A substantial portion of Western society believes homosexuality to be not only a new norm of sexual mores, but also a scientifically confirmed sexual orientation. It is assumed that homosexual love and heterosexual love do not differ at all, nor do homosexual marriages or homosexual parenthood differ from their heterosexual counterparts.
When, however, in trying to find scientific foundations for such opinions, one refers to scientific studies and all one finds is a construct patched together from circumstantial evidence, superficial theses, half-proven conclusions resting on errors in interpretation and failures of research, whilst ignoring a substantial portion of scientific data. What is more, the construct, to mask its shortcomings, has been garishly draped in a manipulative PR strategy. The claim that homosexuality is yet another sexual orientation is thus poor science, which I have expounded in detail in my book Homoseksualizm. Przegląd światowych analiz i badań. Przyczyny, objawy, terapia, aspekty społeczne (Homosexuality: A Review of World Analyses and Studies. Causes, Symptoms, Therapy and Social Aspects). This is the most comprehensive scientific monograph on homosexuality available in Poland. The book, which is 900 pages long, presents the results of hundreds of scientific papers on the subject, which can be verified in the 50-page bibliography. I mention this, because the book has been censured in an outright manner. It is not merely a scientific report: the book also contains how-to chapters and discusses important social and pastoral questions. Below, you will find its main conclusions; for empirical material I suggest you go to the book itself.
What of Sexual Orientation?
Looking at the picture transpiring from this research review, even a layperson will conclude that homosexuality can hardly be called a different sexual orientation. Instead, it will be noticed that the emphasis has been laid solely on a subjective major symptom, specifically a reversed sexual drive. When other theories of psychosexual development, that for the most part point to the impact of environmental factors, are taken into account, together with broad social norms or the dynamics of homosexual relationships themselves, the number of arguments against the claim grows.
To illustrate a misleading reliance on subjective impressions, let’s take, for instance, anorexia – a psychological disease in which a starving girl, practically a walking skeleton, keeps complaining that she is “too fat” … Similarly, homosexual tendencies are a mental prosthesis of sorts. Hence, I call homosexuality a complex sexual disorientation, because many causes, varied as to their nature, and completely diverse mental mechanisms, bring about the same symptom: homosexual tendencies. Thus, homosexuality may be a defence mechanism for trauma, underdevelopment of sexual identity, compensation for dysfunctional relationships and, finally, in some people – which has not been spoken of until now – a choice resulting from the absence of moral qualms (in this case, we deal with bisexuality in most instances). Consequently, there are actually many different “homosexualities”. Particularly prone to being prompted into becoming homosexuals are young people who have unstable immature identities (including sexual identities). That is why all anti-discrimination workshops are so dangerous. True, they are right to prevent violence, but they do not teach the truth about homosexuality, they do not encourage the use of therapy and, in the first place, they do not warn against the serious risks related to the homosexual lifestyle.
The Four Pillars of the Concept of Homosexuality
The concept of homosexuality as a different sexual orientation rests on four major assumptions:
Allegedly, that homosexuality is congenital.
Allegedly, that homosexuality is permanent and immutable.
Allegedly, that all negative effects of homosexuality follow from social discrimination.
Allegedly, that homosexual relationships do not differ at all from heterosexual ones.
None of these claims are true.
First, there is no proof that homosexuality is congenital. No such claim is made, even by the American Psychiatric Association, which started the social confusion over homosexuality by striking it out of the DSM list of disorders in 1973. Nor will we find such a claim on the website of the American Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists. However, the media and some organizations make this claim, because the half-truths they themselves propagate indeed give such an impression. On the websites of these influential associations, we will soon find the statement that “nobody knows what causes homosexuality,” while a dominant view shared by many research teams holds that the most probable cause is the simultaneous impact of biological factors and psychosocial effects. The extensive review of research results that I have made indicates, however, that the main causes lie in environmental effects or, more precisely, in their individual reception. These factors are not only better documented but also more direct and unequivocal.
They include the physical or mental absence of one or both parents, all kinds of relationship disorders in the family, between siblings or schoolmates and teachers, sexual abuse during formative years, violence and many other less frequent variables such as contempt for one’s body or extreme shyness. In addition, early childhood gender identification disorders are a very strong factor (in ½ or even ¾ of boys diagnosed with gender dysphoria – a feeling of depression or unhappiness), in the later development of homosexual tendencies. (Zucker & Bradley 1995, Ritter K.Y., Terndrup A.I. 2002)
Importantly, none of these factors have a determining character, which means that homosexuality may, but does not have to, develop in their wake (remember that an individual’s reaction is of paramount importance). Indeed, certain correlations with biological factors have been found (correlation of several genes, inverted size of subthalamic nuclei or the corpus callosum in the brain for a given sex, higher incidence of left-handedness, distribution of homosexuality among siblings). All the biological factors are, however, weaker and indirect. The theories relying on them partially contradict one another or have an alternative environmental explanation.
There are also numerous testimonies of getting out of homosexuality by means of religion, owing to supernatural divine intervention and prayer
Certainly, conducive to the development of homosexuality, all the biologically determined traits that are atypical for one’s gender include temperament traits, atypical talents, a kind of mental sensitivity and physical build that facilitate the feminization of boys and masculation (displaying male characteristics) of girls. If they coincide with an unfavorable or traumatic environmental impact, related to rejection, anxiety, shame or the absence of positive cultural models for a given gender, then homosexuality frequently develops. It is actually an adaptive strategy. As Janelle Hallman says, it serves “to further her own growth and development, to resolve deep inner conflicts and to fill legitimate unmet needs.” (Janelle Hallman, The Heart of Female Same-Sex Attraction: A Comprehensive Counselling Resource, 2008, p. 130)
The principal proof for the indirect impact of biological factors comes from the research on twins because this always eliminates biological factors. In the case of homosexuality, the relationships vary from weak to medium. The average from the largest research projects show that in men, correlations have been found at a level of about 22%, and in women at a level of 33%. (Whitehead N.E., 2011) How should they be interpreted? Relationships at a level of 25% are weak; 50% medium; and only at a level of 75% can we speak of a strong relationship. For the sake of comparison, in terms of weight or height at puberty, twins are 91-97% identical.