Historical Retrospect on Eugenics and Racial Biology – Pt 3


We have come to part 3 of my series on Eugenics. In the two previous posts I have given you a historical background on Eugenics in Europe and in the rest of the world and how the research has developed from “negative Eugenics” earlier in history with sterlizations of foetuses with unwanted traits to the more attractive “positive Eugenic” of today, where we make “life changing” choices for a foetus, not abortion, but rather designed non-gay babys! I have also developed some thoughts on the moral and ethical consequenses of these choices. First, let us have a look on an interview with Dr. Jack Drescher.

VIDEO: Dr. Jack Drescher Discusses “Reparative Therapy”
Published on YouTube January 31, 2008 by wbesen (Wayne Besen)

“Dr. Jack Drescher is the foremost expert and scholar on GLBT therapy. He is a renowned scholar and author on issues of sexual orientation. In this video, Drescher answers questions regarding ‘reparative’ therapy. Additionally, Drescher, MD, is a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst in private practice in New York City.

He is a Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, and presently serves as a Consultant to APA’s Committee on Public Affairs. He is a past Chair (2000-2006) of APA’s Committee on GLB Issues and a Past President of APA’s New York County Branch.

Dr. Drescher is an independent scholar. He is Author of Psychoanalytic Therapy and the Gay Man (The Analytic Press) and has edited twenty books. He is Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy and Editor of the Bending Psychoanalysis Book Series (The Analytic Press). He has authored and co-authored numerous professional articles and book chapters, and is the senior author of ‘Homosexuality, Gay and Lesbian Identities, and Homosexual Behavior’ in the 8th (2005) edition of Kaplan and Sadock’s Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry and the forthcoming 9th edition as well. He is also senior author of ‘Treatment of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Patients’ in the 5th edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s APPI Textbook of Psychiatry.”

Speaking of NARTH, here is a representative that should be pretty well known both in ex-gay circles, as well as in ex-ex-gay circles; Dr. Joseph Nicolosi. Dr Nicolosi is also Clinical Director for Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic in Encino, California which he founded in 1980.

From his website: “For many years, I have been assisting men and women – mostly, persons who are still at a crossroads about their sexual identity – to reduce their same-sex attractions and explore their heterosexual potential.”

Here is a presentation of him from his YouTube channel, published January 10, 2011.

Exodus International – Freedom Conference – Part 1

Exodus International – Freedom Conference – Part 2


We are right now creating the kind of society that we deserve! A society where no one is allowed to stand out from the crowd, where all are identical, where all have the same sexual preference, the same views on everything and vote for the same political party or profess to the same religious beliefs. Bailey et. al happened to find the centre of the brain that controls spiritual experiences! I have been studying this phenomenon for a long time in cases of “ghost hunts,” the paranormal and religious spiritual experiences, mentioned elsewhere in my blog.

The possibilities we depict for us, are apparently unlimited. It seems that nothing is impossible within the science of Eugenics, which I must emphasize, is the “umbrella” term for a whole range of sciences. In Behavioral genetics, for example where you are able to perform tests to determine behavioral traits such as intelligence, sexual orientation, and personality in unborn babies. This do imply that this method or technique can be used as a selective termination through selective medical or hormonal treatment on the basis of information about behavioral traits.

The problem is that as long as there are people who believe that homosexuality is a Biblical sin and a sickness or a mental disorder that needs to be cured and so long as evangelical Christians help keeping these outdated opinions up to date to hospitalize, criminalize or moralize people, so far, there is only one way to go for the humanity; this world will become a cold and sterile world, without any dignity and empathy and above all, it will create a world in which some individuals are welcomed, others are not. That is an image of a future world in which I have no right to participate. In such a world, people like me does not exist.

Abortion is a hard one. Abortion rates are skyrocketing! If we consider the high rates of abortions performed today, research has done much good to locate and in most cases found an answer to finding cures to many sicknesses and other medical conditions, all in an attempt to reduce the number of abortions and killing of foetuses.

That is of course a good thing. Where abortion earlier was the only way, scientists have come up with many answers. But there is an other side effect of this research. While researchers have identified sicknesses and their effects and found medical treatments, it has also made it possible to speculate where in a human body homosexuality resides within the biological edifice. Experiments have been carried out where scientists have manage to “reverse” the sexual preference in mice. It is only a matter of time for human homosexuality to be re-introduced in the classification of diseases, as something “curable!”

Eugenics stands as the great savior, where religious people may choose to change the outcome for their children who are “at risk” of becoming homosexual through a medical treatment with hormones or other substances, and thus they need not to concern themselves with abortion. But morally, I think it is no difference between an abortion and a “gender fix!”

Even if Bailey et. al in their reports refuse to take any moral stand about abortion, they offer a lot of advices for troubled mothers, such as “intrauterine injections” that alters the relevant genetic makeup of the foetus. That may be an alternative if abortion is out of question. Then the question rises if is this morally correct. Or is it the way we see life in progress, as an object in embryonic state. In this way of thinking, the foetus is not concidered a life but just materia.

As I responded another blogger on Eugenics, I want to clearify that with this technique you can improve a child’s ability to grow up and live a straight, heterosexual life, if that is your image of abundant love. But I fear that this is more about parents’ concerns and fears over how people in their environment will react if their son turns out to be gay, “what will the church members say?” or “what if my child will be bullied or commit suicide in the future because of his homosexuality?” Genetics for changing a child’s sexual orientation? This sounds like a bad excuse, as an extreme emergency exit door in case it would happen. Not a thought of giving the child a welcoming, safe and secure life in a loving environment. Racism, discrimination and hatred can never be cured with Ex-gay therapy or hormone therapy! But if we are going to listen to the rhetorics in this issue, it is quite obvious that these new thoughts seem to advocate a strong voice in the discussions on “designed babies.”

This is a very selfish reason. A child has the right to live for its own value, a child has the right to feel welcomed and the child should never be put to the world in order to satisfy the parents’ desire for their son to be exactly who they want him to be.

Please note that I am not at all talking about abortion as that may occur sometimes, in order to save the life of the mother. Becoming a parent is a big task. It is one of G-d’s commandments, which involves the creation of a new life to the image of G-d. As such, the child must never be subjected to unequal treatment. Never! The world is full of unwanted and unloved children. Therefore, today’s family planning has begun to resemble a mail order business, where we create the ideal designed baby! A baby must never be seen as a designed furniture.

If we choose to take out the curves and begin to compromise on ethics and morality, to fit into the mindset of society that is prevailing at the moment, then we can really speak about a devaluation of human dignity!

In this context, what we are talking about has been called “Christian Eugenics”, because it gained an enormous support in early 1900s and there are indications that this still exists today in Christian thinking. Its main representatives has for a long time been Michael Bailey, LeVay, and Pillard mainly for making new interpretations of old concepts and incorporated them into a new facade in order to be more attractive, but it is the same old racistic thinking as we have seen in history. Where abortion has always been a moral issue and opposed heavily, it now seems that a religious approach on Eugenics will serve as an easily accessible solution on the homosexual problem in society. Welcome, “Brave new world.”

The first question to confront is that of the ethical status of homosexuality itself. Certainly, whether homosexuality is good, bad, or neutral will be an important factor in our evaluation of attempts to avoid having homosexual children. Our position, which we will take as axiomatic for purposes of this discussion, is that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is ethically neutral. Because homosexuality causes no direct harm to others (other than those who take offense at it on irrational and/or inhumane grounds) and because homosexual behavior is crucial to the ability of homosexual people to enjoy their lives (as heterosexual behavior is to heterosexuals), homosexuality should not be morally condemned or proscribed.”

(“Parental Selection of Children’s Sexual Orientation,” Aaron S. Greenberg, JD, and J. Michael Bailey, PhD)

I think his last assertion is somewhat ambiguous. According to Bailey and Greenberg, “homosexuality should not be morally condemned or proscribed”, but in the same breath they suddenly claim that it is wrong to tell parents they can not select for (or against) a heterosexuality or homosexuality in their children. And even people who may feel offended by gay rights by “irrational and/or inhumane grounds” have all rights to do whatever they want with their children. Then it is suddenly quite okay to have a vague vision of ethics and morality. Here is David France’s reaction in his informative and amusing article:

“What if prenatal tests were able to show a predisposition to gayness? How long would it be before some pharmaceutical company develops a patch to regulate hormone flow and direct the baby’s orientation? Michael Bailey, for one, isn’t troubled by the moral implications any more than he would oppose fetal screens for potential birth defects, though he quickly adds his personal belief that homosexuality is ‘a good’ on par with heterosexuality. ‘There’s no reason to ban, or become hysterical about, selecting for heterosexuality,’ he says. ‘That’s precisely what parenting is about: shaping the children to have traits the parents value’.”
(Source: “The Science of Gaydar”, David France, New York Magazine).

David France also adds that he want to see the “claims for gay rights made on moral, ethical, legal, and constitutional bases that don’t rely on a particular scientific view of sexual development.”

Michael Bailey’s research has not been without controversy. Here is a link to comments about his book “The man who would be a Queen.” An investigation into the publication of J. Michael Bailey’s highly discussed book on transsexualism.”


Julian Huxley wanted to eliminate religion, spirituality and faith in G-d, which was considered to be in the way of “true science.” He was in the forefront of eugenics, racial hygiene as desired and mentioned already in 1941:

“the effective elimination of the lowest and most degenerate types…“, “the lowest layers reproduce too quickly, therefore… they must not be too easy access to assistance and care so that it does not hinder natural selection that makes it easy to conceive children or get them to survive, long unemployment should therefore be the ground for sterilization.”

Julian Huxley’s brother Aldous Huxley, known for his short story “Brave New World”, made a speech at Berkeley University:

“‘Brave New World’ and George Orwell’s ‘1984’ is not pure fiction but a plan designed by an elite to achieve a controlled and enslaved society.”

Another quote from Julian Huxley;
“We can and should devote ourselves with truly religious devotion to the cause of ensuring greater fulfillment for the human race in its future destiny. And this involves a furious and concerted attack on the problem of population; for the control of population is…a prerequisite for any radical improvement in the human lot.”
(Huxley, Julian Sorell! 1964. Essays of a Humanist. London: Chatto & Windus)

Speaking of Eugenics and homosexuality – there are, believe it or not, plenty of conspiracy theories out there. Here is an excerpt from an article written by Alan Cantwell, M.D:

There is no doubt that AIDS erupted in the U.S. shortly after government-sponsored hepatitis B vaccine experiments (1978-1981) using gay men as guinea pigs. The epidemic was caused by the “introduction” of a new retrovirus (the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV for short); and the introduction of a new herpes-8 virus, the virus that causes Kaposi’s sarcoma, widely known as the “gay cancer” of AIDS. The taboo theory that AIDS is a man-made disease is largely based on research showing an intimate connection between government vaccine experiments and the outbreak of “the gay plague.”

“The first cases of AIDS appeared shortly after the experiment began in Manhattan. In June 1981 the epidemic became official and was quickly labelled the “gay ­related immune deficiency syndrome,” later known as AIDS.
The gay community was the most hated minority in America. After the experiments ended, the gay community was decimated by the “gay plague.” In the first years of AIDS, the epidemic was largely ignored by the government (see Randy Shilt’s best-seller ‘And the Band Played On’) and the disease was blamed on gay anal sex, drugs, and promiscuity. Gays were immediately labelled “high risk.”
In my view, what made gay men “high risk” was the fact that they were the exclusive volunteers for government medical experiments that undoubtedly put them at “high risk.” The evidence for this conclusion is outlined in this report. Further evidence can be obtained from abstracts of scientific reports available on the Internet at the PubMed website of the National Library of Medicine.”

“The connection between the hepatitis experiments and the AIDS epidemic was quickly dismissed by government authorities two decades ago. However, it is clear from a review of the scientific literature that the “gay plague” began immediately after the government experiments; and the experiments permanently damaged the health of the gay community, and led to continuing spread of HIV into the “general population.”
Are we to believe that all this is merely a coincidence and that AIDS in America resulted simply from two viruses jumping species in the African jungle? Or is the origin of HIV and AIDS and the KS-virus, related to secret medical research and covert human testing, as suggested here.
(“HIV-AIDS was created to target gay men for Eugenics experiment, suggests U.S. doctor”, “The Canadian”, March 29, 2008.)

The columnist at The Canadian draws clear parallels between the experiments and the development of HIV and AIDS. Depicting gays as the victims they are, if this story is true, this writing serves as an example how some people have begun to see a connection between the experiments and the authorities’ efforts to create a scapegoat in a state-sponsored genocide of homosexuals. Did the AIDS epidemic begun as a State-funded experiment?

Was the AIDS epidemic a result of the use of Eugenics to depopulate the world, beginning with the gays as the first guinea pigs? It might be the case. It seems to be a strange coincidence; first the test of a new vaccine and then the outbreak of AIDS. Makes me wonder… could it be the good old Eugenics? Do I sound conspirative? Then it is because I have studied how extermination of people with unwanted traits throughout world history have been using Eugenics as a control of population and birth rates.

Think about it, it is not that farfetched to assume that Eugenics may have been used to cause the AIDS epidemy. All research that has been done related to genes, DNA, hormones and other chemical body substances, have given scientists important knowledge how the human body works and there are resources to alter the outcome how it pleases. The only thing missing now is that legislators will change old laws or create new, which makes it possible to change the old definitions of what is considered “healthy” or what is considered “sick.” It has happened before and it can happen again!

Another quote, this is from Council for Responsible Genetics:

Will potential misuse arise if a gay gene is found?
Both the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association have taken the official position that trying to change a person’s sexual orientation would be wrong. Certainly, anti-gay violence and oppression are wrong. So what will researchers like Hamer, LeVay, Bailey and Pillard do if bigots begin to use the idea of a ‘marker’ or ‘gene’ to predict which male fetuses are gay for purposes of terminating such pregnancies, or to subject young boys to ‘remedial’ education, reprogramming or other ‘therapies?’ Hamer has said he will patent the gene, if he finds it, so that it cannot be misused. Is patent law a realistic way to protect against homophobia? (Many people feel that it is immoral to patent human genes, anyway.) What would be the proper use of such a gene? And what is the point of searching for it in the first place?

Regardless of the extent to which biology influences one’s sexual identity, lesbians, gays, and bisexuals should be afforded protection against discrimination arising from their sexual orientation. In fact, the promise of a quick technological fix for the problem of discrimination against homosexuals distracts us from the larger societal issue. Homophobia and discrimination exist, and it is naive to think that a biological explanation of homosexuality will change that. Only social and political remedies will counter discrimination. Biology is not the issue: society at present protects people against discrimination for choices such as religion (including converts,) marital status, or political affiliations. Genetic predisposition is not necessary to create these legal protections.

The scientific argument for a biological basis for sexual orientation remains weak. The political argument that it will bolster gay pride or prevent homophobic bigotry runs counter to experience. The lesbian, gay, and bisexual community does not need to have its ‘deviance’ tolerated because its members were born ‘that way’ and ‘cannot help it’. Rather, society must recognize the validity of lesbian and gay lifestyles. We need an end to discrimination, an acceptance of all human beings, and a celebration of diversity, whatever its origins. (Source: CRG – Council for Responsible Genetics)

The council makes a good point here. Patent law is not a cure against discrimination and ostracism of gay people. I think the whole idea of this research, especially the “ex-gay” side of it is disgusting, immoral and horrible.

To learn more on this kind of research, read about Professor Glen D. Wilson, Gresham College, UK and his study “Born Gay? The origins of sexual orientation” on my post “Born Gay – My thoughts on Gender Research”, where you even can see the lecture. Here is a quote from Professor Wilson on the dangers with editing gay genes:

“If ‘gay genes’ can be accurately identified, there is concern in gay circles that they might be deliberately flushed from the gene pool by genetic engineering. But at what cost? It would be difficult to do so without removing all kinds of valuable traits with which these genes are intertwined – for example, sensitivity, compassion, charm, and creativity. Humanity would almost certainly be the poorer for any such attempt to ‘edit’ sexual orientation.”


If we attribute sexual orientation to genes or other causes, that will be appealing to some parts of the lesbian and gay community for the following reasons:
– Firstly, it counters the argument set forth by opponents of homosexuality who assert that lesbian and gay behaviors are “unnatural,” or “crimes against nature” and as such, something that can be dissected and observed in a microscope.
– Secondly, some lesbians and gays do feel guilty about their sexual orientation, but if there is a biological foundation to it, they argue, it is not their “fault.”
– Thirdly, by advancing a biological explanation for their sexual orientation, some gay rights advocates assert that it therefore constitutes an “immutable characteristic,” which would give lesbians and gays more legal protection against discriminatory abuse. According to me, it is the wrong way to go.


It is well that we seek answers to gain more understanding and knowledge of humanity, but sometimes we must allow ourselves to ask the more spiritual and humble questions, why are we here, what is my destiny, what happens when I leave this troubled world? But we also see that this has also opened up for other types of questions such as who is worthy of life, who is worthy of being born, what is “healthy” and what is “sick” in todays society? These questions have been raised throughout the history of the humanity. From the racial biology back in late 1800’s to designed baby’s of today. We understand that both sides of the debate want to know the origin of homosexuality, but that is a thinking that will exclude people, it is not inclusive in any way.

Those who oppose homosexuality, based on what the Bible says or “common sence,” show a negative attitude to research as long as the science can not support the Bible. What would the consequences be then hypothetically, when researchers with their knowledge could develop methods for prenatal diagnosis in order to sort out a “gay foetus?” Do not forget, that the technique to do so already exists. Also imagine when medical companies initiate a massive commercial campaign to persuade people to undergo anti-gay medical treatments as a preventive measure? “Wow, a cure! Just apply a hormone patch and your kid will be okay”. My humble question is how will religious faith and teachings be affected by such findings? Would they assume that science is right in this question and that they from this will draw conclusions that it is perfectly acceptable to develop prenatal diagnosis in addition to identifying possible diseases, also foresee the risk that the child can develop homosexuality later in life?

It will be interesting to see what kind of explanation parents will emphasize on this issue. But it also raises a lot of questions. I present my questions and concerns below. If I manage to get answers to these questions? I do not know but the future will tell.

• Will the ethics and morality play a role to parents who will make decisions on this matter?
• Will the Bible serve as guide in these matters and how?
• How big is the interest within the religious communities of discovering biological causes for homosexuality?
• Genetic and biological markers have already been found, what now?
• What happens when this knowledge is implemented to local hospitals and health care centres?
• Is it always the parents’ freedom to choose what is the “best” for their children and themselves?
• If this is not a moral or ethical question according to scientists, is it a theological question?
• How will the Bible be interpreted in the future in view of certain unwanted properties and traits that are attributed to modern humanity? Homosexuality as we know today, is not depicted in the Bible.
• What interpretative models will religious fundamentalists embrace in the future if a child, despite prenatal diagnosis, is born and develops a homosexual orientation?

Could this mean that there are humans in our society who will be classified as inferior, second-class citizens, who are seen as parasites of society with their “sex related diseases and promiscuous lives?” (That was an excellent information I got from one of our preachers.) And if we all could get a solution and get rid of all gays once and for all, because we now can change the outcome of a foetus.

Opinions about what kind of people who are worthy to live and which ones are not, has been in the human interest since the childhood of Eugenics. And opinions change over time. The topic of the day, all categories, must be that of homosexuality. There is no doubt about that. In the religious sphere, the dominant philosophy and theology has been that homosexuality is a deadly sin. The problem is that theologians and preachers have found it difficult to explain the distinction between Sin and the Sinner, if that ever is an issue.

First and foremost – what is needed is a clear explanation why homosexuality, as we see it today, is a deadly sin and a depravity of mankind? Secondly – why is it seen as a sickness that has to be cured with Eugenic/Racial Biology? Thirdly – why is it often an equal sign between (=) the gay person and his very sexual orientation? Do people assume that a homosexual orientation automatically always have to lead to a particular behavior?

Is it the high pitched voice, the dropping limp wrist, guys in short shorts, guys sitting cross-legged, guys who like art, music and theatre, guys who never take a fight, guys who are bad at football or are we talking about guys who actually have high intelligence, has given us the best in radio, television, film and fashion? Remove these 2-5 percent of homosexuals from the world population, and we would lose many valuable talents and traits that are typical in a world of diversity.

Why this demonization and stereotypical view of a group of people who have a special gift to be attracted to someone of the same sex? Why are there people out there who seriously says that gay people are not human? The largest problems with anti-gay rhetorics and discrimination come from religious people and people with right-wing political ideologies, not from fascists and racists, according to a Swedish survey.

What kind of view on humanity we will adopt from now on depends on how we view humanity of today, where we are marginalizing and stigmatizing people with certain (undesirable) traits. The problem occurs when we redefine what is “sick” and what is “healthy” and homosexuality once again will be put back into the catalogue of sicknesses! Then we can talk about a devaluation of humanity and that is when it becomes dangerous. Note that I wrote WHEN, because it is my belief that it is only a matter of time before the defenitions are changed.

So, why this interest of Gender research? This huge interest is not found within other religious beliefs. Not with an interest of that dignity! The interest must come from some source thinking of all that money that is invested in this modern gender research. Where do the money come from? What is the most likely? My advice to anyone who wants to do a research in this: Follow the money!

My explanation probably sounds naive and immature, but I stand by my statement. I can understand why research on the genetics is done today. That is to find cures for inborn diseases or medical conditions. But I can not find any plausible reasons to Gender research. I am not convinced that this kind of research ever can cure discrimination, bullying, anti-homosexuality, hate crimes and exclusion of groups or individuals in our society today. This research, that I have tried to describe in my article series, has received significant ideological support, political as well as religious. It is also Dr. Jack Drescher’s explanation in the video, above, where he says that science can be used to support any ideas. As an example he mentions tobacco companies that hired scientists who would prove that tobacco is non-hazardous.

It is my thought that ideologies and ideas that have been presided in different periods of time and have been extremely discriminatory, it has forced up hatred against certain groups in society and it has led to different “solutions” to societal problems, such as mass sterilizations of the population, mass abortions of children who were never seen as worthy of living. History has also shown that science has always supported the ruling power elite. That is a science for a Conservative, blond, white-skinned Middle Class. That is why it is my strong belief that science cannot and should not be used for the purpose of strengthening human rights, while it in the same time can lead to other groups not at all enjoying the same right to exist. In this case, science is always biased and can be “customized” depending on the political or religious climate prevailing at the moment, it is like the weather in april.

This part of the Gender research has not generated a greater understanding of the origins of homosexuality, rather the opposite. Now it is totally okay to depict whatever theories or legends anyway, everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course, and that is a freedom we must defend. Nevertheless, summoned by a feeling that there are those groups of people with a great deal of money and other resources that are heard most in debates and discussions. By that, I do not necessarily address the “Gay agenda.”

Everything that surrounds us bear wittness to this diversity we see in society today. But that would only be a distant memory if science is given free hands, or if people in their religious eagerness persist in their own bigotry. Let us all strive to be good to each other, not compete against each other over who has the best genetic material, the best education, the best car or the best religious faith because, after all, we are humans, we are but a carbon-based life form, composed of a whole lot of water, iron, coal, some chalk and some chemicals. In today’s prices, the materials we are made of are not worth much on the world market. That makes me think of stuff that is more important in life; that we take care of our soul and think about how we treat our fellow human beings, because they are also eternal souls created by G-d. Every soul is inviolable, it is about the sanctity of the soul. What Religion and Science have shown is a great disdain for people who are different and I am sorry to say, it seems it gets worse, not better.


Over the years, scientific studies and gender research on the causes and effects of homosexuality as a societal problem as well as to develop methods to “cure the gayness” has been carried out by more or less biased research.

Issues have been raised which gives an indication of potentials for change in sexual orientation from gay to straight. This applies both to “independent”, neutral research as well as the more “gay friendly” and gay affirmative research, conducted by researchers who are gay themselves (such as Simon LeVay, Dean Hamer and Jack Drescher.)

Researchers have come up with results that show that change is possible. Some of these have later come forward and accused media and different interests in society that their research has been distorted or used in such a way that readers may believe that ALL clients seeking some form of Ex-gay therapy, has managed to be free from homosexuality and become exclusively heterosexual in their behaviour and attraction.

Although new findings within research have been distorted and used by both ex-gay and pro-gay advocates to fit their respective agendas, the fact remains that most of the research carried out, shows that SOME individuals who sought help and consultation on these issues, have witnessed and demonstrated a change in behavior and attraction towards a heterosexual lifestyle.

As long as there are an increased interest of such findings, support for a continuity of research of this kind will remain. What will this lead to for future research? How will our attitudes on homosexuality in general change because of these results and in particular, how will our attitudes change toward those who remain gay or who chose not wanting to change? We see a great deal of interest in gender research today. Not only from the Judeo-Christian world, whose ideas are predominantly based on “Biblical truths,” but also within secular circles. Here is the great opportunity to develop methods to consign homosexuality to the great oblivion!

Will homosexuality and gay people be but a memory in the future? Are there hopes and expectations for such a development? Many signs indicate that, given the large interest and the large sums of money circulating in gender research. This is a scientific and an ideological question, where money and our perception of humanan dignity will determine the development of future use of gender research and a Final solution to the homosexual question.

How will it be for the rights of the unborn baby? As a defence for an ex-gay stance, if a child in foetal stage shows signs of homosexuality, with the mother undergoing a hormone therapy, the unborn child’s genetic and biological make-up can be reoriented, so that the child will be born with potential to grow up with a heterosexual orientation, with all that it implies of fulfilled expectations of the child growing up and fulfilling the highly awarded family values.

Is this a moral issue? I strongly believe it must be that, but I must admit that I do not believe it will be a moral issue for a long time within science and theology. Consider this: a child, not yet born, is not aware of his sexual orientation and does not know what kind of medical treatment his mother undergoes, in order to improve the living conditions of the child when it grows up. Likewise, a grown up gay person undergoing ex-gay treatment or therapy, has made his own decision to become straight, more or less based on peer pressure and persuasion.

With such attitudes to fellow human beings, many will find support and comfort in the Bible for such a mindset. It is scary, that we can find support in the Bible for almost any ideas that pops up. History has shown clear examples of this, such as the persecution and extermination of peoples and ethnic groups, demonization of dissidents, violation of human rights and so on. This has caused tremendous damage and suffering, so in a way, it is a moral issue. Who knows what “truths” research will support in the future. What other groups in society will become targets for deprogramming or biological cleansing.

“Brave New World and George Orwell’s 1984 is not pure fiction but a plan designed by an elite to achieve a controlled and enslaved society.”
(Julian Huxley, brother to Aldous Huxley, author of the book “Brave New World”)

• My Blog post “Born Gay – My thoughts on Gender Research”
• Aaron S. Greenberg, JD, and J. Michael Bailey, PhD; “Parental Selection of Children’s Sexual Orientation”. Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
• David France: “The Science of Gaydar”, New York Magazine, published June 17, 2007
• Dean Hamer, National Institutes of Health
• Varying sources from PubMed.org (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11446202)
• Varying material from Council for Responsible Genetics (www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/)
• Alan Cantwell: “The Canadian”, March 29, 2008”
• Vendy Kline, “Building a Better Race: Gender, Sexuality, and Eugenics from the Turn of the Century to the Baby Boom”, University of California Press, 2001
• Benno Müller-Hill, “Human Behavioural Genetics – Past and Future”, Institut für Genetik, Universität zu Köln, Germany
• Garland E. Allen, “Is a New Eugenics Afoot?”, Advancing Science, Serving Society (AAAS.org)
• Christine Rosen, “Preaching Eugenics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement”, Oxford University Press, USA, 2004
• Brett Beemyn, Mickey Elianon, “Queer Studies: A Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, & Transgender Anthology”, New York Univ Press, 1996
• H. Northcote, “Eugenics and christianity”, article, July 25, 1933.
• Andrew John Hoffman, “The New World Order and the Eugenics Wars: A Christian Perspective”, eugenicswars.com; 1st edition, 2009
• Amy Laura Hall, “For Shame – Why Christians should welcome, rather than stigmatize, unwed mothers and their children” article, Christianity Today, Sept 9, 2006
• Wilson, G.D. & Rahman, Q. “Born Gay: The psychobiology of Sexual Orientation”, London, 2005

© 2012 Jonathan Axelsson
אתר הבית של יונתן
Twitter @tzedaqyal


About Meadow of Tzedaqyal

“We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience” (Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, 1881-1955)
This entry was posted in eugenics, science. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s