does not get caught up in the girls’ doll toys but instead has his own boy toys.  A single father has another set of problems.  A boy needs of course a mother too.  But the loving and caring single father has an easier time to prevent homosexuality in his son than does the single mother.  Remember: mothers make boys but fathers make men.

The activities of the gay lobby (mainly RFSL) in our schools today, combined with the glamorization of the homosexual lifestyle in media and the entertainment business have made it much more difficult for parents today to prevent their offspring from being pulled into the homosexual lifestyle.  I recently came across this article (ref.19) in “The Evening Daily” (Sw: Aftonbladet), a daily newspaper in our country.  Here they recommend the very worst kind of medicine for the pre-homosexual boy.  It reads:

“When was the last time that you gave a doll to your son?  Expert: We subconsciously raise our children through outdated gender roles”.

How important it seems to be for this “expert” that we raise our boys in new gender roles!  To become more feminine.  To attempt to lead them into gender confusion.  There’s just no other conclusion that can be drawn from this garbage.  And this drumbeat goes on and on at all levels in schools, society, the media and the entertainment business.  The homosexual community knows all too well that homosexuality develops from pre-homosexuality which in turn originates from gender confusion.  Through their diabolic activity they go after our children in a flagrant attempt to increase their membership and power.  At the expense of the most vulnerable little ones among us.  How evil can it get?

My hope and dream is that one day there will be a “Save The Children Fund” to counteract all this garbage.  It should target the children in the danger zone.  It can happen in many ways but the aim would be to help boys connect with male role models to help them develop into men.  It could mean things like sponsoring summer camps, where the leaders are happily married and stable heterosexual men with a high moral standard and a desire to help fatherless boys.  For additional information about the role of the father read “Childhood Experiences of Homosexual Men” by Dale O’Leary for NARTH (ref.20)

Back to Table of Contents

7.  Attacks by the homolobby in USA against people who disagree with their agenda
The extensive research and the conclusions drawn by Irving Bieber and his team (REF.4) – which have been verified in later studies – have elicited a tremendous ire from the homolobby in “the two APAs” (American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association).

The results of such honest studies are not considered “politically correct” in our society today.  And Bieber was treated accordingly.  For example, when Bieber many years after the publication gave a lecture at an APA conference under the subject ”Homosexuality and Tran Sexuality” he was rudely interrupted by agitators from the homosexual lobby within APA.  Another researcher - Ronald Bayer who was then a fellow at the Hastings Institute in New York - describes the episode in his book (Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis, New York: Basic Books, 1981; page 102-103; REF.1 page 33) in this way:

“Bieber’s efforts to explain his position….were met with derisive laughter….[One] protester to call him a ­_____.
 ‘ I’ve read your book, Dr. Bieber, and if that book talked about black people the way it talks about homosexuals, you’d be drawn and quartered and you’d deserve it’”

Bayer continues:
“The tactics worked.  Acceding to pressure, the organizers of the following APA conference in 1971 agreed to sponsor a special panel – not on homosexuality, but by homosexuals.  If the panel was not approved, the program chairman had been warned, ‘They’re [the homosexual activists] not going to break up just one section.”

But the panel was not enough.  Bayer continues:
“..….. [They] turned to a Gay Liberation Front collective” in Washington to plan the May 1971 demonstration. Together with the collective [they] developed a detailed strategy for disruption, paying attention to the most intricate logistical detail.

On May 3, 1971, the protesting psychiatrists broke into a meeting of distinguished members of the profession. They grabbed the microphone and turned it over to an outside activist who declared:
 ‘Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us.  You may take this as a declaration of war against you …We’re rejecting you all as our owners.’

The activists then secured an appearance before the APA’s Committee on Nomenclature.  Its chairman allowed that perhaps homosexual behavior was not a sign of psychiatric disorder, and that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) should probably therefore reflect this new understanding.

Soon thereafter the APA deleted homosexuality as a disorder from the DSM, not based on scientific information but due to the rude activism by the homosexuals within APA.  It’s intriguing to read the full story in REF.1 page 32-35.

And thus a new epoch began in which an overwhelming majority of psychiatrists and psychologists no longer dare to help parents to prevent a homosexual development in their children.

Back to Table of Contents

8.  Attacks by the homolobby in Sweden against people who disagree with their agenda
Regarding the rapid sodomization of our own country, the milestones have been as follows (source: http://www.gluefox.com – There you click on the side menu under "Dagens Adrenalinklick" and then select “Homosexualitet -- en naturlig yttring av människans sexualitet, eller...? " (ref.21):

Prior to 1944, homosexual acts between adults was criminalized and was regarded as something unnatural and depraved.  In due course of time the psychological perspective on homosexuality came to dominate, where origin of homosexuality was considered to be a psychological disturbance rooted in traumatic experiences in childhood.  In Medical Encyclopedia (Sw: Medicinsk Uppslagsbok) edition of 1969 by Ack Renander (long considered the standard medical concordance in Sweden) we find the following definition: ” Infirm sexual urge, directed towards the same sex”, and in Norstedt’s Encyclopedia (Sw: Norstedts Uppslagsbok) from 1973, homosexuality was explained as: ”Distorted sexual urge towards same sex. Opposite: heterosexuality, normal sexual urge”.  

Fast forward to the Pride Festival 2001, the homosexual extravaganza in Stockholm.  In the tent belonging to The Liberal Youth Association (Sw: Liberala Ungdomsförbundet) the main attraction was to throw darts on big photos of Alf Svensson, the Pope and Ulf Ekman (the leader of “The Word of Life; the new charismatic denomination of Sweden).  In this case you can certainly talk about hatred and encouragement to violence, both against selected people and groups of people represented by these leaders.  One may wonder what the reaction in media would have been if a religious conference would have a similar attraction with photos of some “christianphobes” from RFSL with the text: “hit the fags”.  Something like that is of course impossible among people of faith.  However, RFSL does not hesitate to instigate hatred against religious people.  They completely lack tolerance of certain groups of people.

Additional examples of instigation of hatred by homosexuals in Sweden today:  In the youth magazine “Lava”, issued in June 2003 by the City of Stockholm (and thus paid for with taxpayers’ money) showed a cartoon of Siwert Öholm having sex with Alf Svensson.  Under the cartoon they had written the following text, written by the singer and “debater” Ujje Brandelius,  “..… it’s all about cleaning up and doing away with a Christian, stale, rotten, male, old stinking damned moral system from the face of our earth”.  The cartoon and the text was reported by Hans-Göran Björk (who is, among other things, columnist for the “World Today”, with strong ties to “The World of Life”) to both the Secretary of the Department of Justice (Sw: Justitiekanslern; JK) and to the Ombudsman for Justice (Sw: Justitieombudsmannen; JO).  Both of them thought that the expressions to do away with the Christians from the face of the earth was quite acceptable.  Compare that to the severe legal actions against Pastor Åke Green when he spoke out against homosexuality and other sexual sins.

In Sweden today, many official power centers and branches of the government are strongly influenced by the homolobby’s agenda. From The Swedish Supreme Court (Sw: HD or Högsta Domstolen) on down. And not just on a political level. The majority in the “Church of Sweden” - mainly financed with taxpayers’ money since centuries back – are strongly influenced by the homolobby interest. However, even in this church there is an appreciable number of members, as well as ministers, who disagree with the policies that emanate from the leadership.

The Archbishop at the time, Hammar, and his lesbian sister, the vicar Anna Karin in Uppsala, are in the forefront of changing what has been a long doctrinal tradition in the Swedish (Lutheran) Church. For more information about the (with a few exceptions) very sordid Christian reaction to the onslaught of homosexuality go to Nr.6. During the “Evening of Culture” in Uppsala on 9/19, 1998, they arranged a ”mass/service” in the Cathedral of Uppsala, were they showed the so-called Ecce Homo Exhibition. It consisted of depictions of Jesus, not only in a homosexual environment, but as a homosexual himself. To depict Jesus in such a way during a “service” in the hallowed Uppsala Cathedral, seems like the ultimate expression for what has happened on Sweden during the last 30 years or so.

In an environment like this it’s virtually impossible for parents to find psychologists and psychotherapists willing to give counsel about the problems with gender confusion in their children.  Unless, of course, they encourage the parents to let their children develop into homosexual men and women.  The Swedish Association of Psychologists (presently about 8500 members) was founded in 1955.  In 1998 they issued their “Ethical Principles for Professional Psychologists in the Nordic Countries” (Sw: "Yrkesetiska Principer för psykologer i Norden").

Among other things it stipulates that they must “respect differences in individual, role model, and cultural aspects with regards to level of functioning, gender and sexual orientation”.  It may sound like a lot of gobbledygook (and it does in the Swedish original text as well).  Except that the mantra is “respect sexual orientation”.  Combined with “information to the public” on “guidance regarding complaints about psychologists” it has an ominous connotation for any psychologist wanting to help a parent to prevent homosexuality in their child.

So far we have dealt with Myth Number 1 (that both lifestyles are equally desirable) and Myth Number 2 (that you cannot influence your child’s future sexual orientation).  So, let’s move on to Myth Number 3.

Back to Table of Contents

Myth Number 3: Sexual orientation is hereditary – “It’s in the genes”

1.  The bias/spin of research results by the homolobby
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has issued a guidance document for their practicing professionals titled Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM).  Up until 1973 homosexuality was considered an abnormal behavior with reason to be treated.  But that year, and without any research studies as a basis, APA declared homosexuality as a normal behavior.  We showed above how it came about in a very non-democratic way through the shrewd and nasty activism by homosexual elements in APA and their sympathizers.  (REF.1; pages 32-36). Within two years after this decision, the American Psychological Association (also abbreviated APA and with three times as many members) made the same decision.  Once these major decisions had been made it was suddenly considered inappropriate to try to help parents prevent a homosexual development in their children.  Those who dared to advocate this were severely castigated.  

Through the years since 1973 the homosexual branches and their sympathizers have wielded increasingly more power within the two APAs.  So much so that they today constitute a virtual censorship committee with power to direct all research in the area of homosexuality, its origin and causes.  The homosexuals today are grossly overrepresented in the behavioral sciences.  Therefore, whenever a new research report is published it’s essential to find out who the researchers are and their sexual orientation plus the origin of the money for the study.  It’s so sad that this is the case.  But that’s just the way it is today and we have therefore seen a lot of biased – and even faked - research on this topic during the last decades.  The focus of the homosexual agenda is to show through “research” - and the dissemination in the media of the results -that homosexuality is genetic.  When subsequent research proves the results wrong or even falsified, the correction are nowhere to be found in the media.  In what follows we shall see numerous examples of this.

But we must first look at why we have this appalling bias, not only in the research but also in the media disseminating the results to the wider public audience.   Surveys have demonstrated that the homosexuals and their sympathizers are greatly overrepresented in the media.  Just as one example, New York Times and Washington Post - the leading news organization of ”the old media” – have an editorial board with a majority of homosexuals.  This may be an extreme case, but the trend is the same throughout the media.  And the newspapers themselves of course never write anything about this embedded bias.  They would never let their readers know how many on their editorial boards are homosexuals.

Why is it so important to point out this situation?  Well, all of us form our opinions and attitudes based on what we read and hear.  Everybody period !  So, the commonly held opinions are to a large extent formed by our media.  Especially by TV.  And in a country like ours with a limited number of channels in Swedish, our sources of information – for our population at large – are indeed very limited.

In the USA, New York Times recently gave directions to their journalists – and there are many of them the world over – on how they must report on issues of homosexuality.  For example, they state on issues of gay right as follows: ”Proponents for gays are concerned that the expression ‘gay rights’ may make people react in a negative manner by believing that gays have right that others don’t have.  Gay proponents prefer the expression ‘equal rights’ or ‘citizen rights for gays’.  If you must use the term ‘gay rights’ – for example in headlines where space it at a premium – you must precisely define in the text what it is about.” 

Since the agenda of the homolobby is to get their message to the media, then how much better would it be to actually be in the media.  And in leading positions.  The homosexual journalists in 1990 formed their own national association, The National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA), that has become very influential.  At their 10^th anniversary gala in San Francisco on Sept. 7-10, 2000, they had a surreal discussion in one of their main sessions.  The question discussed by the panel was this: “Does a reporter, when reporting on stories relating to homosexuality, have a responsibility to include viewpoints that contradicts those of homosexuals?  One of the participants from a major news organization (Jeffrey Kofman) phrased it this way: “This whole issue of ‘balance’ that we as journalists are supposed to achieve…. like when we cover the black community, I’ve never seen a newsroom where you are covering one side and then you have to go run out and get the Klan’s point of view; Well I’ve got to go do my Klan interview. How do you be fair? “  Paula Madison, vice president of diversity at NBC and news director of WNBC in New York chimed in: “I agree with him.  I don’t see why we would seek out…..the absurd, insane point of view just to get another point of view.”  Kofman added: “All of us have seen and continue to see a lot of coverage that includes perspectives on gay issues that include people who just simply are intolerant and perhaps not qualified as well.”

The message here is crystal clear: Since those with an opposing point of view are intolerant bigots in the first place, let’s not let them have a voice in the media.  Folks, we have come to this intolerant point of view by the gay lobby in our dangerous downward spiral in society.

The directive from New York Times to their reporters and journalists to no longer use the expression “gay rights” runs contrary to the original recommendations in the early book by  Kirk and Madsen (“After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ‘90s”).  I can think of no better exposure of the shrewd marketing methods used by Kirk and Madsen than a book by David Kupelian titled “The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom”.  For a good synopsis of the book click here (ref.22).

David Kupelian writes in his book: “You might wonder: Where and when will this ‘gay rights’ public relations steamroller stop?  The end game is not only to bring about the complete acceptance of homosexuality, including same-sex marriage, but also to prohibit and even criminalize public criticism of homosexuality, including the quotation of biblical passages disapproving of homosexuality.  In other words, total jamming of criticism with the force of law.  This is already essentially the case in Canada and parts of Scandinavia.” 

So today, woe to the journalist who dares to express thoughts that are not politically correct. It can ruin the career for anybody. In our own country the situation is even worse than in the US. Therefore, it came as no surprise when Swedish TV (“SVT”) – with monopoly of being financed through mandatory license fees - was awarded the prestigious “Rainbow Reward” for so successfully promoting their agenda.

In a way it’s understandable that journalists and entertainers working in the media and entertainment business work overtime to make others accept their lifestyle.  Who does not want to be accepted?  It’s just so sad that it’s happening at the expense of the most vulnerable children and that it infringes on parents and grandparents right to know the facts.

What transpired at a research symposium in 1996 on the subject “sexual orientation” is very instructive in illustrating the forces and methods at work.  One of the researchers, Scott Hersherger, suggested that the courts will be hard-pressed to uphold discrimination against a group if the group is identified by biological rather than behavioral traits.  He said to the sympathetic crowd: "Public opinion polls, plus empirical research, always tell us that there is a positive correlation between people's beliefs in the immutability of a trait and their acceptance of that trait. So, the more a person believes homosexuality or sexual orientation is biological, the more positively he or she will feel about it."   In other words, the message was: Let's produce studies to show that “homosexuality or sexual orientation is biological and not a chosen lifestyle!”  So, it’s no surprise that we have a lot of "funny science" coming our way.  All in an attempt to make people believe "”.  Whether the research is honest is beside the point for many of them.  It seems like any explanation of homosexual behavior - except that of the Bible (Romans Ch.1) - is acceptable to many "scientists" in psychology.  And to a gullible media and public!  All of this in order to excuse a lifestyle choice that's harmful to both the individual and society.  Consider all the research money (often from homosexual sources) allocated to this kind of research. 

Research activities regarding homosexuality fall into two major categories: 1) Psychological/Environmental Theories and 2) Biological Theories.  Our discussion up to this point (e.g. Bieber et al) has dealt with the psychological/environmental theories.  We now move on to biological theories which can be subdivided into three areas of research
-  Adult hormonal hypothesis
-  Genetic hypotheses
-  Prenatal hormonal hypotheses

Adult hormonal hypothesis.  For a while it was speculated that there was a difference in the sex hormones between heterosexual and homosexual adults. It has now been shown that such is not the case and this field of inquiry is therefore irrelevant today.

Genetic Hypothesis.   This is the area of research that has been of most interest over the last several decades.  So we will now focus on this particular area.  It’s also the area in which definitive conclusions can be drawn.

Back to Table of Contents

2. Kallman
In the inquiry into a possible genetic origin of homosexuality, it was early on of great interest to study identical twins (monozygotic twins).  For very obvious reasons.  It’s well known that identical twins share characteristics given at birth.  If, for example, one of the twins has brown eye color, the identical twin has always also brown eye color.  And so on.  Thus, if there were a “gay gene”, identical twins would both have it and thus turn out to have the same sexual orientation.  And guess what?  That’s exactly what an early 1952 study by Kallman found.  In the “Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease” he published the results which showed a 100% concordance rate for homosexuality in monozygotic twins (identical twins).  See REF.5; page 71.  It was touted at the time as the ultimate evidence that the origin of homosexuality was “in the genes”.  There was only one problem with the study.  It was fake!  It did not withstand scrutiny.  Think about it.  Subsequently it was fairly easy to determine that among all the many identical twins there were many (actually a majority) where only one of the pair had developed homosexuality.  This was one of the early examples of scientific dishonesty that has since plagued research in this field due to the politicizing of research.  Kallman, now in disrepute, later referred to his results as a “statistical artifact.”

Back to Table of Contents

3. Bailey-Pillard (1991)
But the interest in identical twins remained.  For the same obvious reasons.  Could it be that there was a gene that predisposed a man to homosexuality but environmental factors were also at work.  Although the “concordance rate” was obviously not 100% as Kallman had suggested, could it be that it was nevertheless much higher than the 2%-4% that a random pairing would predict based on such a percentage rate of homosexuals within the population at large. 

To that end other studies on the subject were conducted.  One of them was a study in 1991 by Michael Bailey from Northwestern University and Richard Pillard from Boston University School of Medicine.  Their Report (REF.5; pages 72-78) received a very widespread publicity and is the one the homosexual lobby still refers to in the media (to a gullible public).  Pillard was homosexual.  In their report (ref.23) they presented the following results.

Monozygotic twins (identical twins):  52% PC (29 of 56 = 52%)
Dizygotic twins (non-identical twins): 22% PC (12 of 54 = 22 %)
Siblings that are not twins: 9% PC (13 of 142 = 9%)
Adopted siblings: 11% PC (6 of 57 = 11%)

Bailey and Pillard used the term PC, (Probandwise Concordance) which means as follows:
For identical twins the “52% PC” means that 52% of the identical twins they located shared their homosexual preference with their brothers. At a first look, this may appear to make some sense for an argument for the “homo gene”. The 52% for identical twins suggests that for each identical twin with homosexual identification there is a 52% chance that his twin brother will also be homosexual. A number much higher than the 2-4% to be expected based on percent of homosexuals in the general populations.

At the time, many saw the study results as proof that homosexuality is (if not 100%) at least to a large extent genetic.  What was not known by the public, but covered up by Pillard, was the fact that there was a very strong “sample bias”.  Other subsequent researchers failed to produce similar results.  It was then revealed that Bailey and Pillard had recruited their sample population by advertisement in pro-gay magazines, introducing an apparent sample bias in their study.

It’s important that the implication of this be understood. It was important for the gay community to prove the genetic hypothesis for three reasons: 1) if the cause of homosexuality was genetic, society ought not be concerned about homosexual men recruiting young adolescent youth into their ranks and 2) the about ten times higher incidence of child molestations among homosexuals would not contribute to predisposing the child to homosexuality if it was genetic in its origin and 3) there would be a general acceptance of the gay lifestyle since it was not a choice but they were born that way.

Back to Table of Contents

4. Bailey-Dunne-Martin (2000)
With his reputation at stake, Bailey proceeded to produce another study without Pillard’s participation.  This time Bailey joined up with Dunne and Martin for an entirely new study on identical twins.  In March 2000 they published their findings in the “Journal of Personality and Social Psychology” (ref.24). By gaining access to the Australian “Twin Registry” they were able to contact all known identical twins in Australia. This eliminated the previous sample bias. Bailey also explained in the study the meaning of “Probandwise Concordance”. The results from the new study, compared to that of the first study are shown in this table (from REF.5 – page 76):

	Bailey & Pillard Males	Bailey etc Australian Males	Bailey & Pillard Females	Bailey Australian Females
Identical Twins	“29/56” 52% PC	3 of 27 20% PC	“34/71” 48% PC	3 of 22 24% PC
Fraternal Twins	“12/54” 22% PC	0 of 16 0% PC	“6/37” 16% PC	1 of 18 10% PC
Non-Twin Siblings	“13/142” 9% PC	Not reported	“10/73” 14% PC	Not reported
Adopted Siblings	“6/57” 11% PC	Not reported	“2/35” 6% PC	Not reported

Notice the very different findings in the (non-biased) study on Australian twins.  Among the males, Bailey et al now found that out of 27 male pairs of identical twins, with at least one homosexual male, only 3 had a twin brother who was also homosexual. In other words: only 3 out of a total of 27 (or 11.1%) homosexual men had his twin brother also homosexual. Therefore only 11% (=3/27) concordance. The 20% “Probandwise Concordance” reported for the study on Australian males in the table comes from Bailey, Dunne and Martin’s new method of counting every concordant pair twice in both numerator and denominator. Thus we get 3+3=6 in the numerator and 27+3=30 in the denominator (6/30=20% shown as PC in the table.  But for comparison purpose with the previous study we must compare the 29 of 56 (52%) in the study by Bailey-Pillard with the 3 of 27 (11%) in the Bailey-Dunne-Martin study.

But in the final analysis we want to compare the 11% concordance in the Bailey-Dunne-Martin with the frequency of homosexuality among the population at large.  The 11% concordance no longer suggest a genetic influence.  Even though the 11% is higher than the frequency of male homosexuality among the population at large, we must consider that identical twins typically have a very similar upbringing and environment .  The 11% (as opposed to 2%-4%) could very easily account for that.  If anything this result by Bailey-Dunne-Martin suggests that there is no discernable genetic link at all.  Notwithstanding this new result, the spin and politicizing of this issue in the media have not ended. After all, we are talking about “gay gene science” (funny science) and in today’s society, the idea of “political correctness” takes precedent over scientific facts. 

The Bailey-Dunne-Martin study did not hesitate to expose the prior fake study by Bailey and his homosexual former colleague Pillard.  In the conclusions of their findings they state: “This suggests that concordances from prior studies were inflated due to concordance dependant ascertainment bias” (that is sample bias).  They further stated: “This study did not provide statistically significant support for the importance of genetic factors for homosexual orientation.”

So, in summary, this study by Bailey, Dunne and Martin (without a sample bias) not only disproves the previous study by Bailey and Pillard, but it is also strong evidence that homosexuality is not a result of genetic coding.

This does not of course exclude the possibility (maybe even probability) that other genes may contribute to the development of pre-homosexuality in childhood.  For example, boys born with a very sensitive temperament may suffer more than most boys from rejection by an irresponsible father, which in turn make them more vulnerable to gender confusion and even Gender Identity Disorder (GID) as discussed previously.  An analogy is that a boy born with genes making him very tall, stands a greater chance of becoming a good basketball player.  But not without first deciding to play basketball.

Back to Table of Contents

5. Yet another fake study (Hamer, Hu, Magnusson, Hu and Pattatucci)
Actually before the Bailey-Dunne-Martin study of 2000 debunked the prior work by Kallman and Bailey-Pillard, another fake study had been conducted.  Whereas the Bailey-Pillard and Bailey-Dunne-Martin studies on identical twins were in the area of “indirect genetic research” a study in 1993 was in the area of “direct genetic research”.  That year Hamer, Hu, Magnusson, Hu and Pattatucci published in the journal Science the results of a direct genetic study titled “A Linkage Between DNA markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation”(REF.1; pages 110-113 and REF.5; pages 79-83). This study was immediately heralded in the media as the “discovery of the gay gene” and many concluded that science had now “proven” that homosexuality was hereditary. Remember that this was in 1993, seven years before the Bailey et al study on the Australian twins concluded that there is no gay gene to be found.

As it later turned out, the Hamer et al study was another fake and two years later the same journal Science reported that Hamer was under investigation by the “Office of Research Integrity” at the Department of Health and Human Services for having “selectively reported his data” (REF.1 page 113).  However, there was no fanfare in the public media when that was reported.  So many people still today are under the impression that the “gay gene” has been found and that homosexuality is therefore hereditary. Since this lie is so widespread let’s look a little closer at the work by Hamer et al.

Hamer and his team had recruited a group of 76 homosexual men from an AIDS treatment program. They all claimed to have at least one homosexual brother and a strong pattern of homosexual orientation among their maternal uncles but not among their paternal uncles. Hamer’s team hypothesized that this ought to be reflected on some gene on the X chromosome.  As you probably know a man gets his X chromosome from one of his mother’s two X chromosomes, and his Y chromosome from his father. Since the mothers were not homosexuals it was speculated that it was only one of her two X chromosomes that carried the gay gene. So, in a general population, about half of the male children would end up with the X chromosome carrying the gay gene and half would not. But in the sample of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers, not only half of them (i.e. 20) but a full 33 of them had an X chromosome that had a variation on the q28 gene that was atypical of the normal banding pattern. Since this number (33) was well over the predicted (random) 50% they assumed that this particular gene carried the male homosexual orientation. However, there were still 7 pairs of homosexual men without this “marking” on the gene.

If this finding were true and honest, and thus could be reproduced in subsequent studies, the conclusion that could be drawn would still be limited to this: This particular chromosomal pattern is neither necessary, nor sufficient to cause homosexuality. It is not necessary since 7 of the 40 homosexual pairs did not have this pattern. And it was not sufficient because a subsequent study by the Hamer team (including non-homosexual brothers with the same background) showed that some of these heterosexual brothers had the same gene marking on q28. Such a gene marking and link is hardly an acceptable definition of a “gay gene”. But (and again only if the research were honest) it could be argued that there may be some other characteristic associated with this particular gene marking that links to another family characteristic that predisposes the individual to be more vulnerable to becoming a homosexual. For example, an individual with that particular gene marking may have a genetic predisposition toward novelty-seeking behavior or whatever. Who knows what it could be?

As would soon become evident, the study by Hamer et al was yet another example of fraudulent play with number.  Soon after Hamer’s et al publication in Science the same publication published a rebuttal by researchers from Yale Columbia and Louisiana State Universities.  They wrote among other things [REF.1 pages 111-112]:

”The study’s results are not consistent with any genetic model.  ….Neither of these differences [between homosexuality in maternal versus paternal uncles or cousins] is statistically significant. …..Small sample sizes make these data compatible with a range of possible genetic and environmental hypotheses….”

A tenant of all science is that if a test can not be repeated (reproduced) it does not meet the criterion for a ”finding” or “discovery”.  And other researchers have attempted, without success, to reproduce the study by Hamer et al. A major study in 1999 involved a sample of 52 gay sibling pairs. The team (Rice, Anderson, Risch and Ebers) looked at four separate chromosomal markers in the same genetic region but found no relationship of homosexual orientation. In the journal Science (284, April 1999) on page 666 they state: “It is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Hamer’s original study. Because our study was larger than that of Hamer et al., we certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic defect as large as was reported in that study. Nonetheless, our data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation at position Xq28”. The expression “Xq28” denotes gene position q28 on the X chromosome. The research team had spent a lot of time and effort and were puzzled why their results were “so discrepant from Hamer’s study”. Well, as stated above, the “Office of Research Integrity” - a branch of the Health and Human Services Department – subsequently investigated Hamer for having “selectively reported his data”.  Yet another example of intellectual dishonesty !  All to further the homosexual agenda as recommended earlier (1991) by Kirk and Madsen (see Myth 1 introduction)

Then, about a year later (in March 2000) came the Bailey-Dunne-Martin study on identical twins in Australia (see above) that permanently debunked any hypotheses and theories about the possibility of a “gay gene” and seems to have conclusively ended further scientific controversy on this matter. This is not to say that the spin and politicizing of this issue in the media have ended. After all, we are here talking about “gay gene science” (funny science) and in today’s society, the idea of “political correctness” takes precedent over scientific facts. Since the fraudulent Hamer’s report is still so widely propagated in the media as the truth and that a genetic link to homosexuality has been established, I have taken a closer look at Hamer’s research.  You’ll find it in this link (No.5; "Critique of Hamer's research").  If you have the time and effort to dig into the analysis you’ll discover what “funny research” we are talking about.

Back to Table of Contents

6.  Bearman-Bruckner (2001)
About a year after the Bailey-Dunne-Martin study had already exposed the fake Bailey-Pillard study, there was another research group reaching the same conclusion.  A research team led by Bearman from Columbia University and Bruckner from Yale University studied no less than 5,552 sibling pairs.  In their study ”Opposite-Sex Twins and Adolescent Same-Sex Attraction”, published in October 2001, they examined different theories and factors about what causes homosexuality (social, hormonal, genetic and evolutionary factors).  They interviewed both monozygotic and dizygotic twins, full siblings, half siblings and siblings without any bloodline connection.  They also looked at both same-sex and opposite-sex dizygotic twins.  Their result is virtually conclusive evidence that there is no genetic influence in the development of homosexuality.  For monozygotic (identical) twins among men the PC (Probandwise Concordance) number was 7.7 %, which is completely in line with the 11% PC in the Bailey-Dunne-Martin study and a far cry from the 52% in the fake 1991 study by Bailey and Pillard.  Whether the number is 11% or 7% it is equally strong evidence that there is no discernable genetic factor at work.

And Bearman and Bruckner (similar to Bailey-Dunne-Martin in their report) wrote as follows about the Bailey-Pillard report:
“Substantially higher concordance for homosexual orientation has been reported in previous research.  We believe that previous work is largely incorrect as a result of reliance on non-representative samples from, for example, readers of gay publications, and reliance on indirect evidence.”  Isn’t that a polite way of debunking the Bailey-Pillard study? For additional information on the Bearman-Bruckner report see ref.25.

But amazingly, despite the numerous debunking of the Bailey-Pillard study, the homolobby continues to refer to it.  And the mainstream media does not have a clue.

Back to Table of Contents

7.  Simon LeVay (1991)

Background
The same year that the fake Bailey-Pillard study was published, a study by Simon LeVay also received great publicity (Simon LeVay, A Difference in the Hypothalamic Structure between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men, Science 253 [1991]; 1034-37). For a summary of the study by Simon LeVay see ref.26 . For a discussion of his report see REF.5; pages 67-70.

LeVay is yet another homosexual researcher. He was a neurobiologist at Salk Institute in California when he first published the findings of his research. His findings in 1991 catapulted him overnight into great fame. LeVay seems to be a very sympathetic and well-qualified scientist although some other researchers have questioned his credentials. For example Joan Rougharden, professor at Stanford University writes:
“LeVay is a minor academic who never achieved tenure anywhere, and whose past research has not proven repeatable. Nevertheless he has name recognition in academic circles as a writer of trade popularizations of queer science. LeVay has leveraged this dubiously gained visibility into status as a serious pundit on gay matters within academe”. Rougharden also opposed LeVay’s invitation of representatives from NAMBLA (North-American Man Boy Love Association; the main organization that promotes pedophilia in the US) to come and speak at Stanford University.

LeVay himself, was initially very cautious about the conclusions that should be drawn from his research. Others however – especially the politically correct mass media – heralded his finding as proof that the link had now been established between homosexuality and the genetic or hormonal makeup at birth. We recall what Scott Hersherger stated at a research symposium (see above):
"Public opinion polls, plus empirical research, always tell us that there is a positive correlation between people's beliefs in the immutability of a trait and their acceptance of that trait. So, the more a person believes homosexuality or sexual orientation is biological, the more positively he or she will feel about it."


Built-in Bias ?
Subsequent to his report and fame in 1991, LeVay seems to have become less humble about the significance of his findings. He moved from being a modest and thoughtful researcher into becoming something of a homosexual activist. In 1992 he ended his research at Salk and founded the West Hollywood Institute of Gay & Lesbian Education.

LeVay has also given the personal and emotional reasons why he started the study in the first place. In an interview it reads:

" ‘I've known I was gay since I was about 13,’ he says, his tanned face breaking into a grin. ‘As a gay man, I had the motivation to do this work. If I didn't, nobody else was in a hurry to do it. And as a scientist, I knew it was research I was qualified to do……… What ultimately changed the direction of his research, though, was a deeply personal crisis. In 1990 LeVay's partner, Richard, an emergency room physician, died after a four-year struggle with AIDS. ’Richard and I had spent 21 years together,’ he recalls, his voice still catching at the memory. ’It was while looking after him that I decided I wanted to do something different with my life. You realize life is short, and you have to think about what is important to you and what isn't. I had an emotional need to do something more personal, something connected with my gay identity’ “

And in an interview with Newsweek LeVay stated that, after the death of his lover, he was determined to find a genetic cause for homosexuality or he would abandon science altogether. Furthermore, he admitted, he hoped to educate society about homosexuality, affecting legal and religious attitudes towards it. This in itself is not proof of any intentional dishonesty. But his research can hardly be said to have been unbiased. But a question persists: did he leave his position as scientist at the Salk institute because he could not “find a genetic cause for homosexuality”.

In yet another interview he refers to the now infamous and fake studies by Bailey-Pillard and Hamer et al (see chapters 6 and 8 above). This is how it reads in the Discover March ’94 issue (title: “Sex and the Brain) [underlining my emphasis]:

“In fact, LeVay has long suspected that homosexuality runs in families and has an inherited component--a suspicion reinforced by recent twin studies by psychologist Michael Bailey of Northwestern University and psychiatrist Richard Pillard of Boston University. The studies show that identical twins--who share the same genes--are about twice as likely to both be gay or lesbian as are fraternal twins, who share only half their genes. They are also five times more likely to both be gay than are adopted brothers who share an upbringing but no genes. ‘That clearly suggests that genetics account for a substantial fraction of the total causation," says LeVay. As anecdotal evidence, he shows off a family snapshot of himself and his four brothers: "Two and a half of us are gay," he says. (One brother is bisexual.) "You know, my father has never been comfortable that I'm gay. He doesn't approve. Since all the kids from his second marriage are straight, he insists it's all inherited from our mother's side of the family."

The interview continues:
“LeVay's disapproving father may yet be vindicated. Last July, LeVay points out, Dean Hamer's team at the National Institutes of Health located a region on the X chromosome of gay brothers that may turn out to carry a gay gene or genes; the X chromosome is, after all, always the mother's genetic contribution to her sons. Just how a gene in this area might make someone gay remains anyone's guess: maybe it influences how sex- related structures are formed in the hypothalamus. When it comes to sexual attraction and behavior, LeVay suspects, humans are largely shaped in utero. ‘Something different is happening when the gay brain organizes itself in fetal life,’ he says. ‘If I put my money anywhere, it's on the interaction of sex hormones and the brain. There may be genetic differences in how the fetus's brain cell receptors respond to sex hormones such as testosterone.’ "

It’s always unpleasant to call into question a homosexual researcher’s honesty and integrity but as we have already seen before (e.g. the work by Bailey-Pillard, Kallman, Hamer et al) it is necessary. Especially now in the case of LeVay having become somewhat of an activist. The first criterion for a new scientific finding or discovery is that it can be reproduced (repeated). Under the headline “Gay Genes Revisited” the prestigious Scientific American Magazine stated in the November 1995 issue (page 26) [underlining my emphasis]:
“In recent years, two studies published in Science seemed to provide dramatic evidence that male homosexuality has biological underpinnings. In 1991 Simon LeVay, then at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego, reported finding subtle but significant differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men. Two years later a group led by Dean H. Hamer of the National Cancer Institute linked male homosexuality to a gene on the X chromosome, which is inherited exclusively from the mother.
Both announcements made headlines worldwide. LeVay and Hamer appeared on talk shows and wrote books. They also co-authored an article published in this magazine in May 1994. But LeVay's finding has yet to be fully replicated by another researcher. As for Hamer, one study has contradicted his results. More disturbingly, he has been charged with research improprieties and is now under investigation by the Federal Office of Research Integrity.”


Review of the Study
Nevertheless, the homosexual community and mainstream mass media continue to quote from LeVay’s research. So, let’s therefore take a look at it:

LeVay’s research and hypotheses can be considered to be within the area of "Adult Hormonal Hypothesis" (or possibly Prenatal Hormonal Hypotheses) which – as stated above – is one of three branches of “Biological Hypotheses” as opposed to “Environmental Hypotheses”. [The other two branches of Biological Hypotheses are Genetic Hypotheses (direct and indirect) and Prenatal Hormonal Hypotheses (see Chapter 8 below)].

LeVay, studied an area of the hypothalamus in the brain called Interstitial Nucleus of the Anterior Hypothalamus or INAH for short. There are four such areas (INAH1-4). He stated that in his research he had found that INAH3 was smaller among homosexual men and among women than among heterosexual men. He examined the brains of 35 deceased men and 6 women. He classified as homosexuals 19 of the men since a physician had made such a note on the chart of the deceased. He also classified the other 16 men as heterosexual because they lacked such a note on their charts even though 6 of the 16 had died of AIDS just like all the 19 with a note on their charts. So his classification of his sample right away raises some questions.

But let’s nevertheless assume that Simon LeVay’s findings (about the average smaller size of INAH3 in the brain of deceased homosexual men) were true. What conclusions can be drawn from that finding? There is of course a big difference between findings and conclusions.


Conclusions from study
The conclusions preferred by the homolobby – and readily accepted by a gullible and politically correct media – is twofold. First of all that the sexual orientation of a person is indeed related to the size of INAH3 and, secondly, that the difference in size existed already at birth and not only among deceased homosexual men. Right there we are dealing with hypothetical assumptions not yet proven. There are three serious questions about these hypothetical conclusions, the first of which outright contradicts the hypothetical conclusions.

1. The hypothesis runs contrary to findings by both Bailey-Dunne-Martin (see chapter 4 above) and Bearman-Bruckner (see chapter 6 above). Consider that the Bailey-Dunne-Martin study was conducted exclusively on a large number of monozygotic (i.e. identical) twin. Such twins, if anybody, should share very similar characteristic whether genetic or hormonal during pregnancy. Yet, the research teams – both of them rebutting the by now infamous Bailey –Pillard study - concluded that there was no statistically significance correlation to homosexuality among identical twins.

2. We know that the human brain undergoes significant changes between birth and death. For example, in a study from NIH (National Institute of Health) it was found that for people who started reading Braille after becoming blind, the part of the brain involved in controlling the “reading finger” grew. Similarly, it’s well known that those boys with Gender Identity Disorder (GID; see above) and who play mainly with girls, often develop a feminine voice as well as other feminine traits. In other words: To some extent brain development is impacted by how you behave and the identity you associate with while growing up.

3. The difference in the size of INAH3 could be related to something that may increase the possibility (propensity) of becoming homosexual without actually predestining the outcome. For example, boys may be born with genes that tend to make them either slender or muscular. And a father may relate better to a son who is muscular and therefore good in popular sports (ice-hockey, football etc.) that he himself likes, than to a boy who is slender and therefore good in, for example ballet or figure-skating. It’s like someone being born with genes that will make him tall. Such a boy has a greater possibility of success in basketball than a short boy. But the tall boy can not be good in basketball until he touches a basketball. Likewise, a boy may become more predisposed to homosexuality due to the environment in which he grows up (absent male role model, recruitment by RFSL etc.).

(It’s well known that within male professional figure skating, the number of homosexuals far exceeds their proportion in the general population. Some have estimated it around 50% of all male figure skaters. Therefore when AIDS first broke out, there was a devastating reduction in male figure skaters.
So, this is what a good father does if his son shows talents and interest in this area: He himself, not the son’s mother, takes his son to figure skating practices and is there to root for him in competitions. And lets him be together with other boys so that he becomes “one of the boys”. The boy is then likely to bond to his father, which in turn will virtually “homoproof” his son while growing up.)

Additionally it must be noted that even if the averages of the INAH3 in homosexual and heterosexual men were different, among the results there were instances where the INAH3 in homosexual men where actually bigger (not smaller) than the average size of heterosexual men. In one of the examples the INAH3 from a homosexual male was larger than all but one of those from the 16 "heterosexual males" in the study. That runs contrary to LeVay’s hypothesis.

In scientific wording this is expressed in the March 1994 issue of Discover as follows [underlining my emphasis]:
“Anne Fausto-Sterling, a developmental geneticist at Brown University and one of LeVay's chief academic critics, was among those who questioned the way he interpreted his data. "He claimed a wide variation in the size of these brain nuclei in gay and straight men," she says, "but there was still a broad overlap between straight and gay. What he actually found was a distributional difference, with a few larger-than-average nuclei at one end, a few smaller-than-average nuclei at the other, and the vast majority falling in between. Even if we could say most people at one extreme were straight, and most at the other extreme were gay, that tells us little about the majority in the middle where the ranges overlap. If LeVay picked a nucleus size in the middle, he couldn't tell if it was heterosexual or homosexual."

Selected synopses of critiques of LeVay’s study can also be found in ref. 26 following LeVay’s summary of his findings.

The deliberate misinterpretation by mass-media of LeVay’s research is yet another example of how the promotion of homosexuality renounces any demand for objectivity and honesty. They are looking for a needle in an ocean but will never find it. I strongly recommend chapter 4 in REF.1 by Jeffrey Satinover (“Finding a Needle in the Ocean”).

Back to Table of Contents

8.  Prenatal Hormonal Hypotheses
Can the environment of the fetus in the mother’s womb influence the unborn baby in such a way that – although “heterosexual” at conception – the baby becomes affected during the pregnancy in such a way that at birth the baby is predestined for homosexuality? There has been a lot of speculation in this area. The literature is full of instances where alleged findings by some researchers could not be confirmed or replicated by other researchers.  Sometimes the finding can be neither verified nor refuted since the conditions in the original research cannot be reproduced.

For example, in a study by Dorner (REF.5; page 66) about post-war Germany, it was found that there were somewhat more male homosexuals than expected. It was suggested that this might have been due to unusual “hormonal fluctuations” in their mothers’ womb due to the horrific circumstances during the end of WWII. But such a phenomenon might just as easily have been caused by the fact that after the war so many boys grew up without a father in their lives and therefore suffered from gender identity deficiency (a psychological/environmental manifestation). Notice the mere speculation in such studies !  There is no reason why stress in the mother’s womb would cause homosexuality.  It like saying that if German boys in postwar Germany played more and better basketball than before, the stress in their mother’s womb caused better basketball ability in the offspring.

Sometimes it’s outright comical.  Another study in the area of "prenatal hormonal hypothesis" was recently published by Anthony Bogaert from Brock University in Canada.  He suggested that one of seven homosexual men (statistically speaking) had become homosexual because the mother had previously had other boys.  And for each older biological brother the probability for homosexuality for the younger boy is supposedly increased by one third.  The result for the group with “older biological brothers” had a statistical “beta-value” with a lower limit of a puny 0.03 (if the value had been zero or negative there would have been no statistical significance whatsoever).  However, it’s remarkable how the study was trumpeted and written up by mainstream media.  In a letter of support by homo sympathizers they cited the study as support that ”about one million Americans either are homosexuals today or will grow up to become homosexuals because their mother had boys before they themselves were born.  At the same time nothing is said about the fact that a father with older sons may have a greater tendency to forget about developing his youngest son’s sexual identity.  Of course it’s harder for a father with many children.  

Besides, I recently read a review of Bogaert’ s new study in Los Angeles Times including the following statement: “Identical twins share the same DNA and if one of the twins is homosexual the other twin is also homosexual in 52 percent of all cases according to a study from 1991.  Among non-identical twins the frequency drops to 22 percent and for other brothers to 9 percent”.  These numbers are of course from the Bailey-Pillard study of 1991 (see item 3 above), a study that has been so thoroughly debunked by subsequent studies (see items 4 and 6 above).  I just cannot believe that such misinformation in mainstream mass media is not intentional.  It’s a deliberate act to disregard the facts in order to be politically correct. 

Back to Table of Contents

9. Trend in Recent Homosexual ”Research”
Since some years back, much of the so-called ”research” about homosexuality has been focused on the area of whether homosexual or heterosexual parents are to be preferred in the area of adoption of orphaned children.  What’s really the best alternative for the children? So much of this research is driven by the political agenda of the homolobby to be declared equally suitable as parents.  Involved in the inquiry is of course the fact that there is a higher frequency of pedophilia among homosexual men (see Myth 1 item 4 above). 

REF.2 – pages 95-120 (Do homosexual parents pose risks to children?) contains an extensive discussion and exposure of the pro-homosexual parenting agenda.

REF.6 - No Basis: What the studies Don't tell us about same-sex parenting" is a systematic (report by report) analysis and rebuttal of 49 different research reports and their shortcomings.  The authors of this book are Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai, both with a Ph.D. from University of Chicago.  For all 49 reports they revealed shortcomings in one or many of these areas:

1. Unclear hypotheses and research designs
2. Missing or inadequate comparison groups
3. Self-constructed, unreliable and invalid measurements
4. Non-random samples, including participants who recruit other participants
5. Samples too small to yield meaningful results
6. Missing or inadequate statistical analysis

The main problem with studies of this kind is that homosexual parenting is a new phenomenon.  Thus adequate sample sizes are not available.  And the time span of parenting by homosexual parents is still very short, so no reliable statistics is yet available.

But more important than the studies themselves is how the ”findings” are presented in mass media. Because the presentation in mass media is what governs public opinion.  So often the writer of an article in a paper - or the reporter doing an interview with an “expert” - imposes his own opinion through the tone in his article or his selection of people to interview.  Through carefully selected quotations and the way the contents in a research report is presented the ”objective” reporter greatly contributes to the formation of public opinion in this – for the little children – so extremely important area.

Lerner and Nagai (the authors of the book) surveyed newspaper articles about homosexual parenting between the years 1979 and 1999.  They found that a great majority of the articles generalized by contending that all scientific studies conducted so far demonstrate that children reared by homosexual parents are no different than children with heterosexual parents.  And it’s often stated without reference to a particular report.  The positive bias/spin that these flawed reports receive in the media has greatly reduced public opposition to homosexual parenting of orphaned children.  The enormous tragedy for these children - oftentimes already emotionally scarred – cannot be overstated. 

Back to Table of Contents