Dale O’Leary

To same-sex attracted boys - wait

Dale O’Leary
By Dale O'Leary

June 12, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - While your friends seem obsessed with girls, you are experiencing feelings of attraction to guys. You find yourself fantasizing about being close – really close – to a teacher or macho guy in your school. You long for something more, but it isn’t a girl.

The culture—teachers in your school, the Gay Straight Alliance—is telling you that all this is a sign you were born gay. You might as well accept it and “come out” because there is nothing you can do to change it. That’s how God made you.

But before you act on this advice, take time to look at the facts. You may have heard the claim that science has found a “gay gene.” This is not true. In spite of a lot of looking, no scientist has found anything resembling a gay gene. The head of the human genome project says they have looked and it isn’t there.1

Other studies offer conclusive evidence that people are not “born” that way. If same-sex attraction were genetic or caused by some other pre-natal influence then identical twins would virtually always have the same pattern of sexual attraction. In a large sample of identical twins, only 27 pairs were found where one had same-sex attraction, and of these only 3 pairs or 11% both had same-sex attraction.2 These means same-sex attraction can’t be genetic and so no matter what you are feeling today or how young you were when you first felt different, you were not born that way.

Those who have studied the origins of same-sex attraction don’t believe there is a single cause, rather there are a number of paths that lead to these feelings.

Before you decided to “come out” you can explore how you got to this point.

Many persons who experience same-sex attractions in adolescence were victims of sexual child abuse or sexual exploitation by adults or by other children. Over 40% of persons who self-identify as “gay” say they were victimized as children.3 If this was your experience, you need to deal with this. Having sex with another male won’t heal this wound.

Some victims were so needy and longing for same-sex affection that they felt the abuse was a positive experience, because it was better than their other experiences. They may believe that since they experienced pleasure it means they were “gay.” It doesn’t. It just means their body works. Using a child as a sexual object is never good for the child.

Many men with same-sex attraction did not properly identify with their fathers or with other boys in early childhood.4 They felt different. Perhaps they identified with their mothers or female playmates, perhaps they were afraid of rough and tumble play, perhaps they lacked athletic ability, perhaps they were interested in art, music, or quiet pursuits.5 This could leave a young boy feeling left out of the male world and longing for masculinity. Such boys do not need to have sex with a male, they need to find their own manhood.6

Perhaps you didn’t fit the stereotypes. Perhaps you were teased or even labeled “gay,” but that was a lie. Real men come in all shapes and sizes with all kinds of interests and different levels of abilities. None of these experiences makes you unchangeably “gay.” You just need to find your own masculine identity.

There are other reasons why you shouldn’t “come out.”

Although you may think that coming out means entering into a loving committed relationship with a person who will really meet your needs, too often it means falling into a temporary relationship which, when it dissolves, leaves you more devastated and feeling more lost than you were before. You may be looking for security, but men who have sex with men end up going from one relationship to another – with all the attendant heartbreak or falling into a pattern of short-term relationships – short-term being an hour or two.

Some adolescent boys fall into prostitution with all the risks of violence, disease and shame. One can hardly be proud of a work history that includes a year or two of hustling or be pleased to end up as the poster boy on some pornographic website.

Disease is a real problem for adolescent males who come out. You may promise yourself that you would never be so stupid as not to use a condom, but the research shows that very few men who have sex with men keep this promise.7 They suffer from condom fatigue. They have sex when they are drunk or high. They believe a partner who says he is HIV negative, forgetting the score of other sexually transmitted infections the man might not even know he is carrying or that in the heat of passion men often lie.8 The younger a man is when he begins to have sex with men the greater the risk he will become HIV positive.9

Disease is not the only health risk. Persons with same-sex attractions are more likely to have problems with drugs and alcohol. In particular, the use of crystal meth is a real problem for this community and the results are devastating.10 Not only does crystal meth lead to physical problems and mental problems, it also causes the user to think they are invulnerable and therefore don’t need a condom. This is leading to a rise in HIV infections.11

Sex is addictive. Once you begin to have sex with men, you may not be able to stop. You may have programmed your brain for this particular activity.

The good news is that studies show that a majority of those who think they are “gay” in their early teens discover in their 20’s that they are not.12 They just grow up.13 Maybe that will happen to you spontaneously, maybe through counseling you will discover where your feelings came from.14 It would be a shame if before that happened you became a sex addict or meth addicted or infected with an incurable disease.

You have a choice. You can explore the origins of your feelings. You can get help to discover your manhood.

You can wait.

Endnotes:

1.  B.S. Mustanski, et al. “A genome wide scan of male sexual orientation,” Human Genetics, 116, 4 (2005): 272-278.

2. Michael Bailey et al. (2000) “Genetic and Environmental Influences on Sexual Orientation and its Correlates in an Australian Twins Sample,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, March, 78 (3) 524-536; John de Cecco, David Parker (ed), (1995) Sex, Cells, and Same-Sex Desire: The Biology of Sexual Preference, Harrington Park Press: NY. This book presents the debate on biology. The editors conclude, “Current research into possible biological bases of sexual preference has failed to produce any conclusive evidence.” 

3. Lynda Doll et al. (1992) “Self-reported childhood and adolescent sexual abuse among adult homosexual and bisexual men,” Child Abuse & Neglect, 16, p. 855-864. (Over 40% of adult homosexual and bisexual men in this study reported a history of sexual abuse.) Johnson, R., Shrier, D. (1985) Sexual victimization of boys: Experience at an adolescent medicine clinic. Journal of Adolescent Health Care. 6: 372 - 376; Siegel, J., Sorenson, S., Golding, J., Burnam, Stein, J. (1987) The prevalence of childhood sexual assault: The Los Angeles epidemiological catchment area project. American Journal of Epidemiology. 126, 6: 1141; Gregory Dickson, Dean Byrd, (2006) “An Empirical study of the mother-son dyad in relation to the development of male homosexuality,” Journal of the Association of Mormon Counselors and Psychotherapists,  Vol. 30. The study found that 49% of homosexual men versus. 2% of heterosexual men had a history of sexual abuse.

4. Kenneth Zucker, Susan Bradley, (1995) Gender Identity Disorder and Psychosexual Problems in Childhood and Adolescence (Guilford: NY; George A Rekers, (1995)  Gender Identity Disorder,  www.leaderu.com/jhs/rekers.html (George Rekers, Handbook of Child and Adolescent Sexual Problems (Lexington/Jossey-Bass/Simon & Schuster); Susan Bradley, Kenneth Zucker (1998) “Drs. Bradley and Zucker reply,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 37 (3) p. 244-245.

5. Friedman, R. Stern, L. (1980) Juvenile aggressivity and sissiness in homosexual and heterosexual males. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis. 8 (3) p. 427 - 440.

6. Elizabeth Moberly, Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic )Cambridge, England: James Clarke, 1983); Joseph Nicolosi, Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, (Northvale NJ: Aronson, 1991).

7. David Ostrow, et al (1994) “Sexual Behavior research on a chohort of gay men 1984-1990: Can we predict how men will respond to interventions”, Archives of Sexual Behavior , 23, 5: 531-552.

8. Binh An Diep et al. (2008) “Emergence of Multidrug-Resistant, Community Associated, Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Clone USA300 in men who have sex with men,”  Annals of Internal Medicine,  148 (4)

9 Richard Stall, et al. (2003) “Association of Co-Occurring Psychosocial Health Problems and Increased Vulnerability to HIV/AIDS among Urban Men who Sex with Men,” American Journal Of Public Health,  93 (6) p. 939-942; R. Hogg, et al. (1997) “Modeling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men,”  International Journal of Epidemiology, 26 (3) p.657-661; J. Diggs, (2002) “Health Risks of Gay Sex” Corporate Research Council, (480) 444-0030; M. Xiridou, (2003) “The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 17, 7 1029-1038: Gabriel Rotello (1997) Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men,  Dutton: NY.

10. Milton Wainberg et al, ((2006) Crystal Meth and Men who Have Sex with Men: What mental health care professionals need to know,  Haworth Medical Press, NY; Perry Halkitis, Leo Wilton, Jack Drescher, ed. (2005)  Barebacking: Psychosocial and Public Health Approaches,  Haworth Medical Press: NY; Sean Esteban McCabe, et al (2005) Assessment of Difference in Dimensions of Sexual Orientation: Implications for Substance Use Research in a College-Age Population, Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 66, p. 602-629.

11. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Review (2008) “Trends in HIV/AIDS Diagnoses among Men Who Have Sex with Men,” June 12. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5725a2,htm: In 2006 new infections in men who have sex with men aged 113-24 increased by 18 percent over the previous year.

12. Edward Lauman et al. (1994) The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States, (Chicago: University of Chicago); K. K. Kinnish, et al. (2005). “Sexual Differences in the Flexibility of Sexual Orientation: A Multidimensional Retrospective Assessment,” Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34 (2), 173-83; Nigel Dickson, et al. (2003) “Same-sex attraction in a birth cohort: prevalence and persistence in early adulthood, Social Science & Medicine, 56, p. 1607-1615.

13. Warren Throckmorton, “Hiding Truth From School Kids: It’s Elementary Revisited,” June 16, 2004 http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=78.

14. Robert Spitzer, (2006) “Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? 200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation,” (in J. Frescher, K. Zucker, eds., Ex-Gay research: Analyzing the Spitzer Study and Its Relation to Science, Religion, Politics, and Culture, Harrington House; NY) p. 35-66. Stanton Jones, Mark Yarhouse, (2007) Ex-Gays’ A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation,(Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove IL).

FREE pro-life news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

Two Congressmen confirm: National 20-week ban on abortion will come up for a vote shortly

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 17, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A bill to end abortion in the United States after 20 weeks will move forward, and it will have the strong support of two leading pro-life Congressmen, the two Republicans told LifeSiteNews.com at the eighth annual Susan B. Anthony List Campaign for Life Summit on Thursday.

Rep. Chris Smith, R-NJ, told LifeSiteNews and the National Catholic Register that ongoing House discussions on H.R. 36, the "Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act," will result in a pro-life bill moving forward.

"Very good language" is being put together, Smith told The Register. He told LifeSiteNews that he fully anticipated being able to support the final bill, because the House Republican caucus "wouldn't have something that would be unsupportable. Our leadership is genuinely pro-life."

In 2013, the "Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" easily passed through the House of Representatives, only to be stalled by a Democratic-controlled Senate. This year, an identical bill was halted by Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-NC, and other Republicans -- surprising and angering pro-life leaders who thought its passage was assured. That bill, H.R. 36, is now being rewritten so it can be voted on by the full House, though its final wording remains uncertain.

Some fear that the House leadership will modify the bill to mollify Ellmers. She and others objected that the bill allows women to abort a child after 20 weeks in the case of rape – but only if they report that rape to the authorities.

Pro-life activists say removing the reporting requirement would take abortionists at their word that the women whose children they abort claimed to be raped. Congresswoman Ellmers has publicly stated the House leadership is considering such a proposal.

Jill Stanek, who was recently arrested on Capitol Hill as part of a protest to encourage Republicans to pass H.R. 36, said that would be "a loophole big enough for a Mack truck."

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Congressman Smith said the bill will come to the floor shortly. "The commitment to this bill is ironclad; we just have to work out some details," Smith said.

He also noted that, while a vote on the 20-week ban has been delayed for nearly three months, "we did get the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act passed, and that would have been in the queue now, so we just reversed" the order of the two bills.

Congressman Smith spoke to both outlets shortly after participating in a panel at the Summit.

Another speaker was Rep. Steve King, R-IA, who also supports the 20-week ban.

"I can't think of what” language that is actively under consideration could make him rethink his support for the bill, King said. He also told attendees that the nation was moving in a direction of supporting life.

The outspoken Congressman declined to answer further, noting "that's asking me to anticipate an unknown hypothetical."

The annual Campaign for Life Summit and its related gala drew other high-profile speakers, including presidential candidate Senator Rand Paul, potential presidential hopeful Senator Lindsay Graham, and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus.  

Advertisement
Featured Image
"Someone who doesn’t flinch at the dismemberment of babies is not going to flinch at the dismemberment of some evangelical baker’s conscience."
Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

Pro-lifers are winning. So now they’re coming for our cupcakes?

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon van Maren

As I travel across Canada (and at times the United States) speaking on abortion and various facets of the Culture of Death, one of the things I hear often is a hopelessness, a despair that the West is being flattened by the juggernaut of the Sexual Revolution. There is a feeling among many people that the restriction of religious liberty, the continued legality of abortion, and the redefinition of marriage are inevitable.

This is, of course, one of the most prominent and successful strategies of the Sexual Revolutionaries—create an aura of inevitability while concurrently demonizing all those who oppose their new and mangled “progress” as Neanderthals on the cusp of being left behind by History. That inevitability becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, because many people don’t realize that the various battles in the Sexual Revolution actually all correlate to one another—that what we are seeing now is the end game of an incredibly vast and well-planned cultural project.

It is because we miss many of these connections that we often cannot see, with clarity, how the culture wars are actually unfolding. I read with great interest a recent column by Rev. Douglas Wilson, eloquently titled “With stirrups raised to Molech.”

“We are now much occupied with the issues swirling around same sex mirage,” he writes, “but we need to take great care not to get distracted. Why have the homosexual activists gone all in on this issue? Why is their prosecutorial zeal so adamant? We went, in just a matter of months, from ‘let’s let individual states’ decide on this, to federal judges striking down state statutes, followed up hard by official harassment of florists, bakers, and photographers. Why the anger, and why the savage over-reach? And do they really think we couldn’t remember all the things they were assuring us of this time last year?”

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

It’s a compelling question, and one that I’ve heard many Christians puzzling over recently. Why do the advocates of the Sexual Revolution despise those who disagree with them so viciously? It is partly because their cultural project does not, as they claim, consist of “living and let live.” It is about compulsory acceptance of any and all sexual behaviors, with tax-payer funding for the rubbers and pills they need to ensure all such behaviors remain sterile, and extermination crews to suction, poison, and dismember any inconvenient fetuses that may come into being as the result of casual coitus.

The ancient mantra “the State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation” has long been abandoned—the emboldened Sexual Revolutionaries now demand that politicians show up at their exhibitionist parades of public indecency, force schools to impose their so-called “morally neutral” view of sexuality on children, and force into silence those who still hold to traditional values.

Rev. Wilson, however, thinks that this loud and vicious war on conscience may be about even more than that. The pro-life cause, he notes, has been very successful in the Unites States. The abortion rate is the lowest it has been since 1973. Hundreds of pro-life laws are passing on the state level. The abortion industry has been successfully stigmatized. True, the successes are, for pro-lifers, often too feeble and not nearly adequate enough in the face of such unrestrained bloodshed. Nevertheless, the momentum has turned against the Sexual Revolutionaries who have championed abortion for decades—their shock and anger at the strength of the pro-life movement evident in pro-abortion signs at rallies that read, “I can’t believe I still have to protest this s**t.”

It is because of the pro-life movement’s success, Wilson muses, that the Sexual Revolutionaries may be coming at us with such fury. “If a nation has slaughtered 50 million infants,” he writes, “they are not going to suddenly get a sense of decency over you and your cupcakes. Now this explains their lack of proportion, and their refusal to acknowledge the rights of florists. Someone who doesn’t flinch at the dismemberment of babies is not going to flinch at the dismemberment of some evangelical baker’s conscience. This reveals their distorted priorities, of course, but it also might be revealing a strategy. Is the homosexual lobby doing this because they are freaking out over their losses on the pro-life front? And are they doing so in a way intended to distract us away from an issue where we are slowly, gradually, inexorably, winning?”

It’s a fascinating perspective. It’s true—and has always been true historically—that when one group of human beings is classified as nonhuman by a society as nonhuman and subsequently butchered, the whole of society is degraded. No nation and no culture can collectively and systematically kill so many human beings without a correlating hardening of the conscience. But on the pro-life front, there has been decades of fierce resistance, hundreds of incremental victories, and a renewed energy among the upcoming generation of activists. For the Sexual Revolutionaries who thought the battle was over when Roe v. Wade was announced in 1973, this must be a bitter pill to swallow indeed.

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Lisa Bourne

, ,

‘Prominent’ Catholics attacking Archbishop Cordileone are big donors to Pelosi and pro-abort Democrats

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne

Note: To sign a petition supporting Archbishop Cordileone, click here

SAN FRANCISCO, CA, April 17, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Big donors to the Democrat Party and pro-abortion Nancy Pelosi are among those publicly harassing San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone for protecting Catholic identity in the area’s Catholic high schools.

A big-ticket full-page ad ran April 16 in the San Francisco Chronicle attacking the archbishop and calling Pope Francis to oust him for his efforts to reinforce Catholic principles in the schools.

A number of prominent San Francisco-area residents identifying as Catholic are signatories of the ad, and several are wealthy donors to Democrat entities and pro-abortion politicians, Catholic Vote reports.

Federal Election Commission records indicate Charles Geschke, Adobe Systems chairman and previous head of the Board of Trustees at the University of San Francisco, gave more than $240,000 to Democrat groups, as well as $2,300 to Nancy Pelosi and $4,000 to John Kerry, both politicians who claim to be Catholic but support abortion and homosexual “marriage.”

Also on the list is political consultant and businessman Clint Reilly, who gave nearly $60,000 to Democrat organizations, along with $5,000 to Barack Obama, whose administration vehemently promotes abortion and homosexual “marriage” and has continually opposed religious liberty. Reilly gave $4,600 to Pelosi as well.

Another individual in the ad attacking the archbishop who also gave big campaign donations to California pro-abort Democrats was Lou Giraudo, a former city commissioner and business executive who contributed more than $24,000 to Nancy Pelosi, $6,000 to Dianne Feinstein and $4,300 to Barbara Boxer.

Nancy Pelosi herself challenged the archbishop for his stance on Catholic teaching last year when she tried to pressure him out of speaking at the March for Marriage in Washington D.C., claiming the event was “venom masquerading as virtue.”

The archbishop responded in a letter that he was obliged “as a bishop, to proclaim the truth—the whole truth—about the human person and God’s will for our flourishing ... especially the truth about marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife.”

The April 16 ad attacking Archbishop Cordileone was the latest in an ongoing assault since the archbishop took steps in February to strengthen Catholic identity in the schools and clarify for faculty and staff in handbooks and contract language the long-standing expectation that they uphold Church principles. 

It said Archbishop Cordileone has “fostered an atmosphere of division and intolerance” and called on Pope Francis to remove him.

“Holy Father, Please Provide Us With a Leader True to Our Values and Your Namesake,” the ad said. “Please Replace Archbishop Cordileone.”

The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy (CCC), a national association for priests and deacons, condemned Archbishop Cordileone’s harassers in a statement, saying the archbishop “teaches in conformity to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

“The character assassination and uncharitable venom being cast upon a bishop merely defending the doctrines of his religion is appalling and repugnant,” the CCC said. 

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

“It is totally inappropriate, improper and unjust for the media and others to vilify and brutally attack him when he is doing precisely what an ordained minister and pastor of souls is obligated to do,” the group stated, “namely, speak the truth in season and out of season.”

Those behind the attack ad said the proposed handbook language was mean-spirited, and that they were “committed Catholics inspired by Vatican II,” who “believe in the traditions of conscience, respect and inclusion upon which our Catholic faith was founded.”

The Archdiocese of San Francisco denounced the ad upon its release, saying it was a misrepresentation of Catholic teaching and the nature of the teacher contract, and a misrepresentation of the spirit of the Archbishop.

“The greatest misrepresentation of all is that the signers presume to speak for “the Catholic Community of San Francisco,” the archdiocese responded. “They do not.”

The CCC pointed out that just as physicians are expected to be faithful to the Hippocratic Oath, bishops, priests, and deacons are expected to be faithful to the Church, its teachings and its authority, “since their objective is the salvation of souls, not a popularity contest.” 

In openly declaring their support for Archbishop Cordileone, the group urged the media and others to show “prudence, civility, and fair-mindedness” toward those with whom they disagree.

“He took an oath to be faithful to the Gospel,” the Confraternity stated of Archbishop Cordileone, “and in the words of the disciples in the New Testament, ‘better to obey God than men.’”

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook