Mothers make homosexual men !?!?!?

While in Seminary I had to write a paper for a class choosing one of several books to be used on a particular topic. I cannot recall the book nor the particular topic, but I do remember becoming upset withthe author's point of view towards women. I had to decide whether to present my own analysis of the material as it related to the assignment or to present what I believed may be the beliefs of the instructor (which I did not know and would be guessing) or present a paper that would get me an 'A'. In the end I went with my own reation to the material

The book dealt with the idea of unification of various denomination and finding common ground to bring us together and letting go of the things that divide us as long as it was not heretical teachings. He presented his reasonings why this would be a bad thing by drawing a parallel between the sexes trying to say that their differences were under attack and there was a threat of manhood being lost. This made a red flag appear before my eyes. As I continued to read, his take only made more red flags dance.

He pointed to the fact that women are pushing to declare that there is not a difference between being a man and being a woman. Women have declared that they can do anything that a man can do thus emasculating men. Women have fought for equality in the Scripture by trying to erase the distinction between the sexes also and declaring Jesus as neither masculine or feminine. Women in essence were trying to become men and we should guard against the blurring of distinction between the sexes and denominations.

I believe that there is a distinction between men and women and no matter how anyone tries, there will always be an identifiable difference between the sexes. A man cannot be a woman and a woman cannot be a man no matter how hard one tries. This said, many women can successfully do things that have been catagorized as 'manly' and men can successfully do things that have been catagorized as 'womanly' I can use a chainsaw and cut down a tree as well as any man, but at the end of the day I will still be a woman. I did not cut the tree with the intent of being a man or attacking manhood. The tree needed to be cut and I could do it. There are numerous top chefs who can outcook any woman and at the end of the day they are still men. Their ability to cook at an expert level does not erase women from the earth. As a woman I could never impregnate another woman and a man will never give birth to a baby. Stereotypes may be crossed but what makes a man a man or a woman a woman is not threatened; it can be abandoned or not lived into, but not stolen.

Many women are admonished to stay in their places and not to try to take the place of the man. It is strange that there is not the same amount of admonishment for the man to stay in his place and not take the place of a woman. WHY IS IT THAT THE POSITION OF THE MAN MUST BE GUARDED SO? Is it that easy to take his place? Or is so easy for it to be stepped into? The female does not seem to be so threatened by men taking womanhood away. Where are the studies on the attack on womanhood?

In this same vein, the church takes a strong position against homosexuality. It is the gay male more so than the lesbian that seems to cause the most distress. In the book I mentioned earlier, the author launched into the problem with women exerting so much power: IT LEADS TO HOMOSEXUAL SONS!!! This caused me to stop seeing red flags and to just see RED. Not only are women trying to be men, erase manhood from the earth, now we are making our sons love men.

My paper critiqued the book for it's point on unitarianalism, but also pointed out the fact that the author wrote from a bias against women and their role in the church, society, and family.

We know that mothers have a strong influence on their children, but I think it is too simple to say homosexuality is due to the parenting skills of the mother. If we accept this premise then we must assume fathers create lesbians, guess what, that study is still out. People seem to only really care about why are men gay. It seems to be the most offensive to people, manly Christian men. I know the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination, I'm just talking about observations here and possibly hidden agendas (not conspiracies). Below is an article I ran across:
A VACCINE TO PREVENT HOMOSEXUALITY!

Women create homosexuals
Parents are easily the most important external force in the life of any child and, as would be suspected, contribute largely to the homosexual or heterosexual predisposition of their children. A professor of psychiatry at one of the nation's leading medical schools stated, "Current research indicates that the family most likely to produce a homosexual comprises a very intimate, possessive and dominating mother and a detached, hostile father. Many mothers of lesbians tend to be hostile and competitive with their daughters. The fathers of female homosexuals seldom appear to play a dominant role in the family and have considerable difficulty being openly affectionate with their daughters."

Most of the new books on homosexuality contain the report by Dr. Irving Bieber, who studied the family backgrounds of 106 male homosexuals. According to his discoveries, eighty-one mothers were dominating, sixty-two were overprotective, sixty-six made the homosexual their favorite child, eighty-two of the fathers spent very little time with their sons, and seventy-nine maintained a detached attitude toward them.

As important as the father is in the life of a child, even he must take second place to mother during the first three years of life. she feeds the baby at her breast and spends far more time with him in infancy than does his dad. Consequently, mothers actually have more to do with producing a predisposition toward homosexuality than fathers. Two kinds of mothers are particularly harmful-smother mothers and dominating mothers.

Smother Mothers
Every child needs love, but few things are worse than an overprotective, smothering affection that is showered on an infant, not for his benefit but for the mother's. Many a love-starved young mother satisfies her love hunger on her child until he is the primary object in her life. The more she bestows her affection, time, and attention on her child, the more she neglects her husband. This may turn him further from her and the child, compounding the problem.

Dr. Howard Hendricks used to say in Family Seminars which he and I held together that ' ' whenever a mother makes her son number one in her life, she begins to raise a pervert. " In other words, it is normal for a boy to be number two in the heart of his mother, for he doesn't feel threatened when he knows father is number one. But when mother and father cannot preserve a love relationship and she makes the child number one, he is in trouble. He may begin to identify with her, take an interest in feminine things, and develop effeminate mannerisms. Such concerns start early in life and are very difficult to break. One veteran homosexual in the counseling room complained that his mother was "overprotective and smothering.'' He illustrated the latter by saying, "She never hesitated to embarrass me. she thought nothing of unzipping my pants to tuck in my shirt. Between that and wiping my nose, she was all over me.''

Throughout history, researchers have repeatedly verified that homosexuals are ''mama's boys" whose mothers doted on them in their youth. Tchaikovsky, Michelangelo, and Freud are notable examples. Insecure mothers who have a need to be needed take out that compulsion on their infant or small child to the detriment of the child's personality. Some call it love, but it is not! In reality, it is a form of selfishness, and it probably constitutes one of the leading causes in the rise of homosexuality.

In recent years it has become fashionable for an unwed mother who heeds the advice of sexual permissivists to raise her child alone. I always wince when I see this, not because a mother can't raise her son alone (my brother and I were raised by a widowed mother, and my brother was only seven weeks old when Father died, so I know it can be done), but most of those girls have the wrong motive. They are usually love-starved girls who want something living to love and often end up "smother loving" a child into a predisposition toward homosexuality.

Dominant Mothers
One of the sociological phenomena of our times is the enormous increase in the dominant role of the mother and the renunciation by the father of his responsibility to lead. In some cases dominance is forced upon women because of an irresponsible husband. But nothing ruins the sexual adjustment of children more surely than an oppressive wife and mother. Such children build up an intense hostility toward the opposite sex that either makes it difficult for them to show love and affection in marriage or creates a predisposition toward homosexuality.

THIS TYPE OF ARTICLE MAKES IT VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR A WOMAN TO RAISE ANYTHING OTHER THAN A HOMOSEXUAL SON. When trying to reach an answer to address homosexuality, it seems the mother should be removed from the household completely. Women are are threat to manhood by their sheer existence. Evidently a woman needs a referee to run interference in mothering her son to vaccinate him against homosexuality. I'm sorry, but I can not get with this article. I am over protective of my daughters and probably smothering in their view; WHAT AM I CREATING? Are women truly the scurge some would have us to believe?

In a separate article the following information was given in regards to whether mothers create homosexual children:
Scientists have studied twins to try and learn if being gay is biologically determined. Studies of identical and fraternal twins suggest that there is a genetic influence on sexual orientation. If being gay were strictly genetic, then in identical twins, there would be a 100% concordance rate for sexual orientation. But one study in 1995 found a 52% correlation for male identical twins and 22% for male fraternal twins. A study on females came up with similar results. If one identical twin was a lesbian, in 48% of cases, the other twin was also a lesbian. For fraternal twins, the concordance was 16%. (source Simon LeVay)

These studies show that people with the same genetic make up (identical twins) are more likely to share sexual orientation than those with different genetic make up (fraternal twins.) Genetics alone cannot cause sexual orientation, but they do play a part.