I need to write a book on this issue, but for the time being, here is a summarized explanation. Hopefully I will get to my book in the future with a few co-authors.

I believe one of the main problems of homosexual propaganda refers to the false opposition between inborn versus “free” choice. The problem with this false opposition is that it eliminates from consideration a very large and significant part of the mind that is neither inborn, nor chosen. There is a very important third sphere that is being left out and which is very real and which complements the other two.

A person is born with a developmental matrix, including the part of the matrix that will develop into a heterosexual adult that has healthy, adult relationships with the opposite sex. However, this matrix is not finished and it will change (including being deformed) in a variety of directions. Therefore, the mind has a deep plasticity. Regarding many characteristics, it’s not hard-wired.

Let’s take the example of a man with a homosexual problem that claims he began to have sexual feelings for teenage boys early on. Although he began to feel certain feelings early on, if he had been abused or had had other deforming experiences, they could very well impact how his mind functioned regarding sexuality and the opposite sex.

Therefore, a key point is that any person’s mind will develop conscious and unconscious mechanisms and dynamics that can deeply affect it later in life, which were not present when this individual was born.

This is why people are not born pedophiles, homosexuals, necrophiles, etc. Although there are different levels of choices regarding sexuality and one’s behaviors, no one with a particular sexuality dysfunction deliberately chooses all of its dynamics – and *especially* not the unconscious ones. Since when do you choose what goes on in your unconscious? However, this doesn’t mean we are helpless, little creatures with no free will.

Human beings are born heterosexual, the human species is heterosexual, but people aren’t finished as infants. This means that a person’s mind will change and develop or degenerate in infinite ways as they go through life. Homosexuality is similar to any other psycho-sexual dysfunction – in terms of being a dysfunction. It is not inborn, but like other dysfunctions, such a disorder or dysfunction is developed over time, due to a set of factors that can vary from individual to individual.

You solve the underlying psychological, cultural, and  sociological issues producing various homosexual dynamics in the mind of such an individual, and the person lives as they were born to be: heterosexual. It’s not a question of changing the blueprint, it’s a question of solving underlying issues that are preventing the person from relating to the opposite sex, or which are disorienting the person towards the same sex.

Another important point is that people cannot be anything as complex and as encompassing as a homosexual, a pedophile, or a zoophile without thinking. Human sexuality does not exist without a huge component of thinking. And, for the most part, you choose how you are going to think about the millions of subjects under the sexuality umbrella. This is another very important proof that people choose to be homosexual or bisexual, because without thinking, it is impossible.

I will add something about biology in another comment.

I also recommend this article:

Same-Sex Science
The social sciences cannot settle the moral status of homosexuality.
Stanton L. Jones


Note that there is an expanded version of the article also available.


Second major point: There is nothing that consists in a sound argument of why a person would be born deformed as a homosexual.

Because a person with a homosexual problem is not the same as an intersex person. That an intersex person could be disoriented towards the same sex is understandable, because of their lack of correct sexual definition – which is biological. But these people are not whom we are referring to when we say “homosexual.”

What we call a homosexual is a person who is biologically heterosexual, but only psychologically has problems with heterosexuality. They are completely analogous to pedophiles. A pedophile is biologically structured to have sex and reproduce with adults, but it’s in their psychology that they are warped. The same for people with a bestiality attraction. There is no reason why anyone would be born this way, just as there is no reason why anyone would be born a pedophile, a necrophile, etc.

Most LGBTs are ignorant about their own minds and problems, and given that they are complicated, many don’t want to treat their deformed minds. They are desperate to claim they have no problems or they were born that way, exactly so they can run away from investigating all the problems they have. It is partially for this reason, that is, how ignorant people are regarding the psychology of people with a homosexual problem, that many researchers attempted to find a genetic determination to homosexuality. If you are completely ignorant about psychological dynamics, how else do you explain everything that happens in the mind of a person? You falsely claim they were born that way.

Staton Jones explains: “In 1991, Michael Bailey published his famous behavior genetics study. But the deeper problem with the Bailey study was, yet again, the hoary problem of representativeness of samples. Bailey, to his
credit, recognized that his findings might not be representative, and so conducted a follow-up study.

Bailey reported truthfully that the genetic contribution to homosexual orientation failed to reach statistical significance in this new study. The refutation, of course, failed to capture any attention in the popular media, and similarly is often left out the textbook treatments of the subject. In 2010, an impressive and much larger study 36 utilizing the Swedish Twin Registry produced almost identical results to Bailey’s more recent findings: 7 out of 71 (9.8%) identical male twin pairs in which one twin is gay matched such that the second co- twin was also gay, a stunningly low finding also ignored by the media.”

Every single study that has claimed there was a biological determination to homosexuality has been proven just plain wrong after examined by other researchers. Most claims are shown to be false, utterly distorted, or completely inconclusive. Think about this, every single one.

From a Stanton Jones article on the subject (Sexual Orientation and Reason -On the Implications of False Beliefs about Homosexuality*):

Discussion of a genetic contribution has shifted to yet a more sophisticated statistical estimate, that of “heritability.” Heritability is an estimation of how much of the variability of a particular phenomenon such as sexual orientation, out of a total of 100%, may be attributed to genetic influences versus environmental influences. The higher the heritability estimate, the greater the genetic contribution.
The Långström 37 study, for instance, produced heritability estimates of”.34-.39″ for male homosexuality for their subject populations.

But what does this estimate mean?

Among the many psychological traits showing this level of heritability are a dizzying array of social attitudes including inclinations towards right-wing authoritarianism, certain measures of inclination towards religiosity or religious fundamentalism, and church attendance. One study by a giant of behavioral genetics, Robert Plomin, even examined the heritability of that most mundane and ubiquitous of behaviors, television watching, 39 and found an average heritability estimate of .45 for the proclivity to watch television, marginally higher than the typical estimate for the heritability of homosexuality.

Now you know: anyone who believes that people are born homosexuals must also believe that people are biologically determined to be couch-potatoes! And the same goes for low intellectual ability – because IQ is also one of the “traits” that are biologically determined. We are back to the Eugenics ideology of the early 20th century, when society believed that psychological and social aspects of humans were biologically determined (laziness, low intelligence, poverty, criminality, etc.).


*Cite as Stanton L. Jones (January, 2012), “Sexual orientation and reason: On the implications of false beliefs about homosexuality,” digitally published at http://www.christianethics.org; an abbreviated version of this essay was published as “Same-sex science,” First Things, February, 2012, pp. 27-33.
**Stanton L. Jones,
Provost and Professor of Psychology, Wheaton College (IL)

From Stanton Jones’ study:

Of these 61 subjects, 53% were categorized as successful outcomes by the standards of Exodus Ministries. Specifically, 23% of the subjects reported success in the form of “conversion” to heterosexual orientation and functioning, while an additional 30% reported stable behavioral chastity with substantive dis-identification with homosexual orientation. On the other hand, 20% of the subjects reported giving up on the change process and fully embracing gay identity.

We argue that our results do not prove that categorical change in sexual orientation is possible for everyone or anyone, but rather that for some, meaningful shifts along a continuum that constitutes real change appear possible.
The results do not prove that no one is harmed by the attempt to change, but rather that the attempt to change DOES NOT appear to be harmful ON AVERAGE or INHERENTLY HARMFUL.
These findings challenge the commonly expressed views of the mental health establishment that change of sexual orientation is impossible or very uncommon, and that the attempt to change is highly likely to produce harm for those who make such an effort.



From the sociological and psychological side, here’s two articles to note:

Was It a Phase? Young Women’s Relinquishment of Lesbian/Bisexual Identities Over a 5-Year Period

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Lisa M. Diamond



Female Bisexuality From Adolescence to Adulthood: Results From a 10-Year Longitudinal Study


Nearly 80 young sexual-minority women, identified as lesbian, bisexual, or unlabeled, have been assessed five times over a 10-year period, beginning in late adolescence and following through to early adulthood.
By T5, 60% OF T1 LESBIANS HAD HAD SEXUAL CONTACT WITH A MAN, and 30% HAD BEEN ROMANTICALLY INVOLVED WITH A MAN. Many of these women resolved the resulting contradiction between their lesbian identity and their other-sex attractions/behavior by SWITCHING to unlabeled or bisexual identities



What We Got Wrong About Sexual Identity Development: Unexpected Findings From a Longitudinal Study of Young Women – Diamond (2005).pdf:

There is this – p. 14:

Compared with respondents who identified as lesbian or bisexual at T4, the unlabeled women reported significantly greater absolute gaps between their percentage of physical versus emotional same-sex attractions.

This finding demonstrates that the overall fit between a woman’s physical and emotional feelings for women and men is a key piece of evidence she might use to assess her sexual identity. As one woman said, quite straightforwardly, during her second interview,
Sometimes I worry that I will never settle down with anyone, because the way I feel about guys is mainly sexual, and the way I feel about women is mainly emotional. So I’m always going between the two, and I don’t know what to call that, you know?
Yet traditional sexual identity models make no accommodation for this sort of quandary. According to the traditional paradigm, women claiming discrepancies between their emotional and physical attractions are either confused heterosexuals or repressed lesbians.


This example also blows a hole the size of a crater in the simplistic way that “born this way” proponents think about “sexual orientation.” First because this example stresses what I have pointed out previously. The concept of “sexual orientation” is a fraud, since the human mind in respect to sexuality and relationships is extremely complex and can never be reduced to “sexual attraction” only – especially not of the benign kind, and which is what much of the research focuses on, ignoring how perverted and perverse so much of sexual attraction is in a highly dysfunctional society are ours. There is no such thing as an independent, isolated part of the brain that will have any kind of sexual attraction that is unrelated to anything else that happens in the brain, or to that person’s entire psychology; or unrelated to their their entire personal history and their development history, their cultural and ideological conditioning, etc. Claiming that sexual attraction happens out of the blue in the brain and then determines every other aspect of the social and psychological functioning of a human being is simply absurd.

It is not sexual attraction that determines the rest of a person’s psychology. It is exactly the opposite: a person’s entire psychological/emotional/cultural/ideological structure will determine specifically what kinds of sexual attractions are produced in their mind.  This model explains and fits every type of attraction produced, from the healthiest to the most deformed, dysfunctional, and perverted. Therefore the term “sexual attraction” is highly inadequate, since “attraction” implies something mostly benign.

For example, how do the “born this way” folks explain why a man would want to see a woman have sex with an animal if he is not into bestiality himself? Do they claim there is a genetic determination for a man feeling sexual “attraction” to watching a woman have sex with an animal? Do they claim it’s epigenetics? Should we do twin studies? The level of irrationality that is involved in these “biologically determined” theories about “sexual orientation” is just mind boggling. And this is especially true concerning any concept of “homosexual sexual orientation.”

On a side note, this example above also underscores what a fallacy it is to claim that gender is irrelevant or interchangeable.




Do not confuse the term “(homo)sexuality” with “(homo) sexual orientation. They are not the same.

Homosexuality is about sexual attitudes, values, attractions, repulsions, concepts and interpretations about sexuality, power and domination or subjection dynamics relating to the sexual other, affection or objectification of the sexual other, admiration or disrespect related to the sexual object,conscious and unconscious feelings related to self or other which shapes or deforms relation and sexual feelings towards other, obsessions and distortions, projections, fantasies, dysfunctions, traumas, impacts from social conditioning, problems with masculinity or femininity,
problems with personal history and fundamental caretakers, etc. that will result in the sexualization of someone of the same sex and a hindering of the normal sexualization of someone of the opposite sex.

Society needs to be concerned about homosexuality, not homosexual orientation. Homosexual attraction or desire is only a mere product of a myriad configurations of these aforementioned dysfunctional psycho-social dynamics.

Another post on the subject here:
Joe Kort, French psychologist, has and continues to investigate and explore reasons why men have sex with men. In 2008, he launched a blog, called Straight Guise, to discuss the subject of men having sex with men.

Here are some reasons he highlights: Repercussions of child sexual abuse; prostitution or “escorting;” search for exciting but personally degrading experiences (using a dildo, “bondage”, etc.); first sexual experience; opportunity/availability; transference of anger/neediness regarding father; physical attraction to men, but emotional attraction/love for women; narcissism; sexual addiction; adultery; exhibitionism; sexual release in prison.

As he well notes, these reasons or complex set of reasons mentioned are not exhaustive. What is so clear is that they show that when we investigate why people engage in same-sex behavior, the fundamental reasons are of a pscyho-emotional-social nature – there is no biological or genetic determination to engage in any of this behavior. If you solve the underlying dysfunctional psycho-social problems, the need for having a perverted same-sex sexuality disappears.

Where Kort errs is in his definition of heterosexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality – which are all three based on identity. Therefore what an individual thinks of himself determines his sexual category and reality is discarded. This is similar to affirming that if a person thinks they are Napoleon, then they are Napoleon, and reality is irrelevant. Or a pedophile that does not admit he or she is pedophile. By liberal ideology, then they are not a pedophile! This is the flaw with liberal ideology which posits that identity (thoughts) is determinant of reality (concrete).

Another point to note is that Kort has found many reasons already detailed and explored by Nicolosi from NARTH, an organizations that liberals hate with a passion because they expose the truth of how deformed homosexual psychology and sexuality is.

What Kort is really showing is how complex and deformed the minds of all these homosexual and bisexual men are, from a psychological perspective. Not only do they have profound underlying problems generating their perverted attractions to other men, the men he’s referring to in this blog have serious denial problems about being homosexual/bisexual. A denial which Kort only helps to maintain in place, obivously.

In any case, a refreshing read compared to the typical retarded and unethical American psychologist crowd that cannot investigate a single case of homosexuality and continues to promote their blatant ignorance, aside from crushing research efforts on the etiology of homosexuality and its profound underlying problems. With a few exceptions like those researchers investigating the experiences of people who have changed their sexual psychology/orientation (like Lisa M. Diamond).

I think this shows that no matter how much money, virulence, and outright stubborn stupidity liberals spend in order to maintain the lie that homosexuality is genetically determined or inborn, and to deny that is caused by a complex set of underlying psycho-social problems, they will lose in the end and truth will prevail.

Their ignorant ideology will be unmasked for what it is. Even if most American psychologists and psychiatrists right now can only march in ideological lockstep with their ignorant homosexuality agenda precepts, they can’t stop researchers and psychologists around the world from doing the investigations they refuse to do and for showing that organizations like the APA are mostly a fraud and a disservice to society when it comes to issues of sexuality research, and notably of homosexuality.


(updated April 16, 2014)

From anthropology:

Only ignorant people of any kind believe in the myth that having a homosexuality problem is biologically determined. Moreover, research shows that many cultures don’t ever produce such psychologically dysfunctional and perverted people.

So we ask again: why are liberals so ignorant when it comes to science? Could it be, perhaps, because science doesn’t follow *the* narrative?


On the Aka people:

“Another reason we conducted a study of sexual behavior was that several years ago we asked Aka men about homosexuality and masturbation and were surprised that they were not aware of these practices, did not have terms for them and how diffi cult it was to explain both sexual practices. They laughed as we tried to explain and describe the sexual activities. We thought that maybe they were shy or embarrassed individuals, but this would have been uncharacteristic of the Aka we had known so long.
The Aka, in particular, had a difficult time understanding the concept and mechanics of same sex relationships. No word existed and it was necessary to repeatedly describe the sexual act. Some mentioned that sometimes children of the same sex (two boys or two
girls) imitate parental sex while playing in camp and we have observed these playful interactions.


African Study Monographs, 31(3): 107-125, October 2010


Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Vancouver
Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Vancouver


Broude & Greene’s (1976) cross-cultural study of sexual practices used the Standard Cross Cultural Sample (SCCS), which is considered the best representative sample of the world’s cultures, and found that homosexuality was absent or rare in 59% of cultures with data.

In terms of attitudes towards homosexuality:

21% of cultures with data (42 cultures) accepted or ignored homosexuality,

12% of cultures had no concept, 26% of cultures ridiculed or mildly
disapproved, but did not punish homosexuality,

and 41% of cultures strongly disapproved and punished.

The Aka data on homosexuality are not inconsistent with the crosscultural record.

Homosexuality does not exist in all cultures.