Homosexuality Fact and Fiction

Author:

Joseph P. Gudel

•

Article ID:

DH055-1

•

Updated: 

Jul 6, 2023

•

Published:

Apr 22, 2009

This article first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume 15, number 1 (1992).

 

SUMMARY

If homosexuality is neither a normal nor a healthy lifestyle — as I believe this article demonstrates — then the most loving thing we can do is to help homosexuals realize this and offer them our help and encouragement. But millions of people in our society believe that homosexuality is a healthy and acceptable alternative lifestyle. This debate over the acceptance of homosexuality in our culture is one that has been clouded with many misrepresentations and inaccuracies. These misrepresentations include the assertion that ten percent of all Americans are gay (the figure is actually closer to one or two percent), that all competent psychiatrists and psychologists believe homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle (the majority do not), that homosexuals are born that way (most therapists disagree) and cannot change their sexual preference (disproven by numerous accounts where gays have converted to heterosexuality). It is the Christian’s task to point out that while homosexuality is a sin, we are all sinners and there is forgiveness and deliverance for all who turn to Jesus Christ.

 

“People should live and let live!”
“To each his own, let them live as they wish.”
“Let the gays have their freedom.”
“Whatever makes you happy, live with it.”1

Comments like these are commonly heard when the topic of homosexuality comes up for discussion. The debate over homosexuality and homosexual rights has steadily grown over the past two decades and will only continue to do so.

In the course of this debate, however, numerous inaccuracies, half-truths, fallacies, and overt propaganda have been disseminated to the public as uncontested truth. It is the purpose of this article to examine these claims and separate fact from fiction. Before anyone can give intelligent and compassionate answers, the questions must be clarified and brought into focus. I believe that when this is done the impartial reader will be able to agree with the analogy made by Dr. James D. Mallory, a psychiatrist and the director of the Atlanta Counseling Center: “A physician would be guilty of malpractice if he didn’t warn a diabetic of his condition because he didn’t want to hurt his feelings. Simply letting the person continue eating excessive carbohydrates without proper treatment condemns him to a worsening physical condition. The most loving act one can do is point out that an abnormality exists, and offer help. This needs to be done — but not in a spirit of condemnation — with homosexuality.”2

HOMOPHOBIA?

Homophobia is defined in The Kinsey Institute New Report on Sex as the “fear, dislike, or hatred of homosexuals.”3 The Greek word phobia denotes an “irrational fear.” The word homo literally means “same,” but the word is frequently used as a shortened form of homosexual — one who is sexually attracted to his or her own sex. Thus, strictly speaking, homophobia denotes an irrational fear or hatred of homosexuals. However, the gay rights movement (and, by-and-large, the media) places this label on anyone who opposes any of the movement’s goals and objectives; specifically, anyone opposing the full acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle as healthy and “normal.”

While indeed there are many people who hate or irrationally fear homosexuals, to say that anyone who opposes the homosexual lifestyle or disagrees with the gay rights political agenda is a homophobe is simply not true. This tactic is clearly intended to divert attention from the argument and onto the person. As we will see below, there are many who oppose homosexuality on psychological, sociological, medical, and moral grounds.

TEN PERCENT OF THE POPULATION?

Perhaps the most fascinating statistic cited (constantly and confidently) in research of homosexuality is that ten percent of the United States population is homosexual. The implication is that this is probably just as true in most other societies as well. I say this is fascinating because virtually nobody knows (or at least cites) where this statistic comes from.

The Family Research Institute asks, “How many homosexuals are there? USA Today said ’25 million gay men and lesbians’ (11/13/91) [i.e., about 10% of the US population]. The Washington Times said ’10 percent of American men are homosexual and 5 percent of women are lesbian’ (11/19/91). The American Psychological Association assures us that homosexuality is ‘an orientation found consistently in about ten percent of the male population and approximately five percent of the female population’ (2/6/89).”4

Just this week, as I was preparing to put this article together, I watched “Teen Connection,” a public broadcast program.5 Its topic was “Sexual Orientation” with a panel consisting of a homosexual teenage boy, the boy’s mother, a young lady who is a lesbian, and an adult homosexual “counselor.” Within the course of an hour the ten percent figure was cited three times, being adduced as evidence of just how many people out there need our encouragement and understanding. They had a panel of phones for those who had questions or needed counseling themselves. I called in and asked them where the ten percent figure came from. The lady I spoke with did not know, and neither did another phone counselor she asked.

The truth is that this ten percent statistic comes from a report published more than 40 years ago — the famous 1948 study led by William Kinsey.6 The only problem with this report is that its findings were terribly flawed by the methodology used to collect the supposedly representative sample of the U.S. population.7

Why were his findings flawed? For several reasons, first and foremost being that approximately 25 percent of the 5,300 individuals Kinsey studied were prison inmates, “who by the nature of their confinement, couldn’t have heterosexual intercourse.” In addition, 44 percent of these inmates had had homosexual experiences while in prison.8 This was hardly a representative sample of the American population.

But there were other major flaws in the group selected for the research. Kinsey admitted that “several hundred male prostitutes” were used in his sample. This alone would make a major difference in his findings.9

In addition there was clearly a “volunteer bias.” In attempting to select a representative group to work with, one does not merely run an ad and accept anyone who responds. Research has shown that those responding to a study as intimate as the one Kinsey was doing would not be representative of the general population. In fact, the widely renowned psychologist Abraham Maslow pointed this out to Kinsey before his findings were published, but he refused to listen.10

To make matters worse, the people who refer back to this old and flawed study do not quote it accurately. Kinsey did not say that 10 percent of the entire U.S. population was homosexual. Rather, he affirmed that ten percent of white American males were “more or less” exclusively homosexual for at least three years of their lives between the ages of 16 and 65. The statistic for females was five percent. The actual percentage of those thought to be exclusively homosexual for their entire lives was only four percent of men and two or three percent of women, all based on his allegedly representative sample of the population.11

What are the real figures as far as we can tell today? One recent study of men conducted between 1984 and 1987 by David Forman, the senior staff scientist at the Radcliffe Infirmary (Oxford, England), found that only 1.7 percent of the sample study had ever had homosexual intercourse.12 An even more recent study, conducted at the University of Chicago in 1989 and reported at the 1990 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, resulted in a figure “less than 1% exclusively homosexual.”13

Are these results significant? Well, they are significant in at least setting the record straight as to the actual scope or parameters of the debate. There is quite a difference between one or two percent of the population being homosexual as opposed to ten percent of the population. Obviously, the higher the percentage cited as being homosexual, the more influence those in the gay rights movement can wield.

IS HOMOSEXUALITY AN ILLNESS? IS IT “NORMAL”?

An even more important question, though, is if homosexuality constitutes pathological behavior. Is it an illness? Gay rights groups continually assert that homosexuals are as “normal” as heterosexuals, that homosexuality is not an illness or psychological disorder. For example, Peri Jude Radecic, a member of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), asserted on the ABC news show Nightline: “Homosexuality is not an illness, it is not something that needs to be cured. We are normal, natural and healthy people.”14

Moreover, these groups universally contend that all competent psychiatrists and psychologists are in agreement on this. As proof of this, the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) 1973 declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder is always cited.

Before examining the contention that all competent psychiatrists and psychologists agree that homosexuality is normal and healthy, we need to look at the APA’s 1973 decision for a moment. For 23 years homosexuality had been listed as a mental disorder by the APA. Why was it decided, at that particular point in time, that it was not pathological?

I do not have the space to go into a detailed analysis of the history leading up to the APA’s decision.15 Nonetheless, it is a misconception to think that this came about only after dispassionate and scholarly discussion, and only after listening equally to all sides of the issue. Also, it is important to note that the APA’s vote was anything but unanimous.

In the three years leading up to the 1973 APA meeting, the previous national meetings had been repeatedly disrupted by gay activists. At the 1970 meeting in San Francisco certain sessions were broken up with shouts and jeers, prohibiting any rational discussion or debate.

At the APA’s 1971 meeting in Washington, threats and intimidation accomplished what discussion could not. Ronald Bayer, in a work sympathetic toward homosexuality and the gay rights movement, recounts: “Using forged credentials, gay activists gained access to the exhibit area and, coming across a display marketing aversive conditioning [i.e., punishing an organism whenever it makes a particular response] techniques for the treatment of homosexuals, demanded its removal. Threats were made against the exhibitor, who was told that unless his booth was dismantled, it would be torn down. After frantic behind-the-scenes consultations, and in an effort to avoid violence, the convention leadership agreed to have the booth removed.”16

These tactics continued in the same manner at the APA’s 1972 national meeting. It was against this backdrop that the association’s trustees finally made its controversial 1973 decision. When a referendum on this was sent out to all 25,000 APA members, only a quarter of them returned their ballots. The final tally was 58 percent favoring the removal of homosexuality from their list of disorders.

Four years later, Dr. Charles Socarides — who was at the meetings and was an expert in the area of homosexuality, having treated homosexuals for more than twenty years — described the political atmosphere leading up to the 1973 vote. He writes that during this time, “militant homosexual groups continued to attack any psychiatrist or psychoanalyst who dared to present his findings as to the psychopathology [i.e., the study of mental disorders from all aspects] of homosexuality before national or local meetings of psychiatrists or in public forums.”17 Elsewhere Socarides stated that the decision of the APA trustees was “the medical hoax of the century.”18

Was this the end of the debate? Did the vast majority of “competent” psychiatrists agree with the APA’s decision? In 1977 ten thousand members of the APA were polled at random, asking them their opinion on this. In an article entitled “Sick Again?” Time magazine summarized the results of the poll: “Of those answering, 69% said they believed ‘homosexuality is usually a pathological adaptation, as opposed to a normal variation,’ 18% disagreed and 13% were uncertain. Similarly, sizable majorities said that homosexuals are generally less happy than heterosexuals (73%) and less capable of mature, loving relationships (60%). A total of 70% said that homosexuals’ problems have more to do with their own inner conflicts than with stigmatization by society at large.”19

But what about today? Has this issue been resolved in current medical opinion and research? Concerning this, Dr. Stanton L. Jones, professor of psychology at Wheaton College, states that there is a “mixed scorecard” among professionals on this. He writes: “I would not regard homosexuality to be a psychopathology in the same sense as schizophrenia or phobic disorders. But neither can it be viewed as a normal ‘lifestyle variation’ on a par with being introverted versus extroverted.”20

One may debate whether or not homosexuality is a pathological disorder, but it is clear that the APA’s 1973 decision cannot be cited as medical consensus that homosexuality is a “normal” condition. Later in this article I will examine in some detail the assertion that homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle.

BORN GAY?

Perhaps the most dangerous myth disseminated today by the pro-homosexuality movement is that modern science has proven that homosexuality is innate and immutable. That is, homosexuals are born gay, much like being born left-handed or with blue eyes. The inference, of course, is that if they are born that way, then homosexuality cannot be considered immoral or unnatural; the homosexual is just following his or her genes. However, as Congressman William Dennemeyer put it, “if homosexuality is a perversion of what is natural, then homosexuals must look at their own conduct in an entirely different light and explain it in less satisfying terms.”21

It is well beyond the scope of this article to summarize all the findings concerning the genesis of homosexuality. However, the scientific evidences for its origins are usually classified in terms of either biological causes (i.e., genetic/hormonal) or environmental factors (e.g., psychological causes, volitional, and so forth).

(1) Biological Causes. The most recent research suggesting that homosexuality may be caused by biological factors came out in 1991 with the publication of some preliminary findings of Dr. Simon LeVay, a neuroscientist at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego. His research consisted of studying the brains of 41 cadavers, including 19 homosexual males. He found that “a tiny area believed to control sexual activity [the hypothalamus] was less than half the size in the gay men than in the heterosexuals.”22

This study was seized upon by many as “irrefutable evidence” that homosexuals are born gay, something the homosexual community has been proclaiming for many years. However, “instead of resolving the debate,” a Newsweek article suggests, “the studies may well have intensified it. Some scientists profess not to be surprised at all by LeVay’s finding of brain differences. ‘Of course it [sexual orientation] is in the brain,’ says Johns Hopkins University psychologist John Money, sometimes called the dean of American sexologists. ‘The real question is, when did it get there? Was it prenatal, neonatal, during childhood, puberty? That we do not know.'”23

Other problems with his findings include: (1) all 19 of the homosexual men had died of AIDS, something that many researchers believe could very well account for or contribute to the differences; (2) there was no way to know the sexual history of the “heterosexual” men; (3) there is no way to determine if the smaller hypothalamuses were the cause or the result of homosexuality; and (4) Dr. LeVay, a homosexual himself, admitted that his study was not entirely a dispassionate scientific endeavor.24

(2) Environmental Factors. There are probably just as many, if not more, psychiatrists and psychologists who believe that homosexuality arises from various environmental factors. The majority of these say that homosexuality’s root causes are psychological, not biological. But these people are not cited nearly as often by the media as the others — perhaps a pro-homosexual bias by the media? And they are virtually never even acknowledged by the homosexual community, because most homosexuals want to believe that they were born that way and had no choice (conscious or subliminal) in the matter.

In any case, some of the most noteworthy and respected researchers and therapists in the world deny that homosexuality is determined by biological factors. For example, therapists helping homosexuals who are unhappy with their condition can cite one case history after another showing that negative early childhood experiences are the one common factor found in almost all their patients. The vital factor here is that these people were raised in a very unloving home environment, never knowing love or acceptance from their mother or their father, or in some cases both. According to these studies, the child’s reaction to this rejection and lack of nurturing is formulated at a very early age, usually before five years old. The following references illustrate these findings.

William H. Masters (codirector of the Masters and Johnson Institute), Virginia E. Brown, and Robert C. Kolodny stated categorically in their 1982 work Human Sexuality: “The genetic theory of homosexuality has been generally discarded today.”25

Robert Kronemeyer, in his work Overcoming Homosexuality, writes: “With rare exceptions, homosexuality is neither inherited nor the result of some glandular disturbance or the scrambling of genes or chromosomes. Homosexuals are made, not born ‘that way.’ I firmly believe that homosexuality is a learned response to early painful experiences and that it can be unlearned. For those homosexuals who are unhappy with their life and find effective therapy, it is ‘curable.'”26

John DeCecco, professor of psychology at San Francisco State University and the editor of the 25-volume Journal of Homosexuality, expressed the same view in a 1989 USA Today article: “‘The idea that people are born into one type of sexual behavior is entirely foolish,’ says John DeCecco… Homosexuality, he says, is ‘a behavior, not a condition,’ and something that some people can and do change, just like they sometimes change other tastes and personality traits.”27

One thing is clear: it is hardly an established scientific fact accepted by the entire medical field that homosexuality is solely or even primarily caused by biological factors. This brings us to the question just raised above: Can those who are homosexual change?

IS CHANGE IMPOSSIBLE?

The question of whether or not one should want to change his or her sexual preference will be addressed shortly. But before looking at the desirability of changing, we need to ascertain whether change is even possible. I say that this is important to investigate because a host of individuals concerned with homosexual issues deny that this is a possibility.

Those in the gay rights movement, as well as numerous researchers, psychotherapists, and so forth, decry any attempt to change the homosexual’s sexual orientation or preference. Rick Notch, a homosexual man who at one time claimed to have become an ex-gay, stated on The Geraldo Show: “The only choice we have is to learn to accept ourselves and to find a way to live a responsible, moral life.”28 Dr. Richard Isay, a psychiatrist who heads the APA’s committee on gay issues, likewise asserted: “The core orientation in a gay man cannot be changed.”29

But even a perfunctory examination of the available testimonies and case studies shows that this simply is not true. First of all, do all of the other psychiatrists and psychologists agree with the assertion that change is not possible? By no means! In fact, most believe that change is possible. William H. Masters and Virginia E. Johnson, hardly homophobes, write in their work Homosexuality in Perspective: “Providing therapeutic support for the homosexually oriented man or woman who wishes to convert or revert to heterosexuality has been an integral part of the practice of psychotherapy for decades.”30

Likewise, in the Kinsey Institute New Report on Sex (1990) we find the statement that “sexual orientation, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is not readily changed by any type of intervention” (emphasis added).31 Thus, while it is not easy, changing one’s sexual orientation is nonetheless possible — which could not be the case if homosexuality was innate and immutable.

This was confirmed on a recent segment of ABC’s 20/20, which had a story dealing with a Dr. Joseph Nicolosi. Nicolosi is a psychologist and psychotherapist who has been helping homosexual men convert to heterosexuality for a number of years now. 32

I already referred above to the work of Dr. Robert Kronemeyer. If the interested reader pursues this work, he or she will find eight case histories cited — true accounts of people who sought relief from their lives of homosexual bondage (their own description of their lifestyles) and were converted to heterosexuality 33

Another area where we see the fruit of changed lives is in the numerous Christian ministries reaching out to homosexuals desiring help. Space limitations will not allow me to go into great detail. Those interested can find the references in the endnotes.

Are there really changed lives? There is Darlene Bogle, a woman who “struggled with lesbianism” for 17 years.34 She was raised in an environment where she was sexually abused by different men and boys, the first at the age of three. Her parents divorced when she was only five. Her new stepfather frequently abused her, both verbally and physically. In her own words she was raised in “a home that lacked nurturing, that was void of positive role models and void of love.”35 Today, through the grace and mercy of God, she has been completely free for 15 years from her former lifestyle and is currently a counselor at Paraklete Ministries in Hayward, California.

There is Frank Worthen, a practicing homosexual for 25 years. In 1973 he turned back to Jesus Christ, who delivered him from that lifestyle. Since then he has remained free, without once falling back into his old secular behavior. Today he and his wife Anita are missionaries in the Philippines with Exodus International.36

There is Andrew Comiskey, a former homosexual who is now the director of Desert Stream Ministries.37 There is Joanne Highley, a lesbian from the ages of 13 to 23, who has now been freed from that lifestyle for the past 35 years. She has been married to the same man during those 35 years, is a mother and grandmother, and with her husband is codirector of L.I.F.E. ministries in New York City.38

Are there really changed lives, people who were exclusively homosexual and became heterosexual? Yes. Have there not been those who have fallen back into their old lifestyles? Again, the answer is yes, which is to be expected. Just like in Alcoholics Anonymous, the road is rarely easy and involves a tremendous commitment by the individual seeking recovery and healing. Sometimes individuals stumble and never get back up again. Sometimes they stumble, get back up, and continue on in the process of recovery. And occasionally, individuals are healed instantly and never turn back again. But the fact remains that there are many former homosexuals, ex-gays, who have been transformed by the power of Jesus Christ.

A HEALTHY LIFESTYLE?

As noted above, those in the gay rights movement constantly assert that they are both normal and healthy individuals. We have already discussed the “normality” of homosexuality. The question of whether or not it is a healthy lifestyle can be addressed in two areas: promiscuity and actual sexual practices.

(1) Promiscuity. If one agrees with the assertion that being promiscuous is not healthy, from either an emotional or physical standpoint, then homosexuality as typically practiced must be termed extremely unhealthy. Homosexualities, an official publication of The Institute for Sex Research founded by Alfred Kinsey, Alan Bell, and Martin Weinberg, reported that only ten percent of male homosexuals could be termed as “relatively monogamous” or “relatively less promiscuous.” Additional findings showed that 60 percent of male homosexuals had more than 250 lifetime sexual partners, and 28 percent of male homosexuals had more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. Another startling fact is that 79 percent admitted that more than half of their sexual partners were strangers.39

Just a few years after the publication of this report, Dr. William Foege, the director of the Centers for Disease Control, stated: “The average AIDS victim has had 60 different sexual partners in the past twelve months.”40 In contrast with this, “the average heterosexual male has — throughout his life — from five to nine sex partners.”41

What about lesbian relationships? Are homosexual women less promiscuous than homosexual men? While less research has been done on lesbians, the data shows that they are much more monogamous than homosexual men. However, their relationships are still not very secure. Yvonne Zipter, a lesbian writing in Chicago’s gay journal Windy City Times, in an article entitled “The Disposable Lesbian Relationship,” notes that the “lasting lesbian relationship” is a “mythic entity.”42

(2) Sexual Practices. A second item that cannot be avoided in a discussion of the health aspects of homosexuality is the actual sexual practices of homosexuals. Are these healthy? Once again, the vast preponderance of medical evidence is resoundingly negative.

Many different medical sources document the physical aberrancy of homosexual sexual practices. The following information comes from an article entitled “Medical Perspective of the Homosexual Issue.” It was written by Dr. Bernard J. Klamecki, a proctologist (rectal specialist) for more than 30 years.

Dr. Klamecki states in this article that when he began his medical practice in 1960, only one percent of his patients were homosexuals. By 1988 this number had grown to 25 percent of his patients, the majority being referred by a local gay free clinic. The following material comes from one who is known and respected by the homosexual community, a medical professional who has care and compassion for all his patients and who donates a good deal of his time to their service.

I know well the medical and surgical pathology directly related to the sexual practices typical of active homosexuals, particularly anal intercourse (sodomy) and oral intercourse (fellatio)….

Sexual practices typical of homosexuals can affect the oral cavities, lungs, penis, prostate, bladder, anus, perianal areas outside of the rectum, rectum, colon, vagina, uterus, pelvic area, brain, skin, blood, immune system, and other body systems…. While none of the following practices is unique to homosexuals, they are nonetheless typical….

Most common is anal intercourse (sodomy)….Foreign objects are often used in order to produce a different erotic sensation or to instigate a more violent sexual activity (sadomasochism). Objects that I have removed from the rectum and lower bowel include corn cobs, light bulbs, vibrators, soda bottles, and varied wooden sticks.

“Fisting” is when a fisted hand is inserted into the rectum, sometimes as far as the elbow, which produces varied sexually exciting sensations, strongly linking eroticism with pain….

Oral intercourse (fellatio) is when the tongue is used to lick or tickle the outlet of the rectum for sexual excitement, arousing, or foreplay. Needless to say, bacteria may contaminate and infect the mouth. One other sexual practice is “Water Sports,” in which urinating into the mouth or rectum is used as a sexual stimulant.

Physical damage to the rectum may occur because of some of these practices….There is an antinatural activity being performed when the rectum is the recipient of a penis or foreign object. Because of this activity, cracking of the tissue (fissuring), open sores (ulcers), boils (abscesses), and other infections can occur in the skin of the surrounding tissues….

Persistent anal-rectal sexual activity can lead to various pre-cancerous lesions such as Bowen’s disease and Kaposi’s sarcoma. Whenever tissues are traumatized, cracked, or abraded, they are vulnerable to bacterial infection.43

Dr. Klamecki then continues, discussing the various bacterial diseases and viral diseases he regularly encounters with his homosexual patients — the most prominent being AIDS (the current figure is that 70 percent of Americans with AIDS are male homosexuals or bisexuals). In addition, he asserts that up to 86 percent of homosexual males use various drugs to enhance and increase their sexual stimulation.44

Is the homosexual lifestyle a healthy one? The information presented above just scratches the surface showing the pathological nature of these sexual practices. Much more could be shared (e.g., the homosexual is three times more suicidal than the heterosexual; a recent study shows the life expectancy of homosexual men and women without AIDS being about 33 years shorter than that of the heterosexual; and so forth),45 but space will not permit it. I believe that any unbiased reader would have to admit that homosexuality is neither a healthy lifestyle nor a natural one.

In the next issue of the Journal I will deal briefly with the gay rights movement’s political agenda. I will also examine their considerably successful attempts to change the outlooks of both Christians and Jews towards homosexuality.

THE CHRISTIAN’S TASK

Before closing I need to clarify that while I believe that homosexuality is anatomically aberrant, psychologically deviant, and morally bankrupt, it is also just as true that we are all sinners. The Bible states that we have all turned our backs on God and gone our own way. As Martin Luther once put it, we each “sin often and daily.”

Except for the grace and mercy of God, each one of us would be left in our own little world of sin, alone and helpless. The good news, though, is that God has reached out to us, coming down to become one with us in our humanity, dying and rising again — that we may be free from the bondage of sin.

For anyone struggling with the bondage of homosexuality, or the bondage of any other sin, there is freedom available at the cross of Calvary. Our task as Christians is to lovingly reach out to all people with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

NOTES

  1. The quotations are from members of the studio audience on The Geraldo Show, “Can Gays and Lesbians Go Straight?” 11 June 1991.
  2. James D. Mallory, “Homosexuality: Part III — A Psychiatrist’s View,” Christian Life, October 1977, 28.
  3. June M. Reinisch, dir., The Kinsey Institute New Report on Sex (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990), 147.
  4. Family Research Report (Family Research Institute, Washington, D.C.), 1.
  5. Teen Connection, “Sexual Orientation” (Wisconsin Public Television), 19 May 1992.
  6. Alfred C. Kinsey, et al., Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (Philadelphia: Saunders Company, 1948).
  7. See Abraham Maslow and James M. Sakoda, “Volunteer Error in the Kinsey Study,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 47 (April 1952), 259-62.
  8. “The Ten Percent Solution, Part II,” Peninsula 3:2 (October/November 1991), 7. Also see Judith A. Reisman and Edward W. Eichol, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud (Lafayette, LA: Huntington House Publishers, 1990), 23.
  9. Kinsey, et. al., 216.
  10. Maslow and Sakoda, 259-62.
  11. Reinisch, 140.
  12. Reisman and Eichol, 194.
  13. lbid., 195.
  14. Nightline, ABC News, 30 August 1991.
  15. For those interested in the history leading up to the APA’s 1973 removal of homosexuality from their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders, see Ronald Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 101-54; William Dannemeyer, Shadow in the Land (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989), 24-39.
  16. Bayer, 105-6.
  17. Charles W. Socarides, Beyond Sexual Freedom (New York: Quadrangle Books, 1977), 87. Prior to the 1973 vote Dr. Socarides led the APA’s task force studying homosexuality, which issued a report unanimously declaring homosexuality to be a disorder of psychosexual development. This report, considered to be too politically inflammatory, was shelved, only later being published as a “study group” report in 1974.
  18. Charles W. Socarides in Robert Kronemeyer, Overcoming Homosexuality (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1980), 5.
  19. “Sick Again? Psychiatrists Vote on Gays,” Time, 20 February 1978, 102.
  20. Stanton L. Jones, “Homosexuality According to Science,” in J. Isamu Yamamoto, ed., The Crisis of Homosexuality (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1990), 107.
  21. Dannemeyer, 40-41.
  22. Charlene Crabb, “Are Some Men Born to Be Homosexual?” U. S. News & World Report, 9 September 1991, 58.
  23. David Gelman, et al., “Born or Bred?” Newsweek, 24 February 1992, 48.
  24. Simon LeVay on The Phil Donahue Show, “Genetically Gay: Born Gay or Become Gay?” 3 January 1992.
  25. William H. Masters, Virginia E. Brown, and Robert Kolodny, Human Sexuality (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1982), 319.
  26. Kronemeyer, 7.
  27. Kim Painter, “A Biological Theory for Sexual Preference,” USA Today, 1 January 1989, 4D. Also, see Alan P. Bell, et al., Sexual Preference (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1981), 221. While not believing that biology determines sexual preference, neither do they believe that the parents somehow caused it. Instead, they believe there is a causal relationship in children having early “gender identity” problems and their becoming homosexual.
  28. Rick Notch, The Geraldo Show, 11 June 1991.
  29. Richard Isay, quoted on 20/20, ABC News, 24 April 1992.
  30. William H. Masters and Virginia E. Johnson, Homosexuality in Perspective (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1979), 333. Also, after a ten-year study of homosexuality they found that those desiring “conversion” to heterosexuality had only a 21 percent failure rate (p. 396). However, after making certain adjustments the conversion failure rate could be as high as 45 percent.
  31. Reinisch, 143.
  32. 20/20, ABC News, 24 April 1992.
  33. Kronemeyer, 141-67.
  34. Darlene Bogle, “Healing from Lesbianism,” in Yamamoto, 15.
  35. lbid., 17.
  36. Bob Davies, “The Exodus Story: The Growth of Ex-gay Ministry,” in Yamamoto, 47-59. Also, see Kent Philpott, The Gay Theology (Plainfield, NJ: Logos International, 1977), 20-37.
  37. Andrew Comiskey, Pursuing Sexual Wholeness: How Jesus Heals the Homosexual (Lake Mary, FL: Creation House, 1989).
  38. Joanne Highley, L.I.F.E. Ministries, P.O. Box 353, New York, NY 10185.
  39. Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, Homosexualities (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), 308.
  40. Walter Isaacson, “Hunting for the Hidden Killers ,” Time, 4 July 1983, 51.
  41. Kronemeyer, 32.
  42. Yvonne Zipter, “The Disposable Lesbian Relationship,” Windy City Times (Chicago), 25 December 1986, 18.
  43. Bernard J. Klamecki, “Medical Perspective of the Homosexual Issue,” in Yamamoto, 116-17.
  44. lbid., 123, 119.
  45. Paul Cameron, William L. Playfair, and Stephen Wellum, “The Homosexual Lifespan.” Family Research Institute, 14 February 1992.
Loading
Share This