Definitions and Causes
of Same-Sex Attractions

Over the past twelve years, I have been counseling men, women, and adolescents who have desired to come out of homosexuality. For those who wish to make this transition from homosexual to heterosexual, I am certain that it is possible. My personal journey and the experience of the many men and women whom I have had the privilege to assist support this claim.

I would like to share with you what I have discovered over the past thirty years of personal and professional investigation. These insights come from my own course of healing and have been substantiated through the findings and observations of other therapists and former homosexuals. For me, these discoveries meant life or death. I determined to find answers because I knew that God did not create me this way.

Before I begin, I would like to make it quite clear that this is not a blame game. It is naming what occurred for the purpose of healing and restoration. We must uncover what is unseen so that we can become the masters of our own ships. Blaming never healed or restored anyone. It is equally important to place responsibility for others’ actions squarely upon them so that we do not carry their burden, i.e., “It’s all my fault.”

“Homosexuality is not about sex. Rather, it is ultimately about rejection of and detachment from self, from others, and one’s own gender identity,” says Slade, a client of mine. I will use the terms, homosexuality and same-sex attractions inter-changeably. If one experiences sexual attractions for the same gender, I define him as homosexually oriented. The “gay” man or woman is one who has accepted homosexual desires and reports feeling comfortable with those feelings. The “nongay” homosexual person is one who does not accept those desires and seeks to change. A bisexual is one who experiences attractions to both genders. He may choose to accept those desires or seek to change.

Over the past decade, there has been much talk about the biologic and genetic predispositions to homosexuality. This concept was posited by three studies. Major newspapers reported that these studies proved homosexuality to be immutable, that people are born homosexual, born “gay.”

In this section, I will list these three studies, give a brief critique of each one, and let other social scientists comment on the reliability of their findings. What becomes abundantly clear is that there is no scientific data to support a genetic or biologic basis for same-sex attractions.

LEVAY STUDY

Simon LeVay, “A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Hetero-sexual and Homosexual Men,” reported in Science magazine in August 1991. LeVay professed to have found a group of neurons in the hypothalamus (called INAH3) that appeared to be twice as big in heterosexual men than in homosexual men. LeVay theorized that this part of the hypothalamus has something to do with sexual behavior. Therefore, he concluded, sexual orientation is somehow biologically determined.

• All 19 homosexual subjects died of AIDS, and we know that HIV/AIDS may affect the brain, causing chemical changes. Therefore, rather than looking at the cause of homosexuality, we may be observing the effects of HIV/AIDS.

• LeVay did not verify the sexual orientation of his control group. “Two of these subjects (both AIDS patients) had denied homosexual activity. The records of the remaining 14 patients contained no information about their sexual orientation; they are assumed to have been mostly or all heterosexual.”2 It is poor science to “assume” anything about your subjects.

• Three of the 19 homosexual subjects had a larger group of neurons in the hypothalamus than the average heterosexual subject. Three of the 16 heterosexual subjects had a smaller group of neurons in the hypothalamus than the average homosexual subject. That means 6 out of 35 male subjects disproved his hypothesis. These results, then, are not statistically significant or reliable.

• There is no proof that this group of neurons affects sexuality. Dr. Charles Socarides, professor of psychiatry at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City, said, “The question of a minute section of the brain—submicroscopic almost—as deciding sexual object choice is really preposterous. A cluster of the brain cannot determine sexual object choice.”3

• LeVay himself stated, “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. ...Since I look at adult brains, we don’t know if the differences I found were there at birth or if they appeared later.”4

BAILEY AND PILLARD STUDY

John M. Bailey and Richard Pillard, “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation,” reported in the Archives of General Psychiatry, December 1991. They studied the prevalence of homosexuality among twins and adopted brothers where at least one brother was homosexual. They found that 52 percent (29 pairs out of 56) of the identical twins were both homosexual; 22 percent (12 pairs out of 54) of the fraternal twins were both homosexual; and 11 percent (6 of 57) of the adoptive brothers were both homosexual. They also found 9 percent (13 of 142) of the nontwin biological siblings were both homosexual. The authors therefore concluded that there is a genetic cause to homosexuality.

• The biggest flaw is the interpretation of the researchers. Since about 50 percent of the identical twins were not homosexual, we can easily conclude that genetics does not play a major part in their sexual orientation. If it had, then 100 percent of the twins should be

homosexual since identical twins have the same genetic makeup. We might just as easily interpret the findings to mean that environmental influences caused their homosexuality. Biologist Anne Fausto-Stirling of Brown University stated, “In order for such a study to be at all meaningful, you’d have to look at twins raised apart. It’s such badly interpreted genetics.”5

• This was not a random sample, but a biased sample, as the twins who volunteered were solicited through advertisements in homosexual newspapers and magazines as opposed to general periodicals. Therefore, the subjects were more likely to resemble each other than non-homosexual twins.

• Dr. Simon LeVay stated, “In fact, the twin studies . . . suggest that it’s not totally inborn [homosexuality], because even identical twins are not always of the same sexual orientation.”6

• Dr. Bailey himself stated, “There must be something in the environment to yield the discordant twins.”7

• The researchers failed to investigate the roles that incest or sexual abuse and other environmental factors play in determining same-sex attractions. If they had found that incest was more common among identical twins than fraternal twins or nontwin blood brothers, this could have helped explain the varying rates of homosexuality.

HAMER STUDY

Dean Hamer et al., of the National Cancer Institute, “A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation,” reported in Science magazine, July 1993. The media reported that the “gay gene” was discovered as a result of this study. The researchers studied 40 pairs of homosexual brothers and suggested that some cases of homosexuality are linked to a specific region on the X chromosome (Xq28) inherited from the mother by her homosexual son. Thirty-three pairs of brothers shared the same pattern variation in the tip of one arm of the chromosome. Hamer estimated that the sequence of the given genetic markers on Xq28 is linked to homosexuality in 64 percent of the brothers.

• Dr. Kenneth Klivington, assistant to the president of the Salk Institute in San Diego, states, “There is a body of evidence that shows the brain’s neural networks reconfigure themselves in response to certain experience. Therefore, the difference in homosexual brain structure may be a result of behavior and environmental conditions.”8

• There was no control group. This is poor scientific methodology. Hamer and associates failed to test the heterosexual brothers. What if the heterosexual brothers had the same genetic markers?

• It has not been proven that the identified section of the chromosomes has a direct bearing on sexuality or sexual orientation.

• One of Hamer’s fellow research assistants brought him up on charges, saying that he withheld some of the findings that invalidated his study. The National Cancer Institute is investigating Hamer.9 (To date, they have not released the results of this investigation.)

• A Canadian research team using a similar experimental design was unable to duplicate the findings of Hamer’s study.10

• Hamer himself emphasizes, “These genes do not cause people to become homosexuals . . . the biology of personality is much more complicated than that.”11

COMMENTS ON THESE STUDIES BY OTHER SCIENTISTS

“Evan S. Balaban, a neurobiologist at the Neurosciences Institute in San Diego, notes that the search for the biological underpinnings of complex human traits has a sorry history of late. In recent years, researchers and the media have proclaimed the ‘discovery’ of genes linked to alcoholism and mental illness as well as to homosexuality. None of the claims, Balaban points out, have been confirmed.”12 —Scientific American, November 1995

“Recent studies postulate biologic factors as the primary basis for sexual orientation. However, there is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory, just as there is no compelling evidence to support any singular psychological explanation. While all behavior must have an ultimate biologic substrate, the appeal of current biologic explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data. Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking. In an alternative model, temperamental and personality traits interact with the familial and social milieu as the individual’s sexuality emerges.”13 —Archives of General Psychiatry, March 1993

“Reports of morphological differences between the brains of humans with different sexual orientation or gender identity have furthered speculation that such behaviors may result from hormonal or genetic influences on the developing brain. However, the causal chain may be reversed; sexual behavior in adulthood may have caused the morphological differences. . . . It is possible that differences in sexual behavior cause, rather than are caused by, differences

in brain structure.”14 —Nature, October 1997

“Upon critical analysis of hormonal theories of homosexuality and transsexualism, there are no robust data to support the role of hormones in the development of these behaviors or identities among humans.”15 —Journal of Neuropsychiatry, Spring 1993

“The myth of the all-powerful gene is based on flawed science that discounts the environmental context in which we and our genes exist. . . . Many modern researchers continue to believe that sexual preference is to some extent biologically determined. They base this belief on the fact that no single environmental explanation can account for the development of homosexuality. But this does not make sense. Human sexuality is complex and affected by many things. The failure to come up with a clear environmental explanation

is not surprising, and does not mean that the answer lies in biology. Such studies are bound to come up with plenty of meaningless correlations which will get reported as further evidence of genetic transmission of homosexuality.”16 —Exploding the Gene Myth, 1993

“In the early ’90s, three highly publicized studies seemed to suggest that homosexuality’s roots were genetic, traceable to nature rather than nurture. . . . More than five years later the data have never been replicated. Moreover, researchers say, the public has misunderstood

‘behavioral genetics.’ Unlike eye color, behavior is not strictly inherited; it needs to be brought into play by a daunting complexity of environmental factors. . . . The existence of a genetic pattern among homosexuals doesn’t mean people are born gay, any more than the genes or height, presumably common in NBA players, indicate an inborn ability to play basketball . . . admits biologist Evan Balaban, ‘I think we’re as much in the dark as we ever were.’”17 —Newsweek, August 17, 1998

“ . . . Sexual orientation is not under the direct governance of chromosomes and genes, and that, whereas it is not foreordained by prenatal brain hormonalization it is influenced thereby, and is also strongly dependent on postnatal socialization.”18

—American Psychologist, April 1987

“Like all complex behavioral and mental states, homosexuality is multifactorial. It is neither exclusively biological nor exclusively psychological, but results from an as-yet-difficult-to-quantitate mixture of genetic factors, intrauterine influences (some innate to the mother and thus present in every pregnancy, and others incidental to a given pregnancy), postnatal environment (such as parental, sib-ling, and cultural behavior), and a complex series of repeatedly reinforced choices occurring at critical phases in development.”19

—Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, 1996

CONCLUSIONS

Repeated sexual behavior and environmental conditions change brain structure and body chemistry, which means the genetic/biological characteristics observed in these studies may be the result of homosexual behavior rather than the cause of it.

All of these studies lack consistency and replication. Their results are inconclusive and speculative at best. Simon LeVay, Richard Pillard, and Dean Hamer are all self-proclaimed homosexual men. Therefore, I suggest that behind their work is a strong motivation to justify their same-sex attractions.

If homosexuality is a normal sexual orientation, why is only 1 to 3 percent of the population homosexual and not 50 percent? Why are there more homosexual males than homosexual females?

Masters and Johnson, leading sex researchers in America, state, “The genetic theory of homosexuality has been generally discarded today.... No serious scientist suggests that a simple cause-effect relationship applies.”20

There is a preponderance of scientific evidence conducted over the past eighty years that shows homosexuality to be an acquired condition. Dr. Irving Bieber, Dr. Charles Socarides, Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, Dr. Elizabeth Moberly, Dr. Lawrence Hatterer, Dr. Robert Kronemeyer, Dr. E. Kaplan, Dr. Edith Fiore, Dr. Gerard van den Aardweg, Dr. Earl Wilson, Dr. Jeffrey Satinover—these are but a few of the psychiatrists and psychologists who have

substantiated these findings through years of clinical research and empirical studies.

The best evidence to disprove a theory is experience. Thousands of men and women throughout the world have changed from homosexual to heterosexual. Masters and Johnson claim about a 65 percent success rate in helping people change. Other therapists who report successful treatment are Drs. Bieber, Socarides, Nicolosi, Hatterer, Gershman, Hadden,

Hamilton, van den Aardweg, Barnhouse, Ellis, and many others.21 The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) conducted a survey of 860 respondents and found that those who want to change their sexual orientation may succeed.22

Since same-sex attractions are not inherently caused by biologic or genetic factors, they are therefore developmentally determined. First, I will give an overview of the basic motivations behind same-sex attractions. Then, I will define ten basic factors that contribute to the development of a homosexual orientation.

HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SYMPTOM

Homosexual feelings, thoughts, and desires are symptoms of underlying issues. They represent a defensive response to conflicts in the present, a way to medicate pain and discomfort. They represent unresolved childhood trauma, archaic emotions, frozen feelings, wounds that never healed. They also represent a reparative drive to fulfill unmet homo-emotional love needs of the past—an unconscious drive for bonding with the same-sex parent. Dr. Elizabeth Moberly 23 coined and Dr. Joseph Nicolosi 24 further developed the term homo-emotional love need.

A homo-emotional love need is an unconscious drive for bonding between a son and his father, or between a daughter and her mother. This is a hidden and profound wound in the soul of anyone who experiences same-sex attractions. If questioned, the active homosexual would not say he is looking for his father’s love in the arms of another man. This is often a hidden, unconscious drive buried deep in the psyche. As Dr. Harville Hendrix states, “Each of us enters adulthood harboring unresolved childhood issues with our parents, whether or not we know it or will admit it. Those needs have to be met, because their satisfaction is equated, in our unconscious minds, with survival. Therefore, their satisfaction becomes the agenda in adult love relationships.”25

HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN EMOTIONALLY BASED CONDITION.

There are three underlying drives to same-sex attractions:

Most case histories demonstrate that homosexual thoughts and feelings originate in preadolescent experiences. Therefore, it is basically a nonsexual condition. “The homosexual love need is essentially a search for parenting.. . .What the homosexual seeks is the fulfillment of these normal attachment needs, which have abnormally been left unmet in the process of growth.”26 That is, a man is looking for his father’s love through another man, and a woman is looking for her mother’s love through another woman. Therefore, the drive is one of reparation, seeking to fulfill unmet love needs of the past. It is a homo-emotional reparative drive.27

However, these deeper emotional love needs can never be fulfilled through sexual relationships. It is tried, tested, and proven that sex never heals nor fulfills the deeper love needs, simply because they are the unmet needs of a child. Only through healthy, healing, nonsexual bonding will true and lasting change occur.28

The homosexual person feels a lack of masculinity or femininity within himself or herself and seeks to fulfill this need through another man or woman.29 This resulted from a distant or disrupted relationship between father and son or mother and daughter in early childhood or adolescence.

Gender identity is an awareness of one’s masculinity or femininity. In homosexual people, there is a feeling of inadequacy and incompleteness in the inner essence of their being.30 Therefore, they search for the missing part of themselves in another person. Through a sexual contact or union with another person of the same sex, they feel, at least momentarily, whole and more complete.

In the case of a homosexual male, there may have been an abnormally close mother-son attachment.31 In a marriage where the husband does not meet the mother’s emotional and physical needs, she may turn to her son for emotional comfort and support.32 This is not done with conscious intent to hurt. Nonetheless, it has a profound and damaging effect upon the psychosexual development of the son. He may overidentify with his mother and femininity and disidentify with his father and masculinity.

Later in puberty, the son may experience sexual attraction toward his mother that leads to extreme guilt and the repression of a normal sexual drive toward women. He might then turn to men for intimacy and sex, not wanting to “betray” his mother or reexperience his guilt. This process may be completely unconscious.33

The father or another significant man is usually the abuser in the case of a homosexual female, followed by female sexual abuse.34 The abuse could have been sexual, emotional, mental, or physical. This leaves her deeply traumatized by men. Not wanting to reexperience the memory of abuse, she then turns to women for comfort, love, and understanding.

HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SAME-SEX ATTACHMENT DISORDER (SSAD).

Homosexuality represents an attachment strain, defensive detachment, or defensive exclusion from the same-sex parent, same-sex peers, one’s own body, and one’s own sense of gender identity. Homosexuality is an attachment disorder, whereby the individual feels separated from parents, self, body, and others. “I don’t fit in,” “I don’t belong,” “I’m different from the rest,” “I’m neither a boy nor girl,” are some of the thoughts of those who experience same-sex attractions. The result is a Same-Sex Attachment Disorder.

Dr. Martha Welch defines four types of attachment in the parent-child relationship:

• Secure Attachment—Parents are available, responsive, empathic, and effective; the child is competent, self-confident, resilient/cheerful, cooperative, and humorous/playful, and tries harder.

• Insecure Resistant Attachment—Parents are sometimes available, less responsive, less empathic, and less close; the child is clingy, rebuffing, tense, volatile, impulsive, passive, and defeatist.

• Insecure Avoidant Attachment—Parents are rebuffing (having been raised by rebuffing parents), avoid closeness, are inconsistent and ambivalent, and reject; the child is hostile/bullying, whiny/needy, compulsively self-sufficient, distant, and demonstrates little give and take.

• Insecure Disorganized Attachment—Crosses boundaries of all three other types of attachment. Mother is depressed, was abused or neglected herself, and is mourning; the child is depressed, anxious, passive-aggressive, inhibited, clingy/tearful, gloomy/joyless, hard to comfort, can’t get out of anger, and will perceive the mother as neglectful because someone else is abusing him even if the mother doesn’t know about the abuse.

All children who suffered the three types of insecure attachment experienced separation anxiety and hyperarousal, and therefore learned to cut off and detach emotionally from self and others.35

I submit that anyone who experiences homosexual thoughts, feelings, and desires has a Same-Sex Attachment Disorder (SSAD). Being homosexually oriented is therefore not gay, nor bad, but SSAD!

There is a constellation of contributing variables that may lead an individual to experience same-sex attractions. The sum is greater than the parts. It is the combination of the following causes that may lead to homosexual ideation in either the male or female. A single factor does not cause a Same-Sex Attachment Disorder. It is the confounding of several variables that will lead an individual to experience same-sex attractions. The ten variables are: 1) Heredity, 2) Temperament, 3) Hetero-Emotional Wounds, 4) Homo-Emotional Wounds, 5) Sibling Wounds/Family Dynamics, 6) Body-Image Wounds, 7) Sexual Abuse, 8) Social or Peer Wounds, 9) Cultural Wounds, and 10) Other Factors. (See the chart: Constellation of Potential Variables Creating Same-Sex Attractions.)

There are also differences between male and female homosexuality. In my years of practice, I have observed that many homosexual females are attracted to men, but the majority of homosexual males have no attraction to women. Many homosexual females have been so hurt by men that they turn to women for their affectional needs. However, their attraction to men may still exist. Therefore, the psychology behind male and female homosexuality is different.

HEREDITY

The school of psychology generally accepts the belief that we are born with a “clean slate,” born pure. Then our parents (caregivers), siblings, and other environmental influences cause us harm. I believe this concept is an over-simplification and that we are not born with a “clean slate.” The school of family systems therapy contributes to the understanding of this concept.

“It is assumed [by intergenerational and transgenerational family systems theory] that relational patterns are learned and passed down across the generations and that current individual and family behavior is a result of these patterns. Thus, accurate assessment of relational patterns, both functional and dysfunctional, not only is the first step in understanding families from an intergenerational perspective, but also is an essential step for proper treatment.”36 “Contemporary perspectives on intergenerational family therapy suggest that difficulties and dysfunctions in relationships across generations are frequently replicated in subsequent intergenerational relationships, thereby adding to the complexity and potential trauma for members of those family systems.”37

I suggest that we are born with two natures. One is our original nature, our God-given authentic self, full of purity, goodness, spirituality, and creativity. We are also born with an inherited nature, consisting of the victories and failures of our ancestors, our people, and our nation. The unpleasant side of this inherited nature may consist of unresolved issues, such as prejudice, addictions, mental disorders, theft, various forms of abuse, hatred of men or women, and sexual problems. It says in the Old Testament, “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children, to the third and fourth generation.”38 Other religions call it karma—what goes around comes around.

What is now being described as genetic predispositioning may also be interpreted as transgenerational “sin” or the multigenerational transmission of unresolved family issues. These manifest themselves within the genetic structure of the lineage. “We are born with splits—from ancestors, in our genes—not all from our parents.”39

Dr. Bernard Nathanson illuminates the power and mystery of the gene. The United States government has sponsored a $5 billion program known as the Human Genome Project. Its purpose is to identify the structure and location of all the genes in our body. Theoretically, by next year, a small sample of blood will be able to determine if someone will get cancer or diabetes, how intelligent he will be, and if he is susceptible to violent crimes or alcoholism, and so on. “Genes are not destiny unaltered and unadulterated. We can have the gene for alcoholism but may never become a drinker, because we can control it. To some extent, you have control of your body. But there is this predilection. The gene gives you the predilection to alcoholism or violent crimes or whatever the behavioral gene happens to be.”40

I therefore believe that we are not born pure. We are born with mental filters or predilections, which may impact how we view and respond to any given situation. Mental filters/predilections are like looking at life through tinted glasses. We see things from a particular perspective, not necessarily how they are. A mental filter may cause us to misinterpret someone’s actions or words. “The concept of filtering or forming a ‘cognitive set’ is closely related to what is called a ‘learning set’ or a ‘cognitive map.’ It is a rule by which a person interprets learning tasks or stimuli from the environment.”41 Bert Hellinger, founder of Systemic Family Therapy in Germany, teaches that we accumulate feelings from family members known and unknown, i.e., grandparents, great-grandparents, divorced mates, and lovers. These feelings and issues are present in the family system and influence all its members.

How this bears on the development of a Same-Sex Attachment Disorder (SSAD) may be unique to each individual depending upon the issues in the family system. At the core of a SSAD condition is a sense of not belonging, not fitting in, and feeling rejected. These feelings and thoughts may already be an inheritable characteristic of the child. Therefore, he is born with a predisposition for rejection. He has a propensity to misinterpret his parents’ and others’ behaviors and words. It is not the event that shapes him, it is his response to the event. Perception becomes reality. This inheritable characteristic may contribute to feelings of rejection and being different, which is at the heart of the Same-Sex Attachment Disorder.

Jed grew up in a middle-class family. His father was a pillar of the community. They attended church religiously. Jed’s father was very critical and demanding, as his father before him was. Jed always felt insecure and inadequate around his dad, never being able to mea-sure up to his expectations. At a very early age, Jed emotionally detached from his father and aligned himself with his mother. I believe Jed was born with a predisposition for rejection and detachment. Having hailed from a lineage that endured massive persecution, Jed easily experienced a feeling of not fitting in, not measuring up, and being different.

Albert was born into a high-stress family system. His dad was an executive of a large corporation. He would bring home the burdens and worries of his work and constantly complain about life. Albert’s mom was very unhappy in her relationship with her husband.

She would hold her son and share her pain and sorrow with him. Albert internally detached from both his mom and dad as an infant. He felt unaccepted, like an outsider. He was sure he had been adopted, no matter how many times his parents protested that he was their child. Albert hailed from a lineage that had also experienced intense social rejection and discrimination for many generations. He had a predisposition for experiencing ridicule and rejection, which he then projected onto his parents and eventually his siblings and peers.

TEMPERAMENT

Some of the temperamental characteristics that may lead to a Same-Sex Attachment Disorder are hypersensitivity, a more artistic nature, a more masculine female, a more feminine male, and a “high maintenance” child.

The characteristic of hypersensitivity, or greater sensitivity, may be part of one’s original or inherited nature. In this world as it currently exists, I call this a “curse blessing.” I have observed that many men and women with a Same-Sex Attachment Disorder also have a greater sensitivity to any given stimuli. Of course, this does not mean that all sensitive children are or will become homosexual. Remember that there is a confounding of factors that will create this orientation; it is not just one variable alone.

The hypersensitive child will react more deeply than the other children within the family system. If his family appreciates and understands his feelings, there will be no danger of the development of a Same-Sex Attachment Disorder. If his family mocks or criticizes his feelings and there are any number of other variables present, this may contribute to a SSAD condition. He may also have a more compliant nature, rather than an aggressive character, whereby there is a tendency to acquiesce and withdraw rather than to stand up and speak out.

Having an artistic nature may also be a burden if the family rejects or misunderstands the child’s gifts. The sensitive child in an insensitive environment experiences undue stress on his mental, emotional, and spiritual development.

A more masculine girl or a more feminine boy, by nature, may also be the subject of ridicule by parents, siblings, peers, and society. It is the square-peg-in-the-round-hole effect, causing the child to doubt his or her original nature. These characteristics are defined as gender nonconforming behaviors. The child will grow confident in his talents when he is under-stood, accepted, and encouraged. If he experiences or perceives criticism, the results will be psycho-social-biological damage. “Society’s differential response to ‘sissies’ and ‘tomboys’ may be one reason for the difference in numbers between male and female homosexuals,” says Dr. Dean Byrd.42

A brief note: If the child exhibits some of these gender nonconforming behaviors, it is important for parents to encourage same-sex activities. Boys need rough-and-tumble activities, even if they have a more sensitive and/or artistic nature. Girls need to participate in same-sex activities as well, even if they exhibit a more athletic nature. Identification with one’s own gender is extremely important in the formative years of psychosocial, psychological, and psychosexual development. Same-sex activities are most important from preschool through high school years.

The “high maintenance” child requires more specialized care and attention. Those who have children like this may understand what I am describing. Each child is born with a completely unique temperament. Some children require much attention, others not as much. The “high maintenance” child needs much reassurance, touch, and constant attention. If his needs go unmet, a deficit will develop and a poor self-image will ensue.

Bernard was the younger of two boys. His mother embraced his sensitive nature while his father rejected him. Bernard’s father’s father was very cold and strict and eventually abandoned his son and family. Therefore, Bernard’s dad never experienced the warmth, encouragement, and touch of his father. Consequently, whenever Bernard would display emotions, his dad would mock and criticize him. Bernard soon learned that it was unsafe to express feelings with men. He emotionally distanced himself from his father and then doubted his own masculinity.

Matthew’s father grew up during World War II in England. Matthew’s grandfather was a casualty of war; therefore, Matthew’s father never experienced paternal love. Matthew’s stepgrandfather taught his dad that it was sissy and unmanly to show emotions. This was the philosophy that Matthew’s dad lived by. Therefore, when Matthew came along and displayed a very sensitive character, his dad was uncomfortable and distressed while in his presence. He would scream at Matthew to stop crying, stop being such a sissy, and stop touching him. Matthew eventually became like his father— a stoic. He also demonstrated oppositional behavior toward his father, doing everything he could to make him upset.

There are numerous stories of men who, as boys, felt their fathers’ disapproval because of their sensitivity. They were criticized and mocked instead of being accepted and appreciated. What becomes clear is that their fathers’ fathers were rejecting of their own sons’ sensitivity, and in order for their dads to survive, they had to bury that part of their personality deep in their unconscious. When the father then observes this sensitivity in his son, he must suppress in him what he had repressed in himself. Otherwise, he will experience much pain, anger, and grief.

HETERO-EMOTIONAL WOUNDS

There has been much literature written about the smother mother, dominating mother, or excessively involved mother. Again, this is not a blame game. I do not know of any parent who sets out to either hurt or damage his or her child. Also, it is not merely the events that shape a child’s character, but his response to the situation, influenced by heredity and temperament.

Drs. Bieber et al.,43 Socarides,44 Nicolosi,45 van den Aardweg,46 Freud,47 Siegelman,48 Westwood,49 Schoefield,50 Thompson et al.,51 and Kronemeyer 52 have observed that homosexual men had an abnormally close mother-son attachment. This relationship between mother and son represents unhealthy attachment, rather than a healthy sense of bonding. His mother may be distant from her husband and overattach herself to her son. Psychologist Dr. Patricia Love calls this the “Emotional Incest Syndrome.” The mother may confide all her pain and problems to her son, making him a substitute spouse. Being so close to his mom, and detached from his dad, he becomes more and more like her. In such instances, the boy overidentifies with his mother and femininity and disidentifies with his father and masculinity.

One client shared, “As a child, I was so confused about my relationship with my mother, I didn’t know if I was her lover or son. She confided all her pain and problems to me.” I have observed in the majority of my male clients this characteristic—an overidentification with the feminine and a disidentification with the masculine.

The mother may have directly or indirectly criticized the father: “Don’t be like him.” “He’s no good.” This also distances the son from his father, his role model of masculinity. In fear of losing his mother’s love, he detaches from his sense of masculinity (as the masculine father seems to be the enemy) and becomes a reflection of his mother’s character. “Jung said some-thing disturbing about this complication. He said that when the son is introduced primarily by the mother to feelings, he will learn the female attitude toward masculinity and takes a female view of his own father and of his own masculinity. He will see his father through his mother’s eyes.”53 Dr. Charles Socarides, in his many studies and articles on homosexual development, has found that there is a lack of separation/individuation, or differentiation,

between the mother and son, which is decisive for gender identification.54

The homosexual female may also have had an abnormally close father-daughter attachment. Dr. Socarides, as well as Drs. Zucker and Bradley 55 talk further about daughters who mold themselves in the image of their fathers. In some cases, the daughter may view the mother as unsafe, ineffectual, or weak, and therefore choose to model herself after the more competent and powerful parent, her father. The father may speak poorly about his wife, further distancing the daughter from her role model of femininity.

The homosexual female may have been abused either by her father or significant men in her life, such as a brother, uncle, grandfather, stepfather, or friend of the family. The abuse could have been sexual, emotional, mental, and/or physical. She then turns to other women for comfort, love, and understanding to prevent her from reexperiencing the memory or memories of abuse.

In other cases, the daughter sees that her distant mother loves Dad. Therefore, she may overidentify with her father, taking on a more masculine nature and appearance in order to win the affection and approval of her mother.56 The son may take on a more feminine appearance to win the affection and approval of his father.

Another factor in the mother-son or father-daughter relationship is imitation of behavior. This is a very strong learning mechanism for all children. Their first method of learning is imitation of what they see, feel, and sense around them. If a son has an unhealthy attachment with his mother, he will learn a more feminine way of being. If a daughter has an unhealthy attachment with her father, she will learn a more masculine way of being. In both cases, the young child may become more and more estranged from his or her own gender and internalize the nature of the opposite sex. Again, this inhibits normal psychosocial and psychosexual development.

Finally, if a parent expresses disappointment with the child’s gender or if the child perceives the parent’s disappointment with his gender, he may then take on the characteristics of the opposite gender in order to obtain his parent’s love and acceptance. This may become another factor in creating gender disidentification.

Here are a few case examples:

Robert was his mommy’s precious little boy, sleeping with her and sharing in all her activities. He was what Dad could not be—an attentive and perfect gentleman. The problem was, Robert was a child, and Mommy was an adult.

Jim’s mother would often criticize her husband for being a failure, being a nothing, and being less than a man. In fear of losing his mother’s love, Jim aligned himself with his mother and grew more and more distant from his father.

John’s father, an academic and head of a scientific agency, never touched his son. John only experienced his father’s critical nature. He longed for acceptance and found that in the arms of his mother. Seeing that his dad loved his mother, he became more and more like her, hoping to attract the attention and affection of his dad. Of course, this never came to pass, as he was a boy and not a girl, even though his actions were more feminine than masculine.

Toni was her father’s favorite. She would play ball with him and his friends every weekend. From an early age, she would go to the pub with her dad and sit by as he and his buddies would drink. Mom was always busy working, and when at home she was either cooking or doing house chores. Toni longed for her mother’s affection, which she experienced as unavailable. Again, like John, she modeled herself after her opposite-sex parent in order to win the love of her same-sex parent. Toni dressed in boy’s clothes, had short hair, and acted more masculine. However, all these ploys were ineffective in winning her mother’s love.

HOMO-EMOTIONAL WOUNDS

In the father-son, mother-daughter relationship, a homo-emotional wound develops if the child perceives or experiences his or her same-sex parent as either cold, distant, absent, passive, abusive, or unavailable. This homo-emotional wound is a key factor in the development of what may later appear as same-sex attractions. In the heart of every man or woman who experiences same-sex desires is a sense of detachment from his or her same-sex parent. This may be on a very unconscious level, as the imprinting for this condition may have occurred in utero and in early infancy. Ninety percent of the brain develops by the time we are three years of age. Therefore, experiences of detachment, which occurred in the first years of life, are locked deep in the unconscious mind. That is why many homosexual individuals say, “As long as I can remember, I felt different.”

Drs. Moberly and Nicolosi found that the prehomosexual boy experienced a hurt or disappointment in his relationship with his father.57 To protect himself against future hurt, the boy developed a defensive attitude characterized by emotional distancing. Not only did he fail to identify with his father, but also, because of the hurt, he rejected his father and the

masculinity he represents. You may read more about attachment disorders in the works of John Bowlby.58

The father may have a difficult time relating to his son if he exhibited any kind of gender nonconforming behaviors, e.g., more feminine, more artistic, and nonathletic. The father may be preoccupied with his own problems and have no time for his son. The father may abdicate responsibility for parenting by having his wife raise the boy. He may have left the family, or he may be at home physically, but unavailable emotionally. The boy may then see his father as emotionally distant, perhaps verbally or physically abusive, and unavailable. In some cases, there is an emotional enmeshment between the two, whereby the father enrolls his son into a peer relationship, and the son loses his identity in order to care for his father’s needs.

By experiencing his father’s disapproval, disappointment, or distance, the son will withdraw from the relationship, feeling hurt and rejected. This leads to a deep sense of ambivalence toward the same-sex parent—“I need you, but you hurt and rejected me, so stay away, but come close and hold me, but it hurts too much.” Dr. Moberly calls this a defensive detachment reaction,59 and Dr. Welch calls it an attachment strain.60 The child defends himself from future wounding by putting up an imaginary shield around his heart and soul. He then detaches from his same-sex parent, rejecting his father.

This same-sex ambivalence causes feelings of love and hate to occur at the same time. He seeks bonding with a man, but underneath that need is an angry and hurt little boy. This is why homosexual relationships have a short life span. Furthermore, these ambivalent feelings toward men function as a lifelong block against full male identification.61

This defensive detachment is generally an unconscious decision. The detachment also prevents him from internalizing his own sense of gender identity. He has cut off psychologically and emotionally from his father, his role model of masculinity. Hence, a Same-Sex Attachment Disorder is created in the child. This leads to alienation from the parent, self, and others, and a feeling of being “different.” When he rejects his primary source of masculine identification, he is essentially rejecting his own core gender identity.

On a very deep psychic level, the son feels rejected by his father. This may originate from a deep source within the child—a heritable predisposition for being rejected, or an intrauterine experience of feeling unwanted—not necessarily by the parent’s actions or words. (I will explain about intrauterine influences under “Other Factors” below.) Counselor David Seamands said, “Children are the best tape recorders but the worst interpreters.”62

The boy, from ages one and a half to three, has an added developmental task girls do not have. He must separate and individuate from his mother, and then be initiated into the world of the masculine by his father or another significant male role model. The girl, even though she, too, must separate and individuate in this stage of development, will continue to identify with her mother, her primary role model of femininity. Three things may rob a boy of his masculine role model and his new source of strength: 1) the mother continues to cling to her son, 2) the father is unavailable or abdicates responsibility to the mother, or 3) the son perceives rejection from the father. This is a critical time for the son to bond with his father or other men.63

It states in My Little Golden Book About GOD, “God is the love of our mother’s kiss, and the warm, strong hug of our daddy’s arms.” Pictured are both Father and Mother holding their children warmly. Parents are God’s representatives for children. When children detach from either Mr. or Mrs. God, they are distancing themselves from their role models of gender identification. Therefore, a defensive detachment from father or mother may lead to a defensive detachment toward God.

That is why later on, when the adult tries repeatedly to rid himself of the same-sex desire, it will not go away. This is because the origin of the desire is one of reparation, to make good on past deficits, the need for bonding with the same-sex parent, which did not occur sufficiently in the earliest years of life.64

Michael Saia, in his book, Counseling the Homosexual, speaks of a five-phase model that leads to the development of a Same-Sex Attachment Disorder:

• First: The child feels or perceives rejection from the same-sex parent.

• Second: The child rejects the same-sex parent.

• Third: The child rejects his gender identity, saying unconsciously, “If men are that way, then I don’t want to be like them.”

• Fourth: The child rejects himself because he is the same gender of the parent he just rejected. Again, he unconsciously says, “If Daddy is not good, and he is a man, then I am not good, because I am a boy.”

• Fifth: The child then rejects others of the same gender, as a defensive reaction of self-protection against further wounding.65

During puberty, the unmet homo-emotional needs are experienced as homosexual feelings. The individual may then spend a lifetime trying to fulfill those unmet needs for attachment through sexual relationships.

Of course, the defensive detachment may occur with the opposite-sex parent. This is why so many marriages break up and so many men and women seek opposite-sex partners but find it very difficult to commit to a truly intimate relationship. The defensive detachment toward the opposite-sex parent lodges deep in their hearts. They are experiencing an Opposite-Sex Attachment Disorder (OSAD). Until the individual extracts the wounds, defensive behaviors continue to plague adult attempts at intimacy. (My next book will be entitled Healing Heterosexuality.)

Chris’s father was authoritative and punitive. Chris was sensitive and perceived his father’s strictness as personal rejection. Because of this, Chris continued to seek refuge in the safety of his mother’s world, identifying more with her and his sister than with his dad and brothers. This attitude spilled over into his school-age years. Chris was always the teacher’s pet, doing great in academics, yet socially inept in relating to the other boys. In his adult life, Chris fantasized about being sexually intimate with the men he admired. His need for his father’s love and approval had translated itself into sexual desires after puberty. Today, Chris is becoming more authentic as a man among men, speaking more openly with his dad, and

learning to befriend other men as equals.

Another young man I counseled was Bob. When he entered therapy, he thought his relationship with his father was nearly perfect. It took quite a while to untangle this enmeshed affair, for his father had enrolled him into a peer relationship. Bob spent his life trying to compensate for his father’s wounds and weaknesses. His father had shared his problems and pain with him throughout his child-hood, adolescence, and early adulthood. His dad isolated himself from the world and had no close friends except his son. In response, Bob had learned to deny his feelings and needs, reinventing himself as his father’s savior, best friend, and confidant.

After Bob strengthened his sense of self-worth and developed firm boundaries, he began the process of successfully separating and individuating from his father. This was frightening for Bob. Each time he slipped back into being the good little boy and pleaser, same-sex attractions emerged. When he stood in his power and expressed himself in a healthy, positive, and assertive manner, he experienced a newfound masculinity. When he thoughtlessly acquiesced to his father and other authority figures, his same-sex fantasies blossomed. Again, the Same-Sex Attachment Disorder is a symptom, a defensive response to past and present conflicts.

Bob worked to heal his relationship with his father. He now expresses himself as an adult, rather than a good little boy. He let go of expecting his father to change and is making the necessary changes in his life to mature into his God-given masculine identity.

I have counseled several men whose fathers were in the military or government. Because of their service to the country, they were often away for extended periods of time. This left their sons feelings abandoned and alone. Other men had fathers who were physically present, yet emotionally absent. As much as they tried to win their fathers’ love, their dads remained distant and unavailable. Another group of men had fathers who were workaholics. Their fathers were never home enough to become seriously involved in their sons’ lives. Others had fathers who were alcoholics, drug addicts, sports addicts, and/or rageaholics. They experienced the war of their fathers’ mood swings, never knowing when Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde would show up. They had to be on guard 100 percent of the time.

 SIBLING WOUNDS/FAMILY DYNAMICS

The prehomosexual boy, who exhibits a character difference or physical disability, may bear the brunt of emotional, mental, physical, and/or sexual abuse by his siblings. If the same-sex sibling, especially an elder, criticizes him, this may contribute to gender disidentification.66 This may be another factor that reinforces the boy’s poor self-image.

The potential homosexually oriented individual may be the oldest, middle, youngest, or only child in the family system. The oldest may become the family hero or parentified child, taking on a more adult role to solve the family problems, thus losing his sense of identity. (The parentified child is one who loses his childlike nature and takes on a more adult persona, thus becoming more like a parent than a child. He knows too much too soon.) The next child may become the rebel, manifesting behavioral problems. The rebel acts out in a negative manner in order to gain attention and affection. The middle child may become withdrawn, not appearing to have as many needs as the oldest or youngest. He becomes

invisible, shy, or isolated. His needs seem to be less important than the others. The youngest child may be indulged or spoiled. He may also be the recipient of the unexpressed feelings of the entire family system. When he expresses their repressed feelings, he is then identified as the “problem child.” The youngest child may be a performer or clown as a means of obtaining attention and affection.

Brad was the youngest of four. His older brother, Mark, was the tyrant of the family. Mark and his dad had an extremely antagonistic relationship. Brad’s dad would beat on Mark, then Mark would beat on Brad. Mark would physically abuse Brad when no one else was around. He would also verbally abuse Brad, i.e., “sissy,” “faggot,” “queer.” Brad lived in fear of Mark’s fits of rage. This relationship caused Brad to further distance himself from his father

and men.

One way of coping with the distress of his relationship with Mark, the absence of his alcoholic father, and the unhealthy attachment with his mother, was to be the peacemaker of the family. When the siblings would argue or his parents would fight, Brad would jump right in to make smooth the path between them all. He was the performer and peacemaker, trying to create harmony in the midst of chaos.

Several other men I counseled had same-sex siblings who would chastise and criticize them for their more sensitive nature. Name-calling was a common experience. Generally, the older brothers had poor relationships with their fathers and would take out their frustrations on the younger brothers. Others played the part of the family hero—getting good grades, being the pleaser. However, no matter how hard they tried, they never experienced the love they so desired.

BODY-IMAGE WOUNDS

Late bloomer, early maturation, physical disabilities, shorter, taller, skinnier, or fatter—these are some characteristics that may result in body-image wounds. Bodily attributes may cause pain because of peer or parental reactions. Body-image wounds seem to be quite high on the scale of contributing variables. Many, if not all, whom I have counseled felt a lower sense of self-worth due to feelings of inadequacy about their physical appearance. They detached from their fathers and then detached from their own gender. Finally, they detached from their own bodies, as they were reminders of the masculinity they rejected.

In adolescence, some did not develop as quickly as others and therefore felt inferior to peers. Others were either overweight or extremely thin, which contributed to a sense of low self-worth. Others were shorter, never grew taller like their friends or peers, and were left feeling inadequate and insecure. Still others may have had some kind of physical disability and received or perceived social criticism and rejection. Again, body-image wounds seem to be an important factor with many who have developed same-sex attractions.

I worked with a tall, handsome man named Dirk. If you saw him, you would never imagine he ever struggled with his body image. Today, Dirk is a bodybuilder and very muscular. However, when in school, he felt athletically incompetent and socially inferior to the other boys. To heal these wounds in adulthood, he engaged in a variety of sports, learned to be one of the guys, and finally learned to enjoy himself. Several organizations that help individuals come out of homosexuality organize sports activities to help them overcome their fear of athletics and competition.

Dan was a firefighter, the stereotypical image of a macho man: hand-some, muscular, athletic, and educated. However, he felt inferior to other men and attracted to adolescent boys. Dan was a late bloomer. He entered puberty around fifteen years of age. When he had to shower with the other boys after gym class, he felt ashamed and embarrassed because of his lack of physical maturity. Dan felt unable to share his pain with his father. His dad was a workaholic and an alcoholic. In addition, he would beat on Dan while intoxicated. Therefore, Dan became developmentally stuck in prepubescent years. Even though he matured and blossomed into a handsome, powerful man as an adult, he still felt inferior to other men.

One group of men I counseled was physically shorter than the average male. This impacted their sense of gender identity. Each was emotionally detached from his father. This detachment, combined with the shorter height, made them feel inferior to other men. Others were overweight, extremely thin, or had some kind of physical disability. This created a

sense of gender disidentification in each case.

SEXUAL ABUSE

Childhood sexual abuse occurred in a high percentage of homosexual adults. Research studies and clinical observations support this claim. Men have sexually abused 90 percent of homosexual females, and 75 to 85 percent of homosexual males have been sexually abused.67

Patrick Dimock 68 and Mike Lew 69 found confusion over sexual orientation as a result of early sexual abuse. David Finkelhor, leading researcher in the area of child sexual abuse, in his book Child Sexual Abuse: New Theory and Research (New York: Free Press, 1984), and Johnson and Shrier, in their article “Sexual Victimization of Boys” (Journal of Adolescent Health Care, 1985), both found a statistically strong correlation between childhood

sexual abuse and homosexual activity in adolescence and adulthood. “Boys victimized by older men were over four times more likely to be currently engaged in homosexual activity than were non-victims.”70 Johnson and Shrier studied adolescents over a six-year period and found those who had been molested “identified themselves as currently homosexual nearly

seven times as often and bisexual nearly six times as often” as those who had not been molested.71

Dr. Charles Socarides and other therapists have observed that a high percentage of their clients were sexually abused as children. Wendy Maltz and Beverly Holman confirm, “Studies of boys who were sexually victimized by men do indicate that a high percentage of them relate homosexually as adults.”72 Many directors of ex-gay ministries have reported that a high percentage of men and women seeking help have experienced child-hood

sexual abuse.

Most sexually abused children had already developed a defensive detachment toward the same- and/or opposite-sex parent. The male child, disidentified with his dad and overidentified with his mom, is more susceptible to abuse by a male perpetrator. Perpetrators easily perceive the child who harbors this unmet homo-emotional need. Most often, the perpetrators are family members or close friends of the family. The insidious nature of abuse is that it first begins as emotional intimacy and later becomes sexual. The perpetrator gains the trust of the child, fulfilling basic unmet homo-emotional love needs. Then he alters the relationship to include sex. This is a very confusing message to a hungry and impressionable child. Here, the psychic wiring and physiology of the child become confused because the messages of love, sex, and intimacy become intertwined, especially when it involves homosexual behavior. “Some survivors may adopt the orientation role of the abuse because they experienced sexual arousal during the abuse, and they may think that this arousal proves the orientation role they had in the abuse.”73 The child starves for the same-sex parent’s love. Being emotionally detached from this source of love, he may repeat the learned sexual behavior as a means of fulfilling unmet homo-emotional love needs.

Steve’s father, an alcoholic, was physically abusive toward both his wife and Steve. At the age of six, a neighbor sexually abused him. This occurred again at ages nine and ten by older boys in the community. These experiences, coupled with his detachment toward his father, laid the foundation for homosexual acting-out behavior throughout his adult life. Through successful treatment, Steve was able to grieve the losses of his past and cut the ties that connected him to his same-sex attractions. Today, he is free of homosexual desires.

Another case is Howard. His father was away on business trips much of the time, and when at home, was quite passive in his relationship with his son. When Howard was four years old, an older schoolboy named Robert sexually abused him. He had known Robert for some time. Howard received attention, affection, and then sexual intimacy from him. This created a pattern in Howard’s body, which told him that to receive love from a man, he must have

sex with him. As an adult, he continued to act out homosexually whenever pressure built up in his life. This was his outlet, his quick fix for masculine bonding.

I can share dozens of similar cases illustrating that sexual abuse is one more factor that may contribute to homosexual ideation.

SOCIAL OR PEER WOUNDS

Some experiences and characteristics individuals with same-sex attractions have lived through include name-calling, put-downs, goody-goody, teacher’s pet, nonathletic, lack of rough-and-tumble for boys, and too much rough-and-tumble for girls.

Social and peer wounds also rate high on the scale of contributing variables. The majority of individuals who experience same-sex attractions have felt socially inept or out of place. There seem to be two polarities involved: inferiority or grandiosity—“I’m better than all the rest of them,” or “I’m not as good as them.” The individual may flip-flop from inferior to grandiose many times within a day.

“Fathers may influence children in ways that mothers don’t, particularly in areas such as the child’s peer relationships and achievement at school. Research indicates, for example, that boys with absent fathers have a harder time finding a balance between masculine assertiveness and self-restraint. Consequently, it’s tougher for them to learn self-control and to delay gratification, skills that become increasingly important as boys grow and reach out for friendship, academic success, and career goals. A father’s positive presence can be a significant factor in a girl’s academic and career achievement as well, although the evidence here is more ambiguous. It’s clear, however, that girls whose fathers are present and involved in their lives are less likely to become sexually promiscuous at a young age, and more likely to forge healthy relationships with men when they become adults.”74

Dr. Gerard van den Aardweg believes that lack of peer bonding is a major factor in the creation of a SSAD condition. “The strongest association, then, is not found between homosexuality and father-child and mother-child relationships, but between homosexuality and ‘peer relationships’. . . Feeling less masculine or feminine as compared to same-sex peers is tantamount to the feeling of not belonging.”75

Many prehomosexual boys lack proper eye-hand coordination and athletic inclination and feel inferior to their male classmates. Even those who did participate in athletics may have felt, internally, less adequate or inferior. Still, other artistically inclined boys withdrew entirely from sports, either by nature or as a defensive reaction to the masculine experience of being detached from Dad, brothers, and his own body. To compensate for his low self-worth, he may become a perfectionist. Toxic perfectionism represents the psyche’s attempt to obtain acceptance.

“Studies of three- and four-year-old children conducted by Ross Parke and Kevin MacDonald provide evidence to this link between fathers’ physical play and how children get along with peers. Observing children in twenty-minute play sessions with their dads, the researchers found that kids whose fathers showed high levels of physical play were most popular among their peers. An interesting and significant qualifier emerged in this study, however: Kids with highly physical dads were nondirective, noncoercive. The children whose dads were highly physical but also highly bossy received the lowest popularity scores. Other studies have provided similar evidence. Across the board, researchers have found that children seem to develop the best social skills when their dads keep the tone of their interactions positive and allow kids to take part in directing the course of play.”76

Many athletically inclined women were subject to social mockery as girls because of these innate gifts. Some girls may have been more into rough-and-tumble and less into dolls because of nature and/or nurture. If other elements, such as homo-emotional wounding and/or hetero-emotional wounding, were present, then this characteristic may have just been another contributing factor in the development of same-sex attractions.

In the healing process, it is very important for men to learn to be men among men, and for women to learn to be women among women. Learning to participate in group sports for men and feminine activities for women is an important aspect for healing and experiencing gender identity.

David was the teacher’s pet throughout elementary, junior, and senior high school. He received many awards for high academic achievement and good behavior. However, he never knew how to relate to the other students. He was a little adult, not knowing how to be a child. He knew too much, too soon, as he was his mother’s confidant and best friend.

Chris was a very religious boy. He served in his church’s youth group, participated in retreats, studied the Bible, and mentored other children. However, he was extremely distant from his father and believed he was different from the rest of the boys. At school, many called him a “faggot,” “sissy,” or “queer.” He hated himself and longed to be loved by a man.

Randy was athletically challenged. He did not know how to throw a ball, swing a bat, or run fast. His dad was busy teaching other boys, and Randy felt neglected and inferior. Being more sensitive and withdrawn, he never asked his father for instruction. Instead, he carried this wound throughout his childhood and adolescence. He was never chosen for any of the teams when the kids would play games at school. During recess, he would sit on the sidelines, watching enviously as the other kids played.

CULTURAL WOUNDS

Cultural wounds are experienced from the media, educational system, entertainment industry, Internet, and pornography. These influences lead to the molestation of the mind. Today, people are buying into the “myth” that homosexuality is a natural, normal, innate state of being. This is not true. There is no scientific evidence to prove this theory. Some say that several animals are naturally homosexual. This is a distortion of creation to fit someone’s desperate attempt to legitimize a condition born out of emotional brokenness. “Preferential homosexuality is not found naturally in any infrahuman mammalian species. Masculine/feminine differences and hetero-sexual preferences are quite consistent up through the phylogenetic scale.”77

Communism and the homosexual movement have both utilized the same strategy, which is known as the Big Lie Theory. It is a very simple principle that works like this: If you repeat anything long enough, and loud enough, over time it will become known as a fact. Some examples of these big lies, turning myths into facts, are: “Homosexuals are born this way”;

“Once gay, always gay”; “Homosexuals cannot change”; and “Ten percent of the population is homosexual.” These are all myths. They are all false.

If you take a frog and place him in boiling water, he will die immediately. If you take a frog and place him in mild water, he will happily swim. Gradually, you begin to turn up the heat. If you do it ever so slightly, he will not notice the temperature change. Eventually, the water reaches boiling level, and without notice, he dies.

And so it has gone with our cultural attitude toward homosexuality. Years ago, there was outrage and misunderstanding. Now, there is acceptance and misunderstanding. Members of the homosexual movement have planted myths into our culture and continued to repeat these myths over a period of decades. Now, without our noticing it, homosexuality is accepted as an alternate lifestyle. For a more comprehensive overview of how this was achieved, please read chapter 14 about the agenda, strategies, and goals of the “Gay Rights Movement.”

Many people believe these myths about homosexuality, which are propagated by the media (newspaper, radio, TV, magazines), the entertainment industry, the educational system, academia, the psychological community, and religious institutions. Through constant repetition of these myths, many intelligent and well-intentioned people have come to believe these lies.

Now most schools, colleges, and universities throughout the world are teaching our children on the platform of human rights and social equality, that homosexual people are born this way and cannot change. The pro-motion of these myths is another factor that may influence someone to become homosexual, or pull him over the line. This is cultural indoctrination for impressionable youths who are still confused about their sexual identities. There is presently a 50 to 60 percent divorce rate in the United States, which means many children are growing up without a same-sex parent. The National Fatherhood Initiative reported that by 1990, ap-proximately 14 million children lived in mother-only households. This makes these children more vulnerable to cultural influences.

In the words of some homosexual activists, “The first order of business is the desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay right. . . . You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing. But if you can get them to think that it is just another thing with a shrug of their shoulders, then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won.”78

On the Internet, a young child may download pornography, seeing every imaginable and unimaginable sexual act between two men, two women, two or more of anyone or anything. This is sexual abuse and the rape of our children’s minds. Also, in many schools, sex-education curricula are teaching the normalcy of homosexuality, where to get it, and how to do it.

American TV shows, major motion pictures, and local news reports embrace homosexuality and homosexual relationships. In this way, more and more wounded and love-starved children are being deprived of true liberation by being enrolled into this big lie. Homosexuality is a develop-mental disorder that leads to immense “disease” and emotional unrest.

The Gay Rights Movement, the media, the educational system, and the mental-health profession tell us that homosexuality is normal and natural. Let us observe some of the statistics about homosexual behavior and see if this condition is, in fact, normal:

• The Kinsey Institute published a study of homosexual males living in San Francisco which reports that 43 percent had sex with 500 or more partners, 28 percent had sex with 1,000 or more partners, and 79 percent said that over half of their sex partners were strangers.79

• An American Public Health Association survey reported that 78 percent of homosexual people surveyed have been infected by a sexually transmitted disease.80

• A National Lesbian-Gay Health Foundation report revealed that alcohol and drug abuse were three times more prevalent among homosexual individuals than among heterosexual individuals.81

• A report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Task Force on Youth Suicide, in 1989 revealed that one-third of all teenage suicides are committed by those who suffer from homosexual problems. This is an extremely high percentage considering that only 1 to 3 percent of the population is homosexual.

• Homosexual men are six times more likely to have attempted suicide than heterosexual men.82

• McWhirter and Mattison, both therapists who are homosexual, conducted a survey of 156 male couples. The results were reported in their book, The Male Couple. They found that 95 percent of the couples were unfaithful, and the 5 percent that were faithful had been together five or fewer years. This statistic is glaring in comparison to surveys conducted about the fidelity of heterosexual couples. The American Journal of Public Health reported a survey conducted with over 2,000 respondents and revealed that during a five-year period, only 6.4 percent of married couples were unfaithful, which means that 93.6 percent were faithful.83 The National Opinion Research Center in Chicago reported that, from over 3,400 respondents surveyed, about 3 to 4 percent of currently married people have a sexual partner besides their spouse in a given year, and about 15 to 17 percent of married people have a sexual partner other than their spouse while married.84 These results are opposite to the 95 percent of unfaithful homosexual couples. McWhirter and Mattison themselves state, “The expectation for outside sexual activity was the rule for male couples and the exception for heterosexuals.”85

• “Homosexuals are at least 12 times more likely to molest children than heterosexuals; homosexual teachers are at least 7 times more likely to molest a pupil; homosexual teachers are estimated to have committed at least 25 percent of pupil molestation; 40 percent of molestation assaults were made by those who engage in homosexuality.”86

These statistics show us clearly that homosexual behavior is neither normal nor natural. Members of the homosexual community argue that social intolerance and prejudice cause these destructive behaviors. I believe there is some merit to this argument. However, the deeper reason for these unhealthy behaviors is the emotional brokenness that caused the homosexual condition in the first place. The social prejudice merely exacerbates the already-existing pain lodged deep in their souls.

Kurt, an honors student at a magnet high school, became addicted to male pornography on the Internet. His father installed many devices on the computer to keep him from accessing those Web sites. However, Kurt was able to break each code and continued to view pornography regularly. What he saw and what he read enrolled him further and further into the homosexual lifestyle. This led to compulsive masturbation and isolation from his peers.

Nathan’s wife sent him to see me in hopes that I could “fix” him. Nathan revealed to his wife that he was “gay” and would seek divorce after twenty years of marriage. Nathan had repressed his same-sex attractions for almost fifty years. Now, he would seek to fulfill those “natural” desires. Having read the media reports about the “gay gene” and the biological explanations for homosexuality, he was convinced that he was born “gay.” He eventually moved out, divorced his wife, went into the homosexual lifestyle, and died of AIDS while seeking Mr. Right.

OTHER FACTORS

Divorce, death, intrauterine experiences, adoption, and religion are some other influential factors that may cause a SSAD condition. If the parents divorce, if a parent dies, or another close family member dies, the child may interpret this experience as personal rejection and further detach from others and self.

Children naturally self-blame for their parents’ divorce, and may even do so regarding the death of a parent. A harrowing message resonates deep in the unconscious of the child: “If only I was better, if only I had done ______ , then Mommy and Daddy would not have divorced, or Daddy would not have died.” This thought may be completely unconscious to the adult-child.

“The fact that most grown children of divorce are alienated from at least one parent and a substantial minority is alienated from both is, we believe, a legitimate cause for societal concern. It means that many of these young people are especially vulnerable to influences outside the family, such as from boyfriends or girlfriends, other peers, adult authority figures, and the media. Although not necessarily negative, these influences are unlikely to be an adequate substitute for a stable and positive relationship with a parent.”87

Intrauterine experiences may contribute to the child’s detaching from one or both parents. If the mother was experiencing difficulty in her relationship with her husband while carrying the child or if she felt rejected, unloved, or unwanted by him or she experienced any other painful feelings during pregnancy, the unborn child within may have experienced these thoughts and feelings as though they were directed at him or her. Psychiatrist Dr. Thomas Verny states, “The womb is the child’s first world. How he experiences it—as friendly or hostile—does create personality and character predispositions. The womb, in a very real sense, establishes the child’s expectations. If it has been a warm, loving environment, the child is likely to expect the outside world to be the same. This produces a predisposition toward trust, openness, extroversion, and self-confidence. The world will be his oyster, just as the womb has been. If that environment has been hostile, the child will anticipate that his new world will be equally uninviting. He will be predisposed toward suspiciousness, distrust, and introversion. Relating to others will be hard, and so will self-assertion. Life will be more difficult for him than for a child who had a good womb experience.”88

Dr. Verny cites study after study conducted throughout the States and Europe, showing clearly that the first life experiences in the womb shape a child’s personality. The results of his investigation were the following: 1) The fetus can see, hear, experience, taste, and feel; 2) What the child feels and perceives begins to shape his attitude and expectations about life;

3) The chief source of those shaping messages is the child’s mother; and 4) The father’s feelings toward his wife and unborn child also influence the fetus.89 Dr. Verny calls this field prenatal psychology. You can read case histories and numerous studies that describe the effects of prenatal and birth experiences upon the personality of the child in his book, The Secret Life of the Unborn Child (New York: Dell, 1981).

Dr. Monika Lukesch, a psychologist at Constantine University in Germany, studied two thousand pregnant women. She concluded that the mother’s attitude toward her unborn child had the single greatest effect on how the infant matured.90 Dr. Dennis Stott studied over thirteen hundred children and their families. He estimates that a woman involved in a stormy marriage runs a 237 percent greater risk of bearing a psychologically or physically damaged child than a woman in a secure relationship.91

Leanne Payne, a noted pastoral therapist, speaks about assisting several individuals heal from the effects of painful intrauterine experiences. “It is no small thing, for example, to see a person healed who has been hospitalized, perhaps several times, due to rejections they experienced before birth.”92

Adoption may also contribute to an attachment disorder with either the same-sex and/or opposite-sex parent. If the child does not securely attach with his or her same-sex adopted parent, then a Same-Sex Attachment Disorder may ensue.

Sarah clung to her adopted mother. She was constantly needy and at other times rebuffing. After high school, she sought other women to fulfill her constant need for attention and affection. Her relation-ships were short-lived. Beneath her homosexual desire was an ambivalent child who felt unloved and rejected by her birth mother.

Another contributing factor may be religion. Particular religious beliefs may impact the child in a negative way if there is already a detachment from either one or both parents. Parents are the first representatives of God for children. They are the visible manifestation of an invisible God. They symbolize our role model for masculinity (Mr. God) and our role model of femininity (Mrs. God). God represents an extension of the father figure. If the child rejects his parents, it follows that he may easily reject his parents’ religious beliefs. This distances him from God, parents, authority figures, and a sense of belonging in the world. Dr. Nicolosi states that the “coming out” process is actually the manifestation of a defensive detachment on a social scale.93

Alan never bonded with his father or mother. He never felt as if he belonged to his family. In his therapy, he eventually retrieved an intrauterine memory of experiencing intense pain and anguish. He grieved as he reexperienced those dark memories. He was born feeling unwanted and unloved: “I don’t belong here. Why did you have me?” Later, he spoke to his mother and asked her what she experienced during those nine months while she carried him in her womb. She told him that his dad was having an affair with another woman at that time, and she felt unwanted and unloved. In an instant, Alan realized that he had internalized and personalized her feelings.

Ivan’s mother attempted an abortion while in her second trimester. The attempt failed and Ivan was born. He always felt an animosity toward his mother and distance from his father. Similar to Alan, he felt as if he did not belong, did not fit in, and was not meant to be alive. Until he questioned his mother about his birth experience, he never knew about her attempt to abort him.

Jerry was perfectionistic. If only he got it right, then he would be accepted and loved. After receiving Communion at church for the first time, he went home and broke a vase that meant so much to his mother. He never forgave himself for that mistake, and consequently grew more distant from God and his parents’ religious beliefs. He felt inadequate, no matter how hard he tried to succeed. Jerry was hypervigilant in his efforts to be the perfect little boy. Being more sensitive and withdrawn, he never shared with his parents how bad he felt about himself. To him, God became his ultimate accuser and judge.

These ten influences—heredity, temperament, hetero-emotional wounds, homo-emotional wounds, sibling wounds/family dynamics, body-image wounds, sexual abuse, social or peer wounds, cultural wounds, and other factors: divorce/death/intrauterine experiences/adoption/religion—represent major factors that contribute to the creation of same-sex attractions in men and women. By addressing each one of these issues, by uncovering their meaning and impact, the individual may heal and fully recover the ability to experience his own gender identity and a sense of self-worth.

A final observation I have made in working with clients over the past years is this:

The more a person is unaware of his thoughts, feelings, and needs in present relationships, the stronger the need and energy attachment will be to engage in or fantasize about homosexual behavior. Sex then becomes a way back to the body and soul, either through masturbation (self-sex) or sex with another person. He is trying to obtain his lost self or disassociated parts. Therefore, seeking sex or compulsive masturbation represents a reparative drive to restore the broken self. The frustration is that this never works!

To order your book, press here

 Footnotes

Chapter Two—Definitions and Causes of Same-Sex Attractions

1.  Shirley E. Cox, David Matheson, Doris Dant, Workbook for Men (Salt Lake City, UT: Evergreen International, Inc., 1998), vi.

2.  Simon LeVay, “A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men,” Science 253 (August 1991): 1036.

3. Quoted in Marlin Maddoux, Answers to the Gay Deception (Dallas, TX: International Christian Media, 1994), 24.

4. David Nimmons, “Sex and the Brain,” Discover Vol. 15, no. 3 (March 1994), 64–71.

5.  David Gelman et al., “Born or Bred?” Newsweek (24 February 1992), 46.

6.  Quoted in Marlin Maddoux, Answers to the Gay Deception (Dallas, TX: International Christian Media, 1994), 26.

7.  Gelman et al., 46

8.  Ibid.

9.  John Horgan, “Gay Genes, Revisited,” Scientific America (November 1995), 26.

10.  George Rice et al., “Male Homosexuality: Absence of Linkage to Microsatellite Markers on the X Chromosome in a Canadian Study” (paper presented at the 21st annual meeting of Sex Research, Provincetown, Mass., 1995); Quoted in E. Marshall, “NIH Gay Gene Study Questioned,” Science 268 (1995), 1841. Combined Dispatches, “New Study Challenges Theory of ‘Gay Gene’ in Homosexuals,” Washington Times (23 April 1999), A3; C. Chamberlain, “Where Did the Gay Gene Go?” Internet, www.ABCNEWS.com, April 23, 1999.

11. J. Madeleine Nash, “The Personality Genes,” Time Vol. 151, no. 16 (April 27, 1998): 60–61.

12. John Horgan, “Gay Genes, Revisted,” Scientific America (November 1995): 26.

13. William Byne and Bruce Parsons, “Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised,” Archives of General Psychiatry Vol. 50, no. 3 (March 1993): 228–239.

14. S. Marc Breedlove, Ph.D., “Sex on the Brain,” Nature 389 (October 23, 1997): 801.

15. Richard C. Friedman and Jennifer Downey, “Neurobiology and Sexual Orientation: Current Relationships,” Journal of Neuropsychiatry Vol. 5, no. 2 (Spring 1993): 131–153.

16. Ruth Hubbard and Elijah Wald, Exploding the Gene Myth (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1993), 6, 94, 98.

17. John Leland and Mark Miller, “Can Gays ‘Convert?’” Newsweek (17 August 1998): 49.

18. John Money, “Sin, Sickness, or Status? Homosexual Gender Identity and Psychoneuroendocrinology,” American Psychologist 42, no. 4 (1987): 384.

19. Jeffrey Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), 77.

20. William Masters, Virginia Johnson, Robert Kolodny, Human Sexuality, 2nd Edition (Boston, MA: Little Brown, 1985), 411.

21. Quoted from Joseph Nicolosi, Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991), 18–19.

22. National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, Press Release 5, 1997.

23.  Elizabeth Moberly, Psychogenesis: The Early Development of Gender Identity (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1983), 67; E. Moberly, Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic (Greenwood, SC: James Clark & Co., 1983), 9.

24. Joseph Nicolosi, Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991), 32–35.

25. Harville Hendrix, Getting the Love You Want: A Couples’ Study Guide (New York: Harper Perennial, 1988), 26.

26. Elizabeth Moberly, Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic (Greenwood, SC: James Clark & Co., 1983), 9.

27. Ibid.

28. Nicolosi, Reparative Therapy, 21.

29. E. Kaplan, “Homosexuality: A Search for the Ego-Ideal,” Archives of General Psychiatry 16 (1967): 355–358.

30. Nicolosi, Reparative Therapy, 94–95.

31. Nicolosi, Reparative Therapy, 77–78.; Irving Bieber et al., Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals (New York: Vintage Books, 1962), 44–46; Gerard van den Aardweg, Homosexuality and Hope: A Psychologist Talks About Treatment and Change (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1985), 64; Robert Kronemeyer, Overcoming Homosexuality (New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1980), 60–61.

32. Nicolosi, Reparative Therapy, 82.

33. Robert Kronemeyer, Overcoming Homosexuality (New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1980), 71.

34. Michael Saia, Counseling the Homosexual (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1988), 57–58.

35. Martha Welch, Holding Time: Intensive One-Day Seminar, 1996; M. Welch, Introduction to Welch Method Attachment Therapy, 1999.

36. James Bray and Donald Williamson, “Assessment of Intergenerational Family Relationships,” in Family of Origin Therapy (Rockville, MD: Aspen Publishers, 1987), 31.

37. S. Allen Willcox, “Perspectives of Intergenerational Concepts,” in Family of Origin Therapy (Rockville, MD: Aspen Publishers, 1987), 4.

38. Exodus 34:6–7, New Oxford Annotated Bible, Revised Standard Version (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973), 113.

39. John Pierrakos, speech presented at “Love, Eros, and Sex” seminar, Seven Oaks Conference Center, Madison, VA, December 7, 1996.

40. Bernard Nathanson, The Genetic Auschwitz, presented at the Human Life International Conference, Houston, TX, April 19, 1998.

41. Earl Wilson, Counseling and Homosexuality (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1988), 67.

42. Interview with Dr. Dean Byrd, April 13, 1999, Rockville, MD.

43. Irving Bieber et al., Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals (New York: Vintage Books, 1962), 44–46.

44. Charles Socarides, Homosexuality: Psychoanalytic Therapy (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, Inc., 1989), 63–67.

45. Nicolosi, Reparative Therapy, 80.

46. Gerard van den Aardweg, Homosexuality and Hope (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1985), 64.

47. Quoted in J. Nicolosi, Reparative Therapy, 77.

48. M. Siegelman, “Parental Background of Male Homosexuals and Heterosexuals,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 3 (1974): 3–17.

49. G. A. Westwood, A Minority Report on the Life of the Male Homosexual in Great Britain (London: Longmans, Green, 1960). Quoted in J. Nicolosi, Reparative Therapy, 77.

50.  M. Schoefield, Sociological Aspects of Homosexuality: A Comparative Study of Three Types of Homosexuals (London: Longmans, Green, 1965). Quoted in J. Nicolosi, Reparative Therapy, 77.

51. N. Thompson et al., “Parent-Child Relationships and Sexual Identity in Male and Female Homosexuals and Heterosexuals,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychiatry 41 (1973), 120–127.

52. Kronemeyer, Overcoming Homosexuality, 60–61.

53. Bly, 24.

54. Socarides, 63–67.

55. Kenneth J. Zucker and Susan J. Bradley, Gender Identity Disorder and Psychosexual Problems in Children and Adolescents (New York: Guilford Press, 1995), 254, 264.

56. Socarides, 18–25.

57. Moberly, Psychogenesis, 39; Nicolosi, Reparative Therapy, 43–45.

58. John Bowlby, Separation, Anxiety, and Anger (London: Hogarth Press, 1973).

59. Moberly, Homosexuality, 6–7.

60. Martha Welch, Holding Time: Intensive One-Day Seminar (audiocassettes, 1996).

61. Moberly, Homosexuality, 19. Nicolosi, Reparative Therapy, 113–114.

62. David Seamands, Healing for Damaged Emotions (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1981), 69.

63. Nicolosi, Reparative Therapy, 26.

64. Moberly, Homosexuality, 21–22.

65. Saia, Counseling the Homosexual, 51–55.

66. Nicolosi, Reparative Therapy, 84.

67. Dean Byrd, Understanding and Treating Homosexuality, seminar LDS Church presented at Therapeutic Seminar, Washington, D.C., March 13, 1998.(Taken form combined research studies.)

68. Patrick Dimock, “Adult Males Sexually Abused As Children,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 3, no. 2 (June 1988): 203–221.