Epigraph:

Do they seek a religion other than Allah’s, while to Him submits whosoever is in the heavens and the earth, willingly or unwillingly, and to Him shall they be returned? (Al Quran 3:84)

One or the other or both?

By Ijaz A. Rauf, Ph.D. irauf@solargridenergy.ca

Summary: Recent trends in promiscuous societies are exceeding all norms breaking cultural, societal and religious barriers, joining directly millenniums old culture of people of Sodom. People take pride in their promiscuous and alternate lifestyle, expect – in fact enforce it on others to accept their lifestyle as normal and perfectly natural. In this effort besides labelling, those who do not accept such behaviour to be normal, as homophobic, they also use argumentative techniques aimed at providing evidence for their choices to be natural. Media has also supported homosexual lobby by portraying their behaviour as genetic, at times hormonal or biological, presenting it as everything but a choice. This article examines the science behind such claims, discusses scientifically and logically the reasons behind such behaviour, analyzes the morality and ethics and briefly discusses the medical consequences of alternate lifestyles. Finally it presents arguments to express the need for individual and societal reformation for the continued survival of human species.

Introduction: Religious verdict about homosexuality is quite clear; it is considered a sin and leads to inviting the wrath of Almighty God. The story of Lot in all Abrahamic religions speaks volumes about the destruction of a whole nation because of such acts as is recorded in all the Holy Scriptures (Torah, Bible and the Quran).  The Holy Quran that is considered to be the apex of religious revelation records about the people of Lot and their behaviour as follows:

And we sent Lot, when he said to his people, ‘Do you commit an abomination such as no one in the world ever did before you? You approach men with lust instead of women. Nay, you are a people who exceed all bounds.’ [1]

And at another place in the Holy Quran it states:

‘Do you, of all peoples, approach males,and leave your wives whom your Lord has created for you? Nay, you are a people who transgress. They said, ‘If thou desist not, O Lot, thou wilt surely be one of the banished ones.’He said, ‘Certainly I hate your practice.‘My Lord, save me and my family from what they do.’So We saved him and his family, all of them, Save an old woman among those who stayed behind.Then We destroyed the others.’ [2]

However, it is becoming a modern trend in the name of human rights and rights of self-expression to express ones alternative life style (i.e. sexual orientation) in public and feel proud about it. To the extent that pride parades are organized explicitly for this very purpose.

Until two decades ago, sexual orientation used to be called sexual preference. Obviously, the two terms denote significant differences in the manner by which sexuality develops. A preference is something that is chosen, whereas orientation is merely something that defines us. The differences are potentially important regarding how the law applies to those who are homosexual. If homosexuality is not chosen, but actually is a biologically-determined characteristic over which we have no choice, then laws should not treat homosexuals and heterosexuals differently, since homosexuality would be equivalent to one’s race, over which we have no control.

It was Sigmund Freud [3] who first postulated that parental relationships with a child ultimately determine the youngster’s sexual orientation.  But this “nurturing” aspect has effectively given way to the “nature” side of the equation.  Can some behaviors (e.g., alcoholism, homosexuality, and schizophrenia and drug addiction) be explained by genetics?  Are these and other behaviors influenced by nature or by nurture?  Are they inborn or learned? Are people born homosexual or straight? Modern society has two responses to these questions.

The traditional and the right wing religious view is that homosexuality is a malformation, it is a disorder, and the behavior is pathological. Regardless of where one stands on the pleasure-relational aspects of man and woman’s sexuality is inextricably associated with reproduction, and two members of the same sex cannot reproduce. Therefore, homosexuality is a condition that is contrary to nature, in a fundamental way. Biologically, it is simply not natural or normal.

Conflicting with the above viewpoint, much of the current media sources assume the question is a solved scientific problem with all the evidence pointing toward a biological (probably genetic) basis for a homosexual orientation.  The homosexual community with tremendous support from the media has been very successful in gaining acceptance for the second view.

The advocates of acceptance of homosexuality have put forth a great effort to convince the world that homosexuality is both natural and normal. It is simply different, and that only because it is the orientation of a minority, do we classify it as a disorder or perversion. They have been quite successful in this effort. This view, however, rests on a number of questionable premises, which if false, lead us back to the traditional view.

The question has been extremely poorly studied, to say the least, since many of the initial studies, which were highly trumpeted by the media as “proof” for a biological basis for homosexuality, have been contradicted by later, more thorough and controlled studies.

Science has looked at the causes of homosexuality, and more generically the causes of human sexual orientation, with the general conclusions being related to a complex interplay between biologicalandenvironmental factors. The biological factors that have been researched are genetic and hormonal, particularly during thefetaldevelopmental period that influences the resulting brain structure. There are a wide range of environmental factors (sociological, psychological), that may influence sexual orientation.

As the attraction process sexual or otherwise starts in the brain, the very first aspect that I would like to review and sum up is the brain structure and if there is any scientific evidence that the brain structure of homosexuals and heterosexuals is different.

Brain Structure Differences: There had been numerous studies comparing the male & female brains and some have tried to extend these studies to find the differences in the homosexual and heterosexual brains. Some of these later studies showed that male and female brains showed sexual dimorphism[1] in the pre-optic area of the hypothalamus[2], whereas males demonstrated a greater than two-fold difference in cell numbers and size compared to females [4]. A second study found that two of four Interstitial Nuclei of the Anterior Hypothalamus (INAH) were at least twice as large in males as females [5].

Based on similar studies it was hypothesized by Simon LeVay that there might be differences in this region in heterosexual vs. homosexual men. Post-mortem examination of the brains of AIDS patients vs. control male subjects (presumed to be heterosexual) showed that the presumably heterosexual men exhibited INAH3 that were twice the size of both females and presumably homosexual men who had died of AIDS [6].

These studies became very popular in the media since they supported a natural cause for the sexual orientation. There was a popularized Newsweek cover story, “Is This Child Gay?” [7], which characterized LeVay as a “champion for the genetic side of sexual orientation” even though the study involved no genetic data at all. Please note that all these studies by Swaab, Allen and LeVay were published in late 80’s or early 90’s. A study by Byne, et al. examined the question of INAH3 size on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, and the HIV status of the Human subjects [8] in 2001 about a decade after the Swaab, Allen and LeVay studies.

This study found large differences in INAH3 volume on the basis of sex (with the male INAH3 being larger than the female INAH3) just as the earlier studies. However, the volume of INAH3 was decreased in male heterosexual men who had contracted AIDS (0.108 mm compared with 0.123 mm in male controls). There was no statistically significant difference between INAH3 sizes of male heterosexual vs. .male homosexuals who had contracted AIDS (0.108 mm and 0.096 mm, respectively). The study also found that there were no differences in the number of neurons[3] in the INAH3 based upon sexual orientation, although researchers found significant differences between males and females, as in other studies [8].

LeVay’s study [6] was scientifically flawed due to the complication and effects caused by the presence of AIDS, as it did not take into account the aliasing[4] factors and the influence of AIDS on the INAH3. In summary all the studies hypothesizing earlier a difference in the brain structure of heterosexuals compared to homosexuals were either proven to be incomplete, wrong or having excluded other influencing factors that were affecting the brain structure rather than the sexual orientation. Hence to date no scientific evidence exists that supports the hypothesis that sexual orientation is caused by the difference in the brain structure and hence it is natural.

Hormonal Imbalance: Based on the fact that the sex of a child is defined within the womb, as a result of hormonal[5] influences, some people hypothesised that homosexuality may result from a differential hormone balance in the wombs of those who eventually exhibit a homosexual orientation.  It has been shown that ratios of digit length are predictors of several hormones, including testosterone[6], luteinizing hormone[7] and estrogen[8] [9]. In women, the second digit (2D) is almost the same length as the fourth digit (4D). However, in men, it is usually shorter than the fourth. It has been shown that this greater 2D:4D ratio in females is established in two-year-olds.

A study by Williams, et al. showed that the 2D:4D ratio of homosexual men was not significantly different from that of heterosexual men. However, homosexual women displayed significantly smaller 2D:4D ratios compared with heterosexual women [10]. McConaghy et al found that the more older brothers a boy has, the more likely he is to develop a homosexual orientation [11]. Males who had two or more older brothers were found to have lower 2D:4D ratios [10] suggesting that they had experienced increased androgens[9] in the womb. Why increased androgens would predispose both males and females to be homosexual was not explained in the study

Studies involving a rare hormonal imbalance, congenital adrenal hyperplasia[10] (CAH), caused by defective 21-hydroxylase enzyme, suggest that hormonal abnormalities can influence sexual orientation. CAH results in increased production of males hormones during development. In case of male fetuses, increased androgens have little effect. However, female fetuses that develop in this environment develop ambiguous external genitalia, which complicate subsequent development. In utero[11] treatment with dexamethasone reduces the androgen imbalance, resulting in an individual who is genetically and phenotypically[12] female [12] and it also reduces the homosexual orientation in such treated females. This does indicate that the homosexual orientation, if caused in the womb by hormonal imbalance is a treatable hormonal disorder.

These studies examining effects of very high doses of femalehormones to pregnant mothers show no effect on males and a dubious effect on women. About 90% of Western “intersex” children (those born with ambiguous genitalia) choose to remain in their gender of upbringing when puberty reveals their true genetic gender and surgical interventions are offered. Often, this choice is made in the face of very contrary physical and hormonal characteristics. It demonstrates predominant environmental influences on the formation of gender orientation and behaviour.

A 2006 Swedish study [13] of lesbians was reported in the world press as showing a physical basis for lesbian behavior when exposed to female hormones. Dr. Savic of the Stockholm Brain Institute, one of the coauthors of the study, stated; “This is incorrect and is not stated in the paper.” This study simply demonstrated that lesbian women reacted differently than heterosexual women in response to hormonal treatment. This may mean that the reaction is a result of the homosexual behavior rather than the origin of the behavior.

The Gay Gene: Is it Genetic? A group led by Dean H. Hamer of the National Cancer Institute tried to link male homosexuality to a gene on the X chromosome[13].  His team investigated 114 families of homosexual men.  Hamer and his colleagues [14] collected family history information from 76 gay male individuals and 40 gay brother pairs as they searched for incidences of homosexuality among relatives of gay men. , they concluded that a gene for homosexuality might be found on the X chromosome, which is passed from the mother alone.  They then used DNA linkage analysis in an effort to find a correlation between inheritance and homosexual orientation.

Since many of the families with predominance of homosexual relatives had a common set of DNA markers on the X chromosome, Hamer and his coworkers assumed a genetic etiology[14].  Of the 40 pairs of homosexual brothers they analyzed, Hamer’s group [14] found that 33 exhibited a matching DNA region called q28 – a gene located at the tip of the long arm of the X chromosome. In summarizing their findings, Hamer and colleagues [14] noted: “Our experiments suggest that a locus (or loci)[15] related to sexual orientation lies within approximately 4 million base pairs of DNA on the tip of the long arm of the X chromosome”  This discovery also prompted Hamer and his colleagues to speculate: “The linkage to markers on Xq28, the subtelomeric[16] region of the long arm of the sex chromosome, had a multipoint lod score[17] of 4.0, indicating a statistical confidence level of more than 99 percent that at least one subtype of male sexual orientation is genetically influenced.”

One of the most significant problems with Hamer and his coworkers’ [14] study was that they did not check if any of the heterosexual relatives of the homosexuals also had the Xq28 as well as they did not have any explanation about the other 7 subjects included in the study who were homosexual but did not have the “gay gene”. About seven years later George Rice and his colleagues [15] looked intently at the gene Xq28 and included 182 families in their study.  They noted: “It is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Hamer’s original study.  Because our study was larger than that of Hamer et al., we certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as was reported in that study.  Nonetheless, our data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation at position Xq28.”

In 1990 with funding from the national institute of health, the genome[18] project was initiated. The national human genome institute has the following on its website regarding this project [16].

“The Human Genome Project (HGP) was one of the great feats of exploration in history — an inward voyage of discovery rather than an outward exploration of the planet or the cosmos; an international research effort to sequence and map all of the genes – together known as the genome – of members of our species, Homo sapiens. Completed in April 2003, the HGP gave us the ability, for the first time, to read nature’s complete genetic blueprint for building a human being”

Most of the major science journals reported on the progress in the field of genetics, but also speculated on how the information would now be used. The one piece of information that never materialized from the Human Genome Project was the identification of the so-called “gay gene”.

Psychological Disorder: The removal of homosexuality as a designation from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders by the American Psychiatric Association has kept many physicians from attempting to provide reparative therapy to homosexuals. However, Columbia University Professor of Psychiatry Dr. Robert Spitzer, who was instrumental in removing homosexuality in 1973 from the list of mental disorders, published a study in 2003 and contended that people can change their “sexual orientation” from homosexual to heterosexual [17]. Spitzer interviewed more than 200 people, most of whom claimed that through reparative therapy counseling, their desires for same-sex partners either diminished significantly or they changed over to heterosexual orientation. Although still a proponent of homosexual activism, Spitzer has been attacked unmercifully by former admirers for this breach of the ideology that people are “born gay and can’t change.”

Another study of 13,000 New Zealand adults (age 16+) examined sexual orientation as a function of childhood history [18]. The study found a 3-fold higher prevalence of childhood abuse for those who subsequently engaged in same sex sexual activity. However, childhood abuse was not a major factor in homosexuality, since only 15% of homosexuals had experienced abuse as children (compared with 5% among heterosexuals) [18]. So, it would appear from this population that only a small percentage of homosexuality (~10%) might be explained by early childhood abusive experiences.

The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) released the results of a two-year study in 2000. This research effort concluded that before treatment, 68 percent of the respondents perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entirely homosexual, with another 22 percent stating that they were more homosexual than heterosexual.  After treatment, only 13 percent perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entirely homosexual, while 33 percent described themselves as either exclusively or almost entirely heterosexual [19]. Although 83 percent of respondents indicated that they entered therapy primarily because of homosexuality, 99 percent of those who participated in the survey said they now believe that psychological treatments to change homosexuality can be effective and valuable [19].

So what really is the origin of Homosexuality? There are psychological influences that affect different people differently and a lot of fundamental research is being conducted on positive as well as negative aspects of psychological influences [20-22]. Let’s explore the answer to above question in the words of professed homosexuals. Two large studies asked homosexual respondents to explain the origins of their desires and behaviors – how they “got that way.” Kinsey’s study of the late 1940s involved 1700 homosexuals [23-24], and Gebhard’s study [25] in 1970s, involved 979 homosexuals. Both were conducted prior to the period when the “gay rights” movement started to politicize the issue of homosexual origins. Both reported essentially the same findings: Homosexuals overwhelmingly believed their feelings and behavior were the result of social or environmental influences.

There is also evidence that homosexuality, like drug use is “handed down” from older individuals. The first homosexual encounter is usually initiated by an older person. In separate studies 60%, [26] 64%, [25] and 61% [27] of the respondents claimed that their first partner was someone older who initiated the sexual experience.Extremely shy and artistic young boys, for instance, who are not affirmed in their masculinity by a caring father, might be at risk for homosexuality. It’s not because of a homosexual “gene,” but because of an interrupted process of achieving secure gender identity. This can make some boys who crave male affirmation an easy mark for seduction into homosexuality. A similar pattern can be seen in girls who don’t fit classic gender profiles, need feminine affirmation, and are targeted by lesbians who play upon the girls’ emotional needs.

What kinds of influences do cause strong homosexual desires? No one answer is acceptable to all researchers in the field. Important factors, however, seem to fall into four categories. As with so many other odd sexual tendencies, males appear especially susceptible:

1. Homosexual experience: any homosexual experience in childhood, especially if it is a first sexual experience or with an adult, any homosexual contact with an adult, particularly with a relative or authority figure.
2. Family abnormality: a dominant, possessive, or rejecting mother, an absent, distant, or rejecting father, a parent with homosexual proclivities, the lack of a religious home environment, divorce, condoning homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle – welcoming homosexuals (e.g., co-workers, friends) into the family circle.
3. Unusual sexual experience, particularly in early childhood: precocious or excessive masturbation, exposure to pornography in childhood.
4. Cultural influences: a visible and socially approved homosexual sub-culture that invites curiosity and encourages exploration, pro-homosexual sex education, openly homosexual authority figures, such as teachers, societal and legal toleration of homosexual acts, depictions of homosexuality as normal and/or desirable behavior.

Medical Consequence: There are numerous studies on the physical and medical consequences of homosexual behaviour, however, I would summarise these in the following. Death and disease accompany promiscuous and unsanitary sexual activity. 70% [28] to 78% [29] of gays reported having had a sexually transmitted disease. The proportion with intestinal parasites, worms, flukes, and amoeba ranged from 25% [30] to 39% [31] to 59% [32-33] respectively. Almost all HIV cases among young males in U.S. attributable to homosexual behavior according to the Centers For Disease Control’s  latest survey that found that “In 2009, 91% of adolescent males and 89% of young adult males had diagnosed infections that were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact.” [34]. In addition to AIDS, there is a long list of maladies attendant upon the homosexually active population. Of particular concern is anal cancer. According to J. R. Daling et.al [35], the risk of anal cancer soars by 4000 percent among those who engage in anal intercourse.

Self-Control and Reformation Required to Ensure Survival of Species: The problem of human species is an eternal and at the same times the most urgent of all problems. It lies at the heart of the philosophical questions of man’s place and destination in a world that is being discovered and transformed in the name of humanity, the highest of all values. The main goal of social development is the formation of human abilities and the creation of the most favourable conditions for human self-expression and spiritual elevation.

There are a number of human characteristics that we have no control over, for example, who someone’s parents are going to be, what will be child’s sex at birth, color of eyes, hair and there are many other similar attributes that can be cited including people being born disabled. Advancements in genetic engineering have aims to develop processes to even control that, some of which can be beneficial to human race for example correction of disabilities by genetic modifications. However, there are a number of things people develop through influence of their surrounding environment, for example communications (what language they will speak depends on which family they are born in) they develop this skill way before they even become aware of the functions of their sexual organs.

All human behavioral drives are instinctive. Individual human behavior is in response to these basic instincts as modified by the human intellect. The intellectual (moral, ethical) human controls its behavior by augmenting those social drives which correspond with its moral, cultural and spiritual beliefs and diminishing those drives which are contrary. The drive for sex is one of the strongest of the human instincts, often over-riding even the instinct for survival of the self since the survival of the species is the paramount consideration.

A human child is born at the most primitive of the animal states, but with tremendous ability to understand and learn from the environment surrounding him/her. A detailed discussion on “The Physical, Moral and Spiritual States of Man” is eloquently examined in the booklet “Philosophy of the teachings of Islam” [36] by Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as), the Promised Messiah for the current age. Discussing this very primitive state of human being, Hadhrat Ahmad (as) elaborates:

“The first spring which is the source of all natural states is designated by the Holy Quran as “the Nafsi Ammarah”, which means the self that incites to evil”. He (as) further explains this state saying, “thus the propensity towards evil and intemperance is a human state which predominates over the mind of a person before he enters upon the moral state. This is man’s natural state, so long as he is not guided by reason and understanding but follows his natural bent (instincts) in eating, drinking, sleeping, waking, anger and provocation, like the animals”.

An intellectual being is one that uses intellectual control (self-discipline) to augment desirable instinctive behavior and to minimize inappropriate instinctive behavior. Through reason, the moral (intellectual, ethical) human searches out and exhibit a behavior which optimizes species survival on earth for eternity.

There are three elements in sexual reproduction which are required in the human species for species’ survival. These must be held sacred by the individuals in the species and are: the joining of adult male and female in a cooperative unit (wedlock), and in earnest commitment, for rearing the young; the mating of the adult male and female for producing children; and the joint care of the child by the parents in full cooperation from conception to self-sufficiency, each parent performing their respective duties. When these three elements are conducted under intellectual control, the one element that distinguishes the humans from other species, they are then moral, ethical and spiritual. Any human behavior which diminishes the positive effect of these functions in any way is, therefore, unethical and immoral.

Modern society is infecting our minds, and everything we do, and forcing us to abide by certain social trends. We are pressurised to accept all variations in the lifestyles as normal and natural. In the name of freedom, the unrestricted mingling of opposite sexes in the modern society has resulted in increased promiscuity. The consequence is that the physical sex that nature developed in all mammals, for reproduction, is losing its charm for the modern human beings. The unrestrained modern human is becoming sexually bizarre in pursuit of pleasure ridden lifestyles. In the animal kingdom sex for any other reason than procreation is unobserved. Sex for that reason among modern humans is becoming rare. Sexual pleasure has been shown to be chemical in nature. Sexual activity increases the chemical flow. Nonconventional sex, as practiced by many of the modern human beings, is addictive, useless, costly, troublesome, wasteful, and disease ridden practice with no redeeming feature.  Rise of homosexuality is thus a direct outcome of human moral degradation in pursuit of pleasures.

The collective sexual instincts of the human are in great disarray and quite contrary to the survival of the species. It is, therefore, necessary for each human to exercise a strong intellectual control over its sexual instincts. To do so is moral and spiritual, not to do so is immoral and unethical. To judge the morality of a particular act is to assess that act with respect to the optimum survivability of the species and individuals. If it harms, or is likely to harm, others or self, then it is immoral, suicide and assisted suicide is still illegal in almost all the human societies and civilizations of the world. The degree of immorality is directly proportional to the severity of the harm and/or its likelihood.

What are the repercussions of promiscuity are also very visible through the modern media. Divorces rates are sky-rocketing courts are filled with cases arguing over child responsibility. Most child abuse cases involve step-parents or live-in lovers. Child murder and abandonment are no longer rare occurrences in modern societies. Most family murders are the result of sexual promiscuity. Homosexuality is an act that endangers the survival of the human race itself, besides harming the individuals involved with a variety of diseases and eventual death without offspring.

When a person is guided by reason and understanding and brings his natural state under control and regulates it in a proper manner, then the three states, as described, cease to remain the categories as natural states, but are called moral states [36]. The sole purpose for the creation of mankind and bestowing the intelligence on it, as per the Islamic teachings, is to use that talent to find its Creator through His attributes and by truly knowing those attributes man will be compelled to worship Him as it is stated in the Holy Quran: “And I have not created the Jinn and the men but that they may worship Me [37].” Hence by doing so, it rises above the animal self and can reach a stage when the soul of a person being delivered from all weaknesses is filled with spiritual powers and establishes a living relationship with God Almighty without Whose support it cannot exist [36].

The Holy Quran beautifully elaborate the purpose of creating mates in the following verse, “O ye people! fear your Lord, Who created you from a single soul and created therefrom its mate, and from them twain spread many men and women; and fear Allah, in Whose name you appeal to one another, and fear Him particularly respecting ties of relationship. Verily, Allah watches over you [38].” Thus the private sexual acts committed between a wedded couple for the purpose of procreation and for strengthening the family bond are moral and spiritual. They ensure the survival of the species beyond the lives of the individuals involved and a source of peace for the couple and are exactly for the purpose they are created as mates for each other.

Contrary to this when a human being is enslaved to primitive pleasure bound instincts; it continues to degrade itself, however with no satisfaction to the extent that he/she degrades even below the animal self that it was born at. Homosexuality, incest and other similar non-conventional sexual acts are the direct consequence of such degradation. No society or civilization survives if the individuals within that group do not consistently follow its established rules, i.e. exercises intellectual control over its instincts. Since the sexual instinct is by far the strongest social instinct, a benchmark of the success of a given social or civil group and an indicator of the moral and ethical capability of individuals to contribute to the group, is the sexual discipline of the individuals within that group.

Once a trend is set in motion to deteriorate morality and corrupt human beings to fall from their higher spiritual states, men with strong will power, higher morality and spirituality and leadership qualities are needed to bring human beings back to a higher moral and spiritual state. This has exactly been the practice of the Almighty Creator, at every juncture when immorality and corruption was widespread on earth, He chose men, like Abraham, Noah, Lot, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (may peace be upon all of them) and strengthened them with revelation to bring humanity back to Him. Looking at the moral state of the world we live in, I wonder, is it not the time for another reformer? Has the Almighty abandoned the human race? No it cannot be so. The light of revelation did shine on Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) of Qadian. The least, all the pious souls of the earth, owe to their Creator is to thoroughly examine the claims of this caller towards the Creator who rose in our times.

Conclusions: Despite the recent trends and media frenzy to portray the alternative lifestyles as natural, genetically, hormonally or biologically stimulated, there is no scientific evidence to that effect. In fact all the scientific evidence negates these notions. Despite the success of homosexual lobby in removing homosexuality as a designation from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders there is ample recorded medical evidence that this conditions is psychologically treatable and medically amendable.

The world has been hampered for too long with the idea that people are “born gay.” The people who most need to hear the truth are those who mistakenly believe that they have no chance for change. It is both more compassionate and truthful to give them hope than to serve them up politically motivated, unproven creations like the “gay gene.”

Homosexual lifestyles are immoral from human standards as they directly threaten the survival of human species on earth, besides harming the individuals involved, with deadly diseases, shortening their lifetime and leaving them without offspring. To ensure survival of human species for all the times to come human race needs to exercise self-control that can only come at the current age through individual and societal reformation. As human race we must raise the bar on morality and spirituality within ourselves and expect more from our leaders.

References:

1. Holy Quran, Chapter 7: Verses 81-82.
2. Holy Quran, Chapter 26: Verses 166-173.
3. Freud, Sigmund (1956). On Sexuality. Penguin Books Ltd.
4. D.F. Swaab, and E. Fliers. A sexually dimorphic nucleus in the human brain, Science 228: (1985) 1112.
5. L.S. Allen, M. Hines, J.E. Shryne and R.A. Gorski, Two sexually dimorphic cell groups in the human brain, J. Neurosci.9 (1989) 497.
6. S. LeVay, A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men, Science 253 (1991) 1034.
7. D. Gelman, Is This Child Gay? Born or Bred: The Origins of Homosexuality. Newsweek September 9, 1991, p. 52.
8. W. Byne, S. Tobet, L. A. Mattiace, M. S. Lasco, E. Kemether, M. A. Edgar, S. Morgello, M. S. Buchsbaum, and L. B. Jones, The interstitial nuclei of the human anterior hypothalamus: an investigation of variation with sex, sexual orientation, and HIV status. Horm. Behav. 40 (2001) 86.
9. J.T. Manning, D. Scutt, J. Wilson and D. I. Lewis-Jones., The ratio of 2nd to 4th digit length: a predictor of sperm numbers and concentrations of testosterone, luteinizing hormone and oestrogen.Human Reproduction13 (1998) 3000.
10. T. J .Williams, M. E. Pepitone, S. E. Christensen, B. M. Cooke, A. D. Huberman, N. J. Breedlove, T. J. Breedlove, C. L. Jordan, and S. M. Breedlove. Finger-length ratios and sexual orientation. Nature 404 (2000) 455.
11. N. McConaghy, D. Hadzi-Pavlovic, C. Stevens, V. Manicavasagar, N. Buhrich, and U. Vollmer-Conna. Fraternal birth order and ratio of heterosexual/homosexual feelings in women and men. J. Homosex. 51 (2006) 161.
12. L. Frisén, A. Nordenström, H. Falhammar, H. Filipsson, G. Holmdahl, P.O. Janson, M. Thorén, K. Hagenfeldt, A. Möller, A. Nordenskjöld., Gender role behavior, sexuality, and psychosocial adaptation in women with congenital adrenal hyperplasia due to CYP21A2 deficiency. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 94 (2009) 3432.
13. C. Ciumas, A. Linde´n Hirschberg and I. Savic, Cerebral Cortex 19: (2009) 1167.
14. D. H. Hamer, S. Hu, V. L. Magnuson, N. Hu, and A. M. Pattatucci. A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. Science 261 (1993).321.
15. George Rice, Carol Anderson, Neil Risch, and George Ebers, “Male Homosexuality: Absence of Linkage to Microsatellite Markers at Xq28,” Science, 284 (1999) 665.
16. http://www.genome.gov/10001772 (October 5, 2013).
17. Robert L. Spitzer, “Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation?”, Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 5, October 2003: 403-417
18. J. Elisabeth Wells, Magnus A. McGee and Annette L. Beautrais, “Multiple Aspects of Sexual Orientation: Prevalence and Sociodemographic Correlates in a New Zealand National Survey”, Archives of Sexual Behaviour, Vol. 40 No. 1 (2011) 155.
19. Joseph Nicolosi, A. Dean Byrd, and Richard Potts, “Retrospective Self-reports of Changes in Homosexual Orientation: A Consumer Survey of Conversion Therapy Clients,” Psychological Reports, 86 (2000) 1071.
20. A. Raj, J.G. Silverman and H. Amaro, The relationship between sexual abuse and sexual risk among high school students: findings from the 1997 Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Survey, Maternal and Child Health Journal, 4(2) (2000) 125-134.
21. J.M. Chandy, R.W. Blum and M.D. Resnick, Sexually abused male adolescents: how vulnerable are they? Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, , 6(2) (1997) 1. D.W. Holder et al. The association between adolescent sexual spirituality and voluntary sexual activity. J Adolesc Health;26 (2000) 295.
22. National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. Faithful Nation: What American Adults and Teens Think about Faith, Morals, Religion, and Teen Pregnancy: A National Survey Washington, DC: The Campaign, 2001.
23. Alfred C. Kinsey, Wardell B. Pomeroy, and Clyde E. Martin. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co., 1948.
24. Alfred C. Kinsey, Wardell B. Pomeroy, and Clyde E. Martin. Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co., 1953.
25. Paul Gebhard, and Alan Blaine Johnson. The Kinsey Data: Marginal Tabulations of the 1938-1963 Interviews Conducted by the Institute for Sex Research Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co., 1979.
26. A. P. Bell, and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A study of diversity among men and women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978.
27. Irving Bieber, Harvey J. Dain, Paul R. Dince, Marvin G. Drellich, Henry G. Grand, Ralph R. Gundlach, Malvina W. Kremer, Alfred H. Rifkin, Cornelia B. Wilbur, and Toby B. Bieber Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals. New York: Basic Books, Inc. 1962.
28. M.T. Schechter, E. Jeffries, P. Constance, B. Douglas, S. Fay, M. Maynard, R. Nitz, B. Willoughby, W.J. Boyko, A. MacLeod, Letter to the Editor: “Changes in sexual behavior and fear of AIDS.” Lancet no. 8389, vol 1 (June 9, 1984): 1293.
29. Karla Jay and Allen Young, The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gay Men Speak Out About Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles (New York: Summit, 1977).
30. Harold W. Jaffe, Choi Keewhan, Pauline A. Thomas, Harry W. Haverkos, David M. Auerbach, “National case-control study of Kaposi’s sarcoma and Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia in homosexual men: Part 1, Epidemiologic results.” Annals Of Internal Medicine 99, no. 2 (August 1983): 145.
31. Thomas C. Quinn, Walter E. Stamm, Steven E. Goodell, Emanuel Mkrtichian, Jacqueline Benedetti, Lawrence Corey, Michael D. Schuffler, King K. Holmes, “The polymicrobial origin of intestinal infection in homosexual men.” New England Journal of Medicine 309, no. 10 (September 8, 1983): 576.
32. Robert J. Biggar, Mads Melbye, Peter Ebbesen, Dean L. Mann, James J. Goedert, Robert Weinstock, Douglas M. Strong, William A. Blattner, “Low T-lymphocyte ratios in homosexual men: Epidemioligic evidence for a transmissible agent.” Journal of The American Medical Association 251, no. 11 (March 15, 1984): 1441.
33. John E. Rigdon, “Overcoming a deep-rooted reluctance, more firms advertise to gay community.” The Wall Street Journal (July 18, 1991): B-1.
34. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Diagnoses of HIV infection and AIDS among adolescents and young adults in the United States and 5 U.S. dependent areas, 2006–2009. HIV Surveillance Supplemental Report 2012; 17(No. 2). Published January 2012.  http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/.
35. Janet R. Daling, Noel S. Weiss, Larry L. Klopfenstein; Leah E. Cochran; Wong Ho Chow, Richard Daifuku, “Correlates of Homosexual Behavior and the Incidence of Anal Cancer,” Journal of the American Medical Association 247, no.14, 9 April 1982, pp. 1988.
36. Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas of Qadian “The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam” English Translation by Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan,Islam International Publications Ltd., UK (2010), ISBN 978-1-84880-055-7 http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf
37. Holy Quran, Chapter 51: Verse 57.

Disclaimers:

1. The Muslim Times has an Editorial policy, but, the views expressed by different writers, editors and commentors belong to them only or the authors they are quoting and the Muslim Times takes no responsibility for the views expressed.

2. The Muslim Times is not the official website of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. The official site is: Alislam.org

3. Internet communications are not always secured and therefore the Muslim Times does not accept legal responsibility for any contents. The reader is responsible for verifying its authenticity before acting on the contents.

4. We, in the Muslim Times, do not necessarily fully endorse all the articles that we are presenting here. Sometimes, we just like to inform the readers of the different opinions ‘out there.’

5.  Some content-posts are archived for backup and to keep archived records of any news about Islam, Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, Universal Brotherhood, human rights and Separation of Mosque-Church and State.

Follow us in Twitter to stay informed about current affairs, human rights, universal brotherhood, Separation of Mosque-Church and State, and much more