I want to thank everyone who weighed-in on Part 1 of the Gay/Lesbian Delusion post. What a great (and important) debate! This is simply too big to stop at one post! So here’s my response to many of the comments offered in Part 1. Watch this short video I shot in London and I’ll look forward to your comments. Special thanks to Mike Michelozzi and the many others who helped kick off this discussion. Steve Siebold (5:00)

[media id=174]

Steve Siebold
Author and Professional Speaker since 1997. Past Chairman of the National Speakers Association's Million Dollar Speakers Group. Author of 11 books with 1.4 million copies in print.

77 thoughts on “The Gay/Lesbian Delusion: Part 2”

  1. Even if the Christian God appears before you right now and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christianity is the only acceptable way to live your life, YOU CANNOT IMPOSE YOUR BELIEFS ON A NATION OF PEOPLE. Live your life the best way you know how, and leave everyone else out of it. It isn’t your business what happens to me. It’s my fate, not yours. Religion has no place in our government. It is absolutely insane to debate about religion. No one knows the ultimate truth. But here’s what we do know: we’re all human, we all have the same emotions. We all struggle, and try as best as we can to stay afloat. Please stop trying to push people down for being different. It only indicates that you’re unhappy with your own life. Has anyone ever stopped to consider that maybe-just maybe- homosexuality is nature’s way of slowing the human population? Of course you didn’t. Because it takes work to look outside your own perspectives. Maybe we should work on stopping teen pregnancy and overpopulation. We’re here, we’re queer, and and we aren’t going anywhere. So get the f**k out of my bedroom.

  2. “Mark Goodson says:

    November 4, 2011 at 11:39 pm

    By the way, the homosexuality in animals hypothesis is a myth: http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_in_animals_myth


    I can give you a list of studies done of hundreds of animals, including birds, mammals, insects, reptiles, fish etc., which prove that homosexuality is a natural occurrence in the animal kingdom, and is not merely a choice made by human beings.

    “Gay Penguins Resist ‘Aversion Therapy'”. 365Gay.com. 11 February 2005. Archived from the original on 29 September 2007. Retrieved 16 June 2010.
    Bagemihl, Bruce (1999). Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. St. Martin’s Press ISBN 0-312-19239-8
    Caramagno, Thomas C (2002). Irreconcilable Differences? Intellectual Stalemate in the Gay Rights Debate; Praeger/Greenwood, ISBN 0275977218.
    Cooper, J.B. “An Exploratory Study on African Lions” in Comparative Psychology Monographs 17:1-48.
    Cziko, Gary (2000) The Things We Do: Using the Lessons of Bernard and Darwin to Understand the What, How, and Why of Our Behavior; MIT Press, ISBN 0262032775.
    de Waal, Frans B. M. (2001) The Ape and The Sushi Master: Cultural Reflections by a Primatologist; Basic Books (chapter Bonobos and Fig Leaves).
    Dunkle, S.W. (1991), “Head damage from mating attempts in dragonflies (Odonata:Anisoptera)”. Entomological News 102, pp. 37-41. Retrieved on 16 June 2010.
    Eaton, R. L. (1974). “The Biology and Social Behavior of Reproduction in the Lion” in Eaton, ed. The World’s Cats, vol. II; pp.3-58; Seattle.
    Forger, Nancy G., Laurence G. Frank, S. Marc Breedlove, Stephen E. Glickman (6 December 1998). “Sexual Dimorphism of Perineal Muscles and Motoneurons in Spotted Hyenas”; The Journal of Comparative Neurology, Volume 375, Issue 2 , Pages 333 – 343. Retrieved 11 September 2007.
    Goudarzi, Sara (16 November 2006). “Gay Animals Out of the Closet?: First-ever Museum Display Shows 51 Species Exhibiting Homosexuality”. MSNBC. Retrieved on 12 September 2007.
    Harrold, Max (16 February 1999). “Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity” The Advocate, reprinted in Highbeam Encyclopedia. Retrieved on 10 September 2007.
    Holekamp, Kay E. (2003). Research: Spotted Hyena – Introduction and Overview. Michigan State University, Department of Zoology]. Retrieved 16 June 2010.
    Imaginova (2007). “Gay Animals: Alternate Lifestyles in the Wild – Japanese macaques”; LiveScience. Retrieved 20 November 2007.
    Imaginova (2007b). “Gay Animals: Alternate Lifestyles in the Wild – American Bison”; LiveScience. Retrieved 20 November 2007.
    Imaginova (2007c). “Gay Animals: Alternate Lifestyles in the Wild – Bottlenose Dolphins”; LiveScience. Retrieved 20 November 2007.
    Imaginova (2007d). “Gay Animals: Alternate Lifestyles in the Wild – Giraffes”; LiveScience. Retrieved 20 November 2007.
    Imaginova (2007e). “Gay Animals: Alternate Lifestyles in the Wild – Kob”; LiveScience. Retrieved 20 November 2007.
    Imaginova (2007f). “Gay Animals: Alternate Lifestyles in the Wild – Black Swan”; LiveScience. Retrieved 20 November 2007.
    Imaginova (2007g). “Gay Animals: Alternate Lifestyles in the Wild – Walrus”; LiveScience. Retrieved 20 November 2007.
    Imaginova (2007h). “Gay Animals: Alternate Lifestyles in the Wild – Gray Whale”; LiveScience. Retrieved 20 November 2007.
    Imaginova (2007i). “Gay Animals: Alternate Lifestyles in the Wild – Guianan-Cock-of-the-Rock”; LiveScience. Retrieved 20 November 2007.
    Imaginova (2007j). “Gay Animals: Alternate Lifestyles in the Wild – Bonobo Chimpanzees”; LiveScience. Retrieved 20 November 2007.
    Kick, Russ (2001). You Are Being Lied to: The Disinformation Guide to Media Distortion, Historical Whitewashes and Cultural Myths. The Disinformation Company, ISBN 0966410076. Retrieved on 18 November 2007.
    “The Science of Sex”. 19 September 2007. Archived from the original on 2007-11-08. Retrieved 16 June 2010.
    Liggett, Dave; Columbus Zoo and Aquarium staff. “African Forest: Bonobo”. Columbus Zoo and Aquarium. Archived from the original on June 2, 2002. Retrieved November 14, 2011. “…frequent sex (including male-to-male and female-to-female) characterize bonobo society.”
    News-medical.net (23 October 2006). “1,500 Animal Species Practice Homosexuality” Retrieved on 10 September 2007.
    Roselli, Charles E., Kay Larkin, John A. Resko, John N. Stellflug and Fred Stormshak (2004). “The Volume of a Sexually Dimorphic Nucleus in the Ovine Medial Preoptic Area/Anterior Hypothalamus Varies with Sexual Partner Preference”. Endocrinology, Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Oregon Health & Science University (C.E.R., K.L., J.A.R.), Portland, Oregon; Department of Animal Sciences, Oregon State University (F.S.), Corvallis, Oregon; and Agricultural Research Service, United States Sheep Experiment Station (J.N.S.), Dubois, Idaho, Vol. 145, No. 2. Retrieved on 10 September 2007.
    Roughgarden, Joan (2004). Evolutions Rainbow: Diversity, Gender and Sexuality in Nature and People; University of California Press, Berkeley, pages p.13-183.
    Schaller, G. B. (1972). The Serengeti Lion; University of Chicago Press.
    Smith, Dinitia (7 February 2004). “Love That Dare Not Squeak Its Name” New York Times. Retrieved on 10 September 2007. Reprinted as “Central Park Zoo’s Gay Penguins Ignite Debate”, San Francisco Chronicle.
    Solimeo, Luiz Sérgio (21 September 2004). “The Animal Homosexuality Myth” National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). Retrieved on 10 September 2007.
    Solimeo, Luiz Sérgio (2004). Defending A Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same-Sex “Marriage” and the Homosexual Movement Spring Grove, Pennsylvania: The American TFP, ISBN 187790533X. Retrieved on 10 September 2007.
    Sommer, Volker & Paul L. Vasey (2006). Homosexual Behaviour in Animals, An Evolutionary Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; ISBN-10: 0521864461.
    Srivastav, Suvira (15 December-31 December 2001). “Lion, Without Lioness”[dead link] Terragreen, News to Save the Earth. Retrieved on 2 September 2007.
    Stein, Edward (1999) The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation; Oxford University Press, US; ISBN 0195142446.
    Tatarnic, Nikolai J., Gerasimos Cassis, Dieter F. Hochuli; 22 March 2006 “Traumatic insemination in the plant bug genus Coridromius Signoret (Heteroptera: Miridae)” Biology Letters Journal Volume 2, Number 1, pg 58-61: Royal Society Publishing; Retrieved 16 June 2010.
    Terry, Jennifer (2000) “‘Unnatural Acts’ In Nature: The Scientific Fascination with Queer Animals”; GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies (6(2):151-193; OI:10.1215/10642684-6-2-151); Duke University Press.
    Utzeri, C. & C. Belfiore (1990): “Anomalous tandems in Odonata”. Fragmenta Entomologica 22(2), pp. 271-288. Retrieved 11 September 2007.
    Vasey, Paul L. (1995), “Homosexual Behaviour in Primates: A Review of Evidence and Theory”; International Journal of Primatology 16: p 173-204.
    Wilson, Sexing the Hyena: “The males mount each other” University of Chicago Press. Retrieved 11 September 2007.
    Zimmer, Carl (2000); Parasite Rex: Inside the Bizarre World of Nature’s Most Dangerous Creatures; Simon and Schuster, ISBN 0743213718. Retrieved 18 November 2007.

  3. “Mohammad says:

    September 24, 2011 at 10:34 pm

    “You can’t prove morals with a God, that is what I am trying to say.”

    LOL…I meant you can’t prove morals WITHOUT a GOD…”


    With all due respect, your Freudian slip was a more accurate statement than anything else you have said so far.

  4. Scott,

    Regarding your question, “The question is: Is this behavior disordered or isn’t it. Choice (or lack thereof) doesn’t help us answer that question.”

    Why do you assume that just because someone is different from the norm that it means that there is something wrong (disordered) about him/her? In other words, by your definition, left-handedness is a disorder, since the majority of people are right-handed. Also, being blond and blue-eyed must be a disorder, since most people are not.

    On the contrary, left-handedness and eye/hair colors are traits, just as sexual orientation is. Comparing a trait (homosexuality) to a birth defect (club foot) is like comparing apples to oranges, which is illogical.

  5. Re: Mike’s statement “Scott, same for gays who condemn Christians as if one size fits all. Hetero phobia is as real as homo phobia and there’s not one group of people free of bias free of putting people into discriminatory little boxes.”

    Please back up your statement with at least one example of someone who was bullied, harassed, beaten, murdered, denied equal rights, etc., by a homosexual just for being heterosexual.

  6. By the way, the homosexuality in animals hypothesis is a myth: http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_in_animals_myth

    Second, mixing politics and religion is generally a bad practice especially today when many countries are so politically polarized. I used to work for a sales/management training company that sold a lot of merchandise from a lot of the peak performance authors and speakers. None of them mixed liberal politics with their business because there are so many conservatives in business.

    I like your material and I think you would reach a much larger audience if you didn’t mix your liberal ideology with your business. Again, 40% of Americans are conservatives.



  7. Steve,

    Conservatives make up about 40% of the U.S. population. Plus, there are a lot of conservative businessmen. You are putting an unnecessary damper on your business.

    Given that science has not discovered a gay gene, I don’t see why you are going out on a limb here.

    What is more important – your liberalism or your pocketbook? What is more important – your being able to help conservatives during these tough time or your liberalism?



  8. Steve,

    I have learned much from your “Mental Toughness..” book and is treated by many in my office as being close to gospel. I have found some areas were I personally disagree with you, but this is one, in my opinion, where you really venture away from “world class” thinking.

    1st, not all inclinations or susceptibilities are choices; however, ALL actions are choices.

    2nd, Our ability to choose and all our rights are given to us by our Creator, but we don’t chose the consequences of our choices. This has already been set thru “natural” law.

    To claim that an individuals rights are being violated or that others are being intolerant by not allowing them to marry a tree or an animal is equally ridiculous. Everyone can “marry” whatever and whomever they wish in their own heart, but for any union to be recognized by the “State” it must have a benefit to the “State”, who’s “good” laws only protect those rights given by our Creator.

    Now lets look at the “tolerance” issue. It may be considered good to be tolerant of people, but there’s always actions which are intolerable. Wouldn’t you agree? It may also be explained this way: When constructing a house, the post that holds up the front porch (tolerance) is important, but if it’s at the expense of the a large portion of the foundation (chastity), it undermines the whole structure (all natural laws) including tolerance. That’s much like saying, “The only way to be tolerant is to speak against the law of chastity”. Simply not true.

    For you to be so blatantly wrong on this core issue truly causes me to question the accuracy of your other statements.


  9. Great disscussion Steve. I think your slip might be showing. Liberal schools of thought will say sacred scriptures are not historical and the conservative schools will tell you they are. Though I agree with your conclusion ” discrimination is wrong “, your argument is a fallacious syllogism. I’ve studied informal and formal logic. Oh, and theology as well, my bent is not important. The seperation of critical and emotional thinking a much needed skill in todays world!!! Thanks Steve.

    1. Keith,
      Thanks for your comment. The fact that the Bible is a work of symbolic literature has nothing to do with being a liberal or conservative. None of the men who penned the Bible ever knew or saw Jesus. The stories they tell were passed down through generations. Jesus never wrote down a word, and neither did anyone who actually witnessed his life. Stories passed down through 2-3 generations before being reinterpreted can hardly be classified as history. I know how badly many people would love to believe the Bible is a history book, but it doesn’t pass the criteria of any actual work of history. You wouldn’t call any of the great works of mythology, history, would you? Of course not. If you’ve studied logic and reasoning you know this. That’s why they call it faith. It still may be 100% true. I don’t know and either does anyone else. But to call it a history book is a major stretch based on the necessary criteria. Your claim that my argument is a fallacious syllogism is also false. The vast majority of gays/lesbians are born with that predisposition. Argument # 1. It’s wrong to discriminate against them. Argument # 2. Can you tell me how you arrrived at the conclusion that this a fallacious syllogism? Now I’m thinking that YOUR slip is showing, my friend? 🙂 Thanks again for weighing in, Keith. I’ll give you the last word.

  10. Hello Steve,
    I don’t listen to your blogs often enought, but I was intrigued by this one so I did listen to some of it. The part that stopped me in my tracks was when you stated that theologians and historian do not consider the Bible as a history book. Well, my critical thinking skilll makes me as the question, “where’s your proof”?Where is the proof of the “experts” you refer to? There are many, many “experts” that acknowledge that he Bible is indeed, a history book. I don’t know if you’ve ever read it, and quite honesly, it doesn’t matter if you have or not, but to state as fact something that no person can attest to the veracity of (this side of death), is not critcal thinkging at all, it is opinion. Clear and simple.
    The fact of Jesus Christ’s pilgrimage on this earth is a fact. It happened. He did walk this earth, just as surely as you’re walking it now. There are far too many proofs of that fact then to even try to argue against it. No one has disproved the veracity of the Bible. Show me who has; submit your proof, “irrefutably”, and being the realist that I am…..I’ll accept it. I have two of your books, and for the most part, they are very good. The parts that I know are wrong, or based on your bias against the Bible…I take with the obligatory grain of salt. I will not throw out the meat, with the bone. But please, if you (a person of your means that can do emprical research and present proof to your audience), cannot deliver proof of what you state as a fact (the Bible is not a history book), then you shouldn’t do it. One thing I can say with the utmost conifidence is, “one day, we shall all know what the truth is”. Are you willing to bet your soul (if you believe you have one) on you being right. If I’m wrong, then it realy doesn’t matter anyway.

    One thing I must say. Just because you present valid and insightful information on the subject matter that you have studied and master, does not make you an expert on subjects that you know very little of. I can guarantee you that as many “experts” that you can find that will back up what you say concerning the “un-historicity” of the Bible, I can find just as many, if not more “experts” with same degree, if not a higher degree of education that will substantiate the historicity of scripture. No one can prove their point fully. God (dare I say), obviously wants us to think critically about His being.
    And I He “IS” then believers are the most realistic thinkers on the planet; but if not, then….as the Bible says…”eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die”.

    1. Brian,
      I appreciate your passionate thoughts, but they are clouded in emotional thinking. I’ve actually studied the bible for 25 years and worked with many of the biggest religious leaders in the country. Your assumption that I possess no expertise is an emotional judgement, since you have no knowledge of my experience. I have no bias against the Bible. It’s an ancient book of symbolic literature. Jesus Christ’s pilgrimage is not a fact, but a story that was passed down through time. Wishing it was a fact doesn’t make it a fact, thats why they call it faith. Wishful thinking is not critical thinking. That being said, it may be absolutely true. I don’t know, and either does anyone else. I’ll give you the last word, Brian. Thanks again for weighing in.

  11. Boy we just keep chatting! But I’m loving the learning experience! I like being intellectually challenged. But…that could be taken two ways, LOL! I meant, challenged, by intellectual discussion. Perspective is the focus of my platform, and I love learning from other perspectives.

    Steve I couldn’t agree with you more on your views about abuse of religion, i.e. the televangelist issue–everything you said is absolutely true. I think some so-called religions have abused people–since the dawn of Christianity. I also think well-meaning people in some religions skew their own doctrines and drive people away. I’ve seen that in my own faith. I attended the Baptist Church as a boy before my parents later embraced Mormonism on an active basis so I got a taste of both. Took organ lessons in Catholic cathedrals in Europe so I got some more there. I study the history of the early so-called Christian church from the apostacy after the apostles down through the dark ages and the Holy Roman church with popes murdering other popes and burning members at the stake makes Hitler look like Mr. Rogers. But you have me wondering: What is it that makes people want to believe….so badly? What have you found with your experience? Is it cultural conditioning or something inherent? I’m totally with you in that people are definitely malnourished mentally when it comes to being able to think for themselves. Napoleon Hill was big on that too. Good topic! I told my wife I think I took a step up on this one.

    By the way: Dawn said you’re using a Kodak Zi8 camera for these blogs–I want one–but hear they’re discontinued. Any other recommendations that have external mic capabilities? Yours seems pretty good.

    Also, I’m a mainstage speaker; Brenda & I are looking forward to seeing you & Dawn in Atlanta–very excited for it. Dawn had a good conference call last night and I thought it went well.


  12. Hey Steve,

    Just wanted to add something about being SINCERE in finding the Truth.

    Why Do I say that?

    The Holy Qur’an has one miracle where people who are insincere can never understand the Holy Qur’an, no matter how intelligent they might be. It is the only book that can do that. Another proof it is divine.

    You may want to read this, it is interesting to think about…

    God Obscures the Comprehension of Disbelievers

    That some people cannot understand the Qur’an is one of the most important secrets revealed in the Qur’an. This is indeed an important secret, because the Qur’an is a very clear, easy and straightforward book. Anyone who wishes can read the Qur’an and learn about God’s commands, the good morals that He is pleased with, the attributes of paradise and hell, and about many secrets some of which are presented in this book. However, as an immutable law of God, some people cannot understand the Qur’an despite all its clarity. Furthermore, these people can be atomic engineers or professors of biology, can understand very complicated branches of science such as physics, chemistry or mathematics, can grasp Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, materialism or communism, and yet fail to understand the Qur’an. These people who adopt the complicated structures of non-Qur’anic systems somehow cannot grasp God’s clear and easy religion, and fail to understand even the most evident subjects therein.

    Their being unable to grasp even the most evident facts is a miracle in itself. By showing that they have such a serious deficiency in understanding, God explains that some people possess a different nature. On the other hand, this provides evidence to the fact that all hearts, reason and comprehension is in God’s hands. God declares that He will cover the hearts and comprehension of those who are seized by feelings of grandeur, that is who do not submit to God. The fact that they understand anything but the Qur’an reveals that God has diverted them from His signs, and they are debarred from the Qur’an because of their insincerity. Some of the verses pertaining to this are:

    When you recite the Qur’an, We place an obscuring veil between you and those who do not believe in the hereafter. We have placed covers on their hearts, preventing them from understanding it, and heaviness in their ears. When you mention your Lord alone in the Qur’an, they turn their backs and run away. (Holy Qur’an – Surat al-Isra’: 45-46)

    Some of them listen to you but We have placed covers on their hearts, preventing them from understanding it, and heaviness in their ears. Though they see every Sign, they still have no faith, so that when they come to you, disputing with you, those who are disbelievers say, ‘This is nothing but the myths of previous peoples!’ (Holy Qur’an – Surat al-An’am: 25)

    Who could do greater wrong than someone who is reminded of the Signs of his Lord and then turns away from them, forgetting all that he has done before? We have placed covers on their hearts, preventing them from understanding it, and heaviness in their ears. Though you call them to guidance, they will nonetheless never be guided. (Holy Qur’an – Surat al-Kahf: 57)

    As revealed in the verses, the secret why disbelievers cannot understand the Qur’an is that God has placed a barrier to their comprehension and set a seal upon their hearts because of their denial. This is a great miracle displaying the grandeur of God and that He is the possessor of hearts and thoughts of every man.

    Some Secrets of the Holy Qur’an


Comments are closed.