|
« The demented logic of appeasement
Main |
November 26, 2003
The abandonment of marriage
Daily Mail, 26 November 2003 Today’s Queen’s Speech is expected to include a proposal to give gay partners the same ‘rights’ as married people. The argument is based on equality. Since gay people are just as capable as heterosexuals of forming permanent, loving relationships, it is said to be discriminatory and even cruel to deny them the same benefits as those enjoyed by married couples, such as inheritance tax exemptions or pension rights. But this is not actually about discrimination at all. It is not about equal rights. Its effects will not stop at gay people. It is rather the latest lethal offensive in the campaign to destroy the whole concept of ‘normal’ sexual behaviour bound by a set of recognised rules and thus undermine marriage, the fundamental bulwark of our society. Indeed, we can already see clear evidence of this in the government’s intention, on implementing this new law, to remove marriage from all official forms. At a stroke, marriage will quite simply be obliterated from official life. From being a privileged institution on account of its fundamental role in creating social stability, marriage will now pass into a kind of bureaucratic purgatory, deliberately marginalised as a private arrangement of no great consequence. This is little short of a declaration of war on the institution that remains of the greatest significance to the vast majority of people in this country. The ostensible reason is to prevent discrimination on grounds of sexuality. But this whole premise is fundamentally wrong. There is no discrimination, because married couples don’t have ‘rights’. The state rather gives them privileges in recognition of the specialness of marriage. Indeed, this is the only sexual relationship in which the state properly has any interest at all. This is because marriage is not a love affair. It is an institution which hedges a sexual union between a man and a woman with a dense network of law, custom, privileges, pressures, tradition and ritual, because that union is the crucible of human identity which needs special protection. That identity is created solely by the union of man and woman; only that union creates the blood relationship; marriage solemnises and sanctifies that union for that reason; and the state has an interest in giving marriage special privileges because if personal identity becomes damaged (as it so often does in fragmented or dismembered families) the social consequences can be appalling. To give such benefits to non-married people is to hollow out marriage. It takes privileges that flow from the most solemn promise that can be made and distributes them regardless of the absence of any promise at all. It is, indeed, no more than a rip-off charter. It would not only allow promiscuous gays to take advantage of the benefits while remaining in legal partnerships; by not even requiring a gay relationship to be consummated in order to qualify, it opens the way for friends to declare themselves in civil partnerships in order to grab the benefits on offer. In other words, it will usher in a free-for-all that makes a mockery of law, morality and basic social values. How can any responsible government even contemplate such a nihilistic piece of social vandalism? Some might say that since only a few people are involved, surely it is only compassionate to recognise that they crave the same things in life – loving companionship, stability and security – as heterosexuals. Indeed, there are certainly grounds for compassion (although many of these needs can already be met through private legal arrangements). But if society is damaged, this argument becomes no more than sloppy sentimentality. Marriage, which provides the glue that holds society together, has long been under assault from our culture of hedonistic individualism. It is most threatened by irregular heterosexual behaviour, notably the rise of cohabitation which, through its inherent instability, is now the main driver behind the inexorable and terrifying increase in unstable families and fatherless children. Despite being ostensibly reserved for gays, civil partnership rights will create an unstoppable momentum for extending them to heterosexual cohabiting partners. In addition, is it not equally unfair that two devoted sisters, for example, who may have lived with each other for decades, should be excluded from this ‘rights’ free-for-all? Or polygamous people? Or members of communes? And once heterosexual partners are given these privileges, marriage – already consigned to official limbo – will become even more stripped of meaning. Gay partnerships, in short, are a means of destroying monogamous heterosexual marriage as our prime social and legal institution. That is, indeed, what the more honest advocates of gay rights acknowledge, in order to remove – they think – the stigma accompanying sexual behaviour that is not considered the norm. Since homosexuality is not the norm, it follows that the heterosexual norm has to be destroyed. The whole gay rights agenda is therefore a direct, outright attack on heterosexual, monogamous marriage. But if that goes down the pan, then eventually so too will personal autonomy, which is the product of monogamous marriage and the bedrock of our freedoms (such as the freedom of minorities, including gays). This distinguishes us from societies where family structure takes very different forms and where personal freedom is compromised or non-existent, and minorities (especially gays) suffer as a result. To many people, it is simply astounding that so much of our political life is now taken up with the gay rights issue. Tony Blair came to power on a commitment to shoring up marriage. Instead, from the start his administration has appeared to be obsessed with gay rights. Virtually the entire shopping list of the gay rights lobby group Stonewall, which seemed so outlandish when it first appeared, has now been delivered by this government. Indeed, it is no surprise that the guidance on obliterating marriage was drawn up by the Women and Equality Unit headed by Angela Mason, Stonewall’s former chief executive, and answerable to Patricia Hewitt, the ultra-feminist Cabinet minister who once said that marriage no longer fitted in modern Britain. People might still wonder, however, why an agenda espoused by such a tiny minority – and one that is distinctly totalitarian in its attempts to intimidate its opponents into silence by smearing them as prejudiced – has gained such purchase inside the Blair government. To answer this, one has to see the gay rights movement for what it really is: a highly organised, pan-western movement which uses victim culture to advance its interests, with the result that personal liberty and independence of thought and action are undermined by the triumph of the most powerful interest groups over the weak. History is studded with tyrannical regimes which tried to undermine marriage precisely because it is the principal line of defence for individuals against state power. If one thinks of the extent to which this government wants to control the way people think and act to ensure compliance with ‘acceptable’ behaviour, it immediately becomes clear why the gay rights issue lies at the very heart of the life-and-death struggle known as the culture wars -- and why that struggle itself is the most crucial and defining political battleground bar none in our self-centred, unthinking and lemming-like society. Posted by melanie at November 26, 2003
Comments
Another excellent article. Perhaps the shallow Mr. Blair and his like-minded ministers may like to examine the consequences of his anti-marriage agenda: child misery, violence, promiscuity, crime, anti-social behavious, drug abuse, etc. Or are these yet more excuses to introduce yet more impotent legislation and erode our freedoms further? The grim consequences of the triumph of hedonistic individualism over moral values are already being exposed at an increasingly alarming rate. As a civilised nation we simply are doomed unless there is a radical reversal in this nasty trend, which has been pursued endlessly by the Tory and Labour governments. There cannot be any other alternative. Posted by: Jeff at November 26, 2003 01:23 PMIt was predictable; after all blair interferred in the Jeffrey John business...two names go forward to the PM from the C of E, one goes forward to the Queen....... Then we hear No 10 looking at Deans positions within their gift at Norwich and elsewhere. The Labour Party has lost touch completely with its conservative party base, and is now like the German SPD floating on "the Third Way" unanchored to any concept of morality, tradition, or popular roots......it is the plaything of TV producers and Polytechnic academics who have no notion of the daily toil of ordinary people trying to hold their lives together. If you read the Telegraph today you will see that the daughter of the titled Australian, Hewitt Patricia, opened a Caterpillar warehouse and praised their JCB products !!!! No wonder they gave her Trade. THe fact is that if Labour were staffed and run by working class men of toil as 50 years ago, it would be a much better party. If John Smith had lived.......if John Smith had lived......I repeat it because the thought of a man of substance in place of the androidal androgynous Blair is such a dramatic one, that I can only imagine how much more normal our country might have been. With the kind of rubbish this regime has unloaded on us, similar to the trash Schroeder has unloaded on Germany, I can only wonder if the backlash that must inevitably come can be contained within the parameters of a democratic political system. Posted by: Peter Williamson at November 26, 2003 01:35 PMThough I believe that this government, not least through its obsessions with homsexuality, is the most destructive of modern times, much of its direction and energy comes from the wave of feminism that started to indundate this country - and much of Europe besides - in the seventies. The whole concept of marriage that Melanie fights for so valiantly ultimately depends on women continuing to play ball, but they are not. Women have evacuated themselves from the traditional society of which they were the core and essence - lifelong mothers, carers, homemakers, community builders etc - and decided they want to play the role of men outside of the home. Insofar as they retain any interest in what we still think of as feminine roles they will only do it by proxy, as paid 'professionals'. That is why the state is interfering so much in the raising of children, because there an inexorable movement by women to abdicate what were previously seen as their personal responsibilities to the state. Technology threatens/promises to allow reproduction to become a much more neutral and separate process, minimising the effects on individual women. That may be the way of the future - Brave New World and all that. If that is where we are heading - because that is what women truly want - then let us be open about it and cease to strive for what most no longer will accept. For women I suppose I should say men and women because this is not about blaming one sex. The feminisation of society has infected 'all genders'! Posted by: Michael at November 26, 2003 01:58 PMYes, indeed. Another excellent article from Melanie. We know that the gay activists - as opposed to normal gay people who just get on with their lives like the rest of us - espouse a totalitarian agenda. The government is free to tell them to get lost. The question that arises in my mind when I read of the latest onslaught on marriage is, why has Tony Blair embraced the gay rights agenda with such fervor? The only subjects that have consistently occupied his time over the six years since he took office have been gay rights and fox hunting. Posted by: Caroline at November 26, 2003 01:59 PMA nasty prejudice piece of prose. But then, that's what I'd expect from you. If marriage really is an institution designed to promote the rearing of children, then how about banning heterosexual couples incapable of having children from marrying? And as for the role of marriage in strengthening society why are so so incapable of seeing how much gay people contribute to society and the prejudice which we all too often have to live with. Prejudice which you all too often legitimise. And, I'll just point out I couldn't be considered a gay right activisit - I just beleive that I make as much of a contribution to society as a heterosexual and deserve the same protections and priveleges which the law provides. Posted by: Michael at November 26, 2003 02:59 PMWell said Michael,Peter and Caroline but especially Malanie! Although homosexual men and women strive for parity with those of the heterosexual community, it is a fact the majority do not enter long-term relationships. Their life-style is predatory, some even experiencing 40-50 sexual partners a night. American research has shown most wish to live solitary lives and surprisingly of those who are in long-term relationships the risk of AIDS greater. Leading doctors want to ban smoking in public, yet turn a blind eye to a tangible improvement in public health by discouraging anal intercourse by men. Homosexuals live a most dangerous life-style and expose themselves to life-threatening diseases for which there is no cure. No wonder the British Blood Service does not want their blood even in cases where they have practised "safe-sex". Posted by: Frisbee at November 26, 2003 03:13 PMWhy do you feel so threatened by giving homosexuals the right to visit their partner in hospital, inherit their partner's property, or arrange their partner's funeral? Do you really have so much hate? I'm proud of mt gay son's contributions to society, often made in the face of bigotry like yours. The sooner he has his value to society and the depth of his commitment to his partner recognised by the law the better. I had questioned whether I'd vote for Labour again at the next election - thanks for clarifying things for me - views like yours make me know why I have to. Posted by: Rita Clancey at November 26, 2003 03:13 PMAs pointed out in Melanie's article, the greatest threat to marriage is the behaviour of some heterosexuals. The introduction of same-sex partnership rights will not affect one iota marriage between heterosexuals. Has the lowering of the age of consent for homosexuals to 16 affected heterosexuals? Of course not. By all means keep the government out of the bedrooms of consenting adults. However, the belief that granting new rights to a tiny gay minority will detract from the ability of heterosexuals to commit to one another and to enjoy marriage beggars belief. Posted by: David at November 26, 2003 03:14 PMThanks, Rita... a voice of sanity. Your son is lucky to have such an understanding mother. I personally know all about the barriers and difficulties caused by the current deficiencies in the law. These people have never been denied such basic rights so can only imagine theoretically what it is like not to have them. They have never had to think twice about holding their partner's hand in public - have never had to worry about being spat at or attacked for doing so or have never had to worry about father throwing a dustbin through their window in the middle of the night shouting 'You're no longer my son you f*****g queer!'. They are lucky indeed and instead of cherising their freedoms, they take them for granted and seek deny lesser ones (same-sex partnership rights) to others. Shame. "The question that arises in my mind when I read of the latest onslaught on marriage is, why has Tony Blair embraced the gay rights agenda with such fervor? The only subjects that have consistently occupied his time over the six years since he took office have been gay rights and fox hunting". These comments always make me laugh and are only ever made by the people that oppose these issues and who, therefore, hate to see the issues being dealt with. Tony Blair has not embraced the gay rights agenda with fervor - his government has just addressed some areas where it was felt by many people that the law was discriminating againSt gay people. Why is that interpreted as 'fervor'? Similarly with fox-hunting - this is an issue which millions of people feel strongly about and so it is only right that our elected governement should address it. It was a manifesto promise to do so and they were elected on that manifesto. If it wasn't for the fact that the Lords had held the legislation up every chance it could, and wasted time and money (knowing that it will go through eventually and has widespread popular support)then perhaps the Government could have spent less time on it. Parliament is there to deal with many hundreds of issues, problems, laws, etc. - it is not just there for the old favourites HEALTH, EDUCATION and CRIME. Melanie P's article is another example of the nasty, narrow-minded, bigoted and snide rhetoric that she is famous for. And she obviously excels in, so well done melanie - you must be oh-so-proud of the hatred and misery words like yours perpetuate... Posted by: Johnny at November 26, 2003 03:33 PMRita, may I pose another thought. Your son is dependent upon you for a home. You die, your home is worth £300.000 and your son must sell it to pay the IHT to the State before he can get a grant of probate (such is the law). Your son is then homeless. Your son cannot marry you, and you cannot pass your home to him because it breaches the PET rules and you would have to lose control of it under trust and pay him a rental income.
The problem is the Inheritance Tax debacle....at £255.000 it is a low threshold then to pay 40% tax plus Capital Gains Tax on shares at 40% is really hard on ordinary families. So I ask you to consider a potential Amendment to this proposed legislation allowing unmarried children to marry their widowed parent and to inherit the family home without fear of being homeless.
Peter, This is an important point and does deserve proper consideration. But it does not detract from the arguments favouring same-sex partnership rights which are about a wider range of issues than property inheritance. Posted by: David at November 26, 2003 04:04 PMMelanie, Sorry to spoil the 'love-in' with your fans but you have used unsound facts, have added twisted logic and have then conjectured wildly about the consequences for traditional marriage of the introduction of same-sex partnership rights. Until 1967, homosexual relations were a criminal offence in the UK. In that year, they were legalised so that 2 consenting adults (of 21+ yrs of age - as opposed to 16 yrs for heterosexuals) could conduct sexual relations in private. Until the late 1990s, when the age of consent for gay men was at last lowered to 16, it was possible for young men of 16 to work, marry and have a family, to fight and die for their country - but still not legally to have sex with another man. In fact, the current UK legislation governing relations between homosexuals is 'genital' (the word you used in your diary recently to describe gay rights issues) for it defines homosexuals solely in terms of their sexual behaviour and not in terms of their wider relationships. The granting of same-sex partnership rights would shift the focus beyond 'genital politics' by introducing legislation on homosexual relationships as opposed to purely homosexual relations. None of this new legislation would affect the rights of heterosexuals to continue to enjoy (and benefit) fully from traditional marriage. Heterosexuals have never, of course (fortunately for them) been defined legally purely in terms of their sexual relations. Marriage defines them as people, bound together in a loving relationship and with specific obligations. Same-sex partnership rights would give homosexuals access to SOME of the same provisions. Such rights would NOT however be the same as heterosexual marriage - which, as you say, has specific conventions, traditions, rituals and joys - and it is mere conjecture on your part to assert that the introduction of such rights would damage traditional marriage. It is also false to state that all those in favour of same-sex partnership rights seek actively to damage traditional marriage. It is perfectly possible to hold a consistent position that simultaneuosly supports traditional marriage and favours the introduction of same-sex partnership rights. Your portrayal of this debate as a life-and-death struggle in which just 3% of the population are allegedly seeking to undermine a vital institution that can be enjoyed by the other 97% turns logic on its head. Indeed, in a novel inversion of the concept of victimhood, you portray the 97% as being weak and vulnerable to attack by the other 3%. As someone who rightly denounces 'victim culture' - as do I - it is strange to see you employ it thus! If I were a married heterosexual I would be vaguely insulted by your assumption that I am a 'victim'. You also hint that traditional marriage is in trouble for a number of complex reasons. But instead of exploring these and their causal relationships properly, you single out 'gay marriage' / 'same-sex partnership rights' as the chief culprit. I guess it requires less journalistic rigour - and is more popular with your readers - to scapegoat a gay minority that poses a mythical threat rather than to tackle head on the real reason for current health of the traditional marriage. Long-term homosexual couples can try to protect some of their shared interest by use of 'private arrangements'. However, these do not cover all eventualities in terms of the needs for stability, security and dignity and tend to be expensive and complex (ie: the legal and management fees for establishing companies in two people's names to ensure joint ownership that is not challenged in the event of a death (NO, a simple will is not enough). Such arrangements are regarded by many homosexual couples as necessary evils - they know they are their only resort to protect themselves but they feel they are being forced into a kind of public deception about the real nature of their relationship). No heterosexual couples have to face this because they can get married. There is therefore no justification for extending partnership rights to non-married heterosexual couples. The introduction of partnership rights for these heterosexual couples would pose far more of a threat to traditional marriage than the introduction of same-sex partnership rights. Politicians should be straight about this one but probably won't be given their cyncical electoral calculations about when or not to be honest. -- unfounded fears based on a lack of a true understanding of the issues involved; Perhaps you could return to these issues rather more coolly and rationally in the future. David, there's often a large degree of mutual masturbation going on between Mel and her fans, but that's what makes this place such a scream. Long may it continue (and more power to her elbow). Posted by: M Wilkins at November 26, 2003 04:38 PMDavid - So homosexuals "...are trying to improve the quality of thier lives", are they? Let's ignore the fact that most homosexuals enter into a relationship that lasts no more than two years, what about the reliabe fact that they indulge in extremely risky behaviour by having anal intercourse? In truth, homosexuals are contributing in significant numbers to the spread of non-curable diseases. How is one's quality of life increased by indulging in "fisting" and "rimming"? Give us a break! Posted by: Frisbee at November 26, 2003 06:01 PMRita Clancy asks "Why do you feel so threatened by giving homosexuals the right to visit their partner in hospital, inherit their partner's property, or arrange their partner's funeral?" Sorry Rita, but the proposed legislation will not make one jot of difference to your question. Funny old world, innit! Posted by: Frisbee at November 26, 2003 07:07 PMFrisbee how many heterosexual relationships last for more than two years these days? And what proportion of those that do are monogamous? Posted by: M Wilkins at November 26, 2003 11:14 PMSo the Labour Party will give gay partners the same ‘rights’ as married people. Heterosexual couples, let alone married couples, are not able to get the taxpayer (via community charge and housing benefit) to pay their sexual partner rent while sharing the same bed. But whereas heterosexual partners (under social security benefit contribution and benefit legislation) have to make do with one person's income in the event of sickness or unemployment, (or have the income of their partner taken into account when benefit is calculated), the Labour Party proposals will not take into joint account the income of gay and lesbian partners when considering the level of benefit payable to gay or lesbian “partners”. Thus homosexuals can share a bed, while one of them can claim housing benefit as "single person", and then pay rent to his/her partner. When sick or ill income support, jobseekers allowance, sickness benefit will be paid to a gay or lesbian “partner” at the "single person rate" and (unlike heterosexual partners) without having the income of the partner taken into account when the amount of benefit is calculated. Strange how within a few short years the social structure has been turned on the head for those who do not get up to cuddle, feed or change baby's nappies. With so many half baked Labour PC Party social policies, those babies as taxpayers will have to pay a hefty price for the consequences of making marriage the least privileged form of partnership. Posted by: Y.A. Name at November 27, 2003 02:57 AMSome of the more thoughtful rebuttals to Melanie's article have actually caused me to question some of my a priori assumptions about the "wrongness" of this push for same-sex marriage. It's fascinating to think about how much of the "discussion" is based on poorly understood internal motivations, fears, etc. However, some of the reaction is based on the excesses of the gay community, which as a non-member I'm unable to weigh with regard to prevalence. Heaven knows, unhealthy relations of all types are engaged in by heterosexual couples as well. The arguments that are predicated on the lack of a heterosexual marriage utopia as a universal gold standard certainly ring true with me. In my own family, as well as my knowledge of so many other "normal" marriages, healthy interrelationships are all too often the exception rather than the rule. So maybe the discussion of the pro-traditional crowd should indeed focus on what really does lead to high divorce rates, unhealthy environments for childrearing, and how stronger monogamous relationships might be nurtured. As a non-gay, I too can sometimes be caught up in the seemingly urgent need to stop one more "attack" on institutions that are obviously ailing. But in light of some of the more rational responses above, I can at least question some of my assumptions. The first question that would be worth exploring is whether government policies regarding hetereosexual marriage can actually substantively improve the quality of such relationships. The assumption that government should be "reinforcing" traditional marriage almost sounds like the idea that Islamic fundamentalists propose -- Islamic governments will lead to holier societies because those who don't meet the definition of holy will be killed. Is coerced holiness truly holy? And is government supported heterosexual marriage made healthier by virtue of government support? Or is the concept of monogamousness in dire need of intellectual and spiritual support that can never be adequately provided by a government? In a roundabout way, I'm saying that the traditionalists are fighting the wrong battle. Adults in free societies are free to make whatever personal moral choices they choose to make as long as they aren't inflicting harm on unwilling outsiders. People have been making bad choices since the beginning of man and certainly the travails of mankind haven't been brought about exclusively by homosexuals. So "the sky is falling" arguments against making gay and straight marriage equal options for adults to choose seems like a fabricated defensive position. The battle to be fought is in the battle of ideas -- why people should freely choose one lifestyle over another. Just as we no longer stone to death either gender for morally loose lifestyles (the government removes itself from the judgement position), so too should we leave government meddling out of the decision to pursue gay or straight lifelong relationships. Ultimately, the questions to be dealt with here are much bigger than any human government has demonstrated, or will demonstrate, any capability to adequately address. It is culture, or civilization, and/or religion, that must come up with guidance that rings true for the bulk of humanity. And for traditionalists, of whom I am a member even if my comments above would have some excommunicate me, we should at least be open-minded enough to feel that if others err, it is their error to make. And all of us, on both sides of the gender issue, have made a multitude of errors in our lives that only we ourselves could eventurally recognize and deal with. External pressure in one direction or the other usually only serves to provide an excuse for putting the blame for decisions on an external force rather than accepting personal responsibility for our choices. My tendency at this stage is to say, get the government out of the marriage business with regard to preferential treatment. Put marriage back into the personal realm and let people decide on the "type" of marriage they want based purely on their own moral positions rather than because of some odd mixture of government incentives. Posted by: CAM at November 27, 2003 05:44 AMObserve ... Melanie Phillips has managed to get through a whole article I think that with a little reflection one can understand why. Having to deal As I have said before, child sacrifice has gone quite out of fashion - child Requiring that the children of MASSES of people should be less legally, I somehow doubt that anyone would wish to return to this situation, where Please remember, those who try to portray me as anti-marriage, that I have It is precisely because this institutional model has such great intrinsic In a society which does not discriminate against individual children from To make her position even more grotesque, those who clamour for gay marriage Children do not result from gay marriages either - humanly they cannot - What we have here, it appears, is two sets of people discussing marriage who Melanie Phillips is making the argument, no doubt unintentionally, in her One cannot legislate for goodwill, although goodwill is a splendid thing to Julian Fitzgerald "So maybe the discussion of the pro-traditional crowd should indeed focus on what really does lead to high divorce rates, unhealthy environments for childrearing, and how stronger monogamous relationships might be nurtured."
See how many are prone to emotional reaction rather than rational; and how many persons actually exist on a child-like plane of responsibility; wanting without waiting; or reflex satisfaction of immediate wants to ameliorate cravings and almost compulsive needs. You will find that many people get into relationships with other persons who suffer from personality defects, or disorders which are masked by being highly sociable and amenable until you actually get really close to them when their own inadequacies lead them to become hostile towards their partner, or to flee the deepening relationship in favour of another shallow and superficial one. Posted by: Peter Williamson at November 27, 2003 10:29 AMAsides from "CAM", who has at least been thoughtful, there has been a lot of drivel posted over this article. Seeing as how tiny a percentage are gay, one has to assume some gay rights group has descended en masse. I don't have time to go into all the ins and outs of the debate, I'm on my lunchbreak. I can only say that those more familiar with Mel's work will know there is much more, on a deeper level, than the basics suggest. She is quite correct, there is an outright, deliberate attack on the institution of marriage, it's been on-going since the radical feminism of the 60's. Mix communism, feminism and not simply a complete disregard but an evident loathing of our current civilisation and what you have is the reality behind that which calls itself "the push for equality". Now add to this story that news today of how Labour are hoping to swipe the children of immigrants into care and you may get a glimpse into the true agenda. I'm afraid it would take to long to explain to those unaware or in denial, those who know will know EXACTLY what I mean and those behind it will simply blink as though ignorant, so I'll go back to my corned beef sandwhich for now.. Alan Carr And so it seems from both American and British research that the incidence of mental disorder and depression is greater within the homosexual community than the heterosexual. Of course, homosexuals blame this on the so-called "homophobia" of normal people. In doing so they have to ignore the Dutch situation which shows a marked tolerance for homosexual behaviour yet which still results in a higher incidence of mental problems with homosexual men and women. Homosexuality has to be an irrational life choice since it is extremely dangerous from both the physical and mental viewpoint. And please don't give me that bilge that homosexuals are born that way without stating some reliable scientific evidence to back it up? You certainly seem to have given the matter an awful lot of thought, Frisbee . . . Posted by: Ian Rawes at November 27, 2003 12:56 PMNo one has mentioned God. He loves marriage and hates divorce. He loves sinners and hates sin. In the eyes of God, if I read Scripture correctly, all sex outside marriage is sinful, regardless who it is with. Cohabiting unmarried couples and homosexual couples who engage in sexual activities are sinners and no matter what gloss anyone wants to paint over this fact, it won't go away because God makes the rules, not men. Tony Blair claims to be a Christian, and Jesus says you are either with Me or against Me. So Tony ought to be very afraid of what God will ask him when he gets to the pearly gates!! It is better to please God than to please men and be rejected by men for so doing. If you don't believe in heaven and hell, then when you die it'll be too late to find out that they do exist. All who do know what God says is right and wrong, but instead choose to reject God's commandments will be found wanting and wishing for eternity in torment that they had believed what the Bible says. Read Luke 16 verses 19 to 31 on what Jesus Himself says about hell.
Ungodly men always want what other people have and are continually discontented as every "victory" in getting their own way ends up not being enough, and something else which is good and wholesome has to be destroyed. It is so sad that Parliament is full of men and women who are blind to sin, and who think that appeasing sinners will improve the lot of humanity when history proves the opposite. I pray that the freedom to say - without being denigrated - what God says in the Bible will remain a freedom in this country until Jesus returns. Sinners who want to shout down anyone who says they are sinners - because God says so in the Bible - need to show some respect for people who don't approve of them. Presently they want everyone in society to say that they do not live in sin and they want affirmation and acceptance of their sinfulness, and get upset when people choose to disagree with them. People make lifestyle choices which others do not think are right. This applies to all sorts of areas from casual sexual relationships to drug taking to dishonestly fiddling the social security system etc etc, and it is the right of everyone to express an opinion and to agree to disagree where there is no common ground. All should accept that as there are certainly more Christians in the country than homosexuals, it is their right and their duty to tell people what the Bible says. This ought to be accepted as a Christian's "lifestyle choice" by those who have made what is in the eyes of God a sinful "lifestyle choice". Other faiths hold similar views on the sanctity of marriage and the sinfulness of relationships outside marriage, and believers will be similarly disappointed by Tony Blair not standing up for God's ways when these are common ground. Posted by: Peter Hollander at November 27, 2003 01:10 PMLet he who is without sin cast the first stone, eh Peter? Thankfully, all who repent of their sins and ask Jesus to forgive them, are without sin... until they sin again, as do we all. The verses regarding the woman caught in adultery in John 8:1-11 are much quoted selectively. Firstly the law of Moses says both the man and the woman caught in adultery must be put to death and the Jews brought only the woman - so they all knew they were in the wrong without bringing the man as well. Secondly, Jesus says to the woman "Go and leave your life of sin" so He says she was a sinner, because she was caught in adultery. No punches pulled on stating the obvious that adultery is a sin (7th commandment). That many in the world think adultery isn't a sin doesn't alter the fact that God says it is. the same applies to homosexual acts. Posted by: Peter Hollander (Canterbury) at November 27, 2003 01:56 PMNo, God doesn't say it is a sin, because in the first place there is not some primate alpha male in the sky armed with a big stick. If you want to cling to the tribal mores of a bunch of smelly, ignorant goatherds who lived two thousands years ago, that's up to you. I am actually baffled as to how people are able to pitch a moral angle onto homosexuality. It's as absurd as claiming that left-handed people are evil. Posted by: Ian Rawes at November 27, 2003 02:14 PM"Let's ignore the fact that most homosexuals enter into a relationship that lasts no more than two years, what about the reliable fact that they indulge in extremely risky behaviour by having anal intercourse?" Quite a few heterosexuals are known to indulge in the 'sin' of buggery, you know...and why does it always come down to people thinking about others putting things up their bottoms? Come on, move on...you don't like the idea? Fine - no-one is making you do it or talk about it or think about it...stop obsessing about it...and what about the homosexuals who do not engage in buggery? Are they OK? Is it just that particular bottom-act that upsets?? Grow up... "In truth, homosexuals are contributing in significant numbers to the spread of non-curable diseases." So are heterosexuals - look at the worldwide figures, you nunce, before posting rubbish like this... Ian It is illogical to connect an assertion that left handed people are evil (which is no where to be found in the Bible) with the customs of "smelly ignorant goatherds" from the past (another assertion as to the best of my recollection there are few goatherds, let alone smelly ones who were ignorant to boot, mentioned in the Bible). The wisdom in the Bible has been accepted by many hundreds of millions of living people as Truth (as well as a similar number who have already died). Your bafflement might be resolved if you took the time to read the Bible from cover to cover before attempting to refute any of its contents. Its message is simple: God says "I made man in My image and I want relationship with mankind". To have a relationship with God man must love God and His Son Jesus and believe in Him (which means accepting He is always right) and man must love his neighbour as himself. In common with the hundreds of millions of Christians in the world, I believe that the Bible provides a moral framework for mankind which works, unlike the anything goes lack of absolute moral values that many in society think is their framework of morality. Marriage is a fundamental part of a stable society (see Genesis 2 verses 20 to 24) right from the beginning of creation, and the destruction of it by those who seek some other framework of morality is the result of a misunderstanding of human nature and what is best for mankind. As God made us, He actually does know what is best for us. If anyone asserts there is no God and no creation, then he/she is making an assertion which is not based upon evidence but rather an unwillingness to accept a possibility which cannot be disproved because man's knowledge of the Universe is incomplete and no one can prove the non existence of anything - only can one prove the existence of something, not its absence. So one cannot say God doesn't exist when hundreds of millions of people know He does exist because they know Him. One can no more prove love doesn't exist because it is intangible and unmeasurable in any known scientific way, yet only fool would say it didn't exist because no one can prove its existence in a scientific way. All who have loved know love does exist, regardless of the inability of scientists to measure it or detect it. God is love. Posted by: Peter Hollander at November 27, 2003 03:37 PM Erm, would just like to step neatly aside and dissasociate myself from religion - whilst agreeing that marriage of heterosexual couples raising children is THE bedrock that civilisation itself rests on. I find it a little off-beat that the sexual acts of homosexuals are played down as irrelevant, when they are pretty much the definition of homosexuality, or at least the desire for and pursuit of them. It's established fact that homosexuality is dangerous for one's health, including mental health, that it can seriously affect one's quality of life and is generally not something you should inflict upon someone lightly. Having said all that, it doesn't appear to be something that gays actually choose themselves let alone inflict on others. A disclaimer though, I strongly disagree with the modern push, especially at American universities, to encourage youngsters to "experiment" and to "self-examine their sexuality", to me that simply smacks of a recruitment drive and as I said, if one could choose, heterosexuality is the better route overall, tipping those on the balance towards a gay lifestyle is irresponsible. Thing is, none of this is really relevant, religion isn't the issue, nor is disease, shortened life-spans nor predatory gay uni' teachers. We could talk all day of how gays are a small percentage of the population yet commit a disproportionate percentage of child abuse or suicide or anal sex or whatever, doesn't really matter. The majority of gays don't abuse kids, they don't carry disease and they are quite capable of loving, long term relationships, even if they generally choose not to actually have them. Almost by definition gays have been sidelined and as such the usual social values get left behind, hence greater promiscuity etc. What IS important is that marriage is primarily for children and for long-term, preferably for life, commitment and motivation that cannot be achieved without it. Today I wouldn't suggest any male get married, it's an extremely one-sided contract but we should be putting an effort into making it valid and fair, not doing away with it all-together which is essentially what this move is about. If marriage can be said to have any one specific purpose, boiled down to it's absolute basics, it's to enable fatherhood, that's what it's ultimately about. A father is more motivated towards his sexual partner if she's the mother of his children and his fatherhood is taken seriously, both by her, society as a whole and even by the kids themselves. Hence in the Garbage Generation the author points out that the father is actually the weakest link within a family and as such social laws and customs should be geared towards protecting his role, not offering protection to motherhood or child-hood, both of which don't require laws or customs to enact. Fatherhood does - it channels very real, already existing motivations and emotion into productive, protective ways that are best for everybody, the man himself, his wife and his children, thus and plus society as a whole. Marxist-feminists and their gullible followers have been attacking marriage for 30, nearly 40 years, bit by bit everything that made it valid and real has been chipped away, to the point it has become both nothing, utterly meaningless.. Yet also the most crippling honey-trap for men imaginable, backed by the law so strongly that often the law exceeds itself, tramples over human rights and various constitutions, whilst offering none of it's former benefits (at least not to men) Any gay who really likes the idea of gay marriage should stop and consider life as a divorced gay. The Labour party and other feminist cronies should consider putting their own house in order before throwing open the doors for a free-for-all party to celebrate marriage, or more realistically, it's destruction. I appreciate this lengthy missive doesn't even explain WHY "they" want to destroy marriage. If you wish to learn, study the history of "child" support, as it originated in the Soviet Union. All becomes clear, comrade. The destruction of civilisation as we know it and replacement with "something else". One of the primary goals is the destruction of parenthood, of either gender/sex. Here's the master plan: Create State as substitute husband, destroy marriage, destroy fatherhood, destroy motherhood, take children into State "care, raise children as mindless dolts to serve the Grand Plan, rejoice in the glorious victory of wrong-headed thinking and elite dictatorship - because "some animals are more equal than others". Sorry for such a long'un :o) Alan Carr The great thing about this site is that it exposes how much succour is given to vile bigotry by Melanie's obsessive rantings, which are usually full of inaccurate facts, half-baked assumptions, illogical arguments and ill-informed prejudices. I have a great laugh reading it, when I'm not enjoying buggery with my boyfriend. Posted by: murray at November 27, 2003 05:34 PMOne of the great things about blogs is the innocence with which we take part in them. How convenient that we can rubbish our ancestors for believing ridiculous things whilst not having a twinge of doubt about our own absolute convictions which have existed for only 5 minutes (historically speaking), and which in addition are shared - if at all - by only an infinitessimal part of our own generation. IF we were rational beings we should surely pause before we rant. Posted by: Curious at November 27, 2003 07:35 PMCurious, I'm sorta curious myself, as to if you would consider junking a tradition of marriage that is thousands of years old or more to the point ranting against such an ill-advised move, is justified? Alan C Posted by: Alan Carr at November 28, 2003 12:16 AMAlan, I do not believe that our generation has suddenly (and uniquely) discovered wisdom. The historical record shows that single generations more often go off the rails in bloody, hubristic fantasies. That's the analysis on which I would place my money. There are two basic scenarios: a renewed discovery and acceptance of the underlying reality that society can only survive by making the successful raising of the next generation a priority (ie a collapse of selfish feminism and again a peripheralising of the homosexual phenomenon); or a refusal so do to and the collapse and overrunning of our society by another civilisation more in tune with demands of real life. You might argue that the second is already happening. There is conceivably a third way! The Brave New World outcome where new life is raised in glass tubes and state-run factories so that men and women can continue to play with each other irresponsibly in whatever combinations takes their fancy. I don't place too much weight on this myself, but I can see it appealing to Patricia Hewitt! Posted by: Curious at November 28, 2003 07:28 AMSo the likes of Tony Blair, Jack Straw, and David Blunkett are trying to create a Khmer Rouge-style dystopia in which human beings are hatched out of test tubes? I detect a certain degree of unreality here. More obvious is the prurience and profound ignorance with which some of the posters have displayed in their beliefs about homosexuals, and the hypocrisy of those who decry the interfering 'nanny state' whilst eager to dictate to others how they should conduct their private lives. Clearly, they are not against a nanny state at all. They just want a different, sterner nanny in charge. It is quite absurd to suggest that marriage will be undermined by allowing homosexual men and women in loyal and stable relationships to be given some form of official recognition. If anything, it should make the condition of marriage appear all the more universal.
Frisbee, You really do indulge in reductio ad absurdum in a way which exposes an obsession with people's sex lives: ie, you seem to see homosexuals purely in terms of their sexual relations and not in terms of their relationships. Is it really necessary to point out to you that most loving relationships that last for a long time are based more on deep love and shared commitment than the first flushes of vigorous love-making? Why do you assume that 'rimming' and 'fisting' are exclusively gay practices? I am gay but have indulged in neither. And it was a completely heterosexual work colleague of mine who last year sent me a link to a heterosexual web page expounding on the 'joys of fisting'. Something that raised some laughter and short-lived curiosity and comments such as 'as long as it never becomes compulsory'...'each to their own'...and 'good job they advocate wearing rubber gloves'....and some other unrepeatable ones. However, what this demonstrates is that we did not all rush out experiment with it...we treated it maturely as adults who inhabit a world which is full of real horrors where heinous crimes are committed against people every day. In other words, we saw it with a true sense of perspective - something that you, judging from your comments, lack. As regards your comment about diseases, please note that HIV can be transmitted via normal sexual intercourse - in fact, the majority of patients globally are heterosexual. Clearly, people should take very seriously the spread of this disease and take very careful preventative action in their sex lives if they are at risk. It is noticeable from your comments that you are a practitioner par excellence of double standards: namely, the blaming of one sector of society (homosexuals) - while excluding another (heterosexuals) - for certain of society's problems. For example, you may not have noticed but there is a huge global problem with sex slavery involving millions of women who are held against their will and used as prostitutes. This whole 'industry' is run and used by heterosexual men. No one in their right mind would however condemn all heterosexual men for this. However, homosexuals often come under attack by people like you who use mass generalisations about our behaviour based on unsound assumptions. Whilst, in a free society, individuals can choose to be as prejudiced as they like, such prejudice and discrimination has no place in the law. You might also like to know that statistics published by the (conservative) Sunday Times recently showed that, of the gay couples who have registered their relationship in a register set up by the Mayor of London, the rate of relationship breakdown is equal to that of the rate of divorce in the general population. Finally, even the (very conservative) Daily Telegraph has this week come out in favour of same-sex partnership rights. Once the Bill is passed into law, the UK will join other European countries such as France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Portugal and Hungary, that have already introduced such laws. Finally, make no mistake: this is a very important civil rights issue for homosexuals. We are citizens, we pay our taxes (including those for education even though very few of us have children) and we should be afforded access to the same legal protection and obligations as others. Do not think for one moment the desire for same-sex partnerhip rights is motivated by the desire to undermine heterosexual marriage. Remember that we are sons, daughters, brothers and sisters and some of us (I cannot speak for all - particularly those who have suffered rejection by their families) value deeply our families and undertake the duties and responsibilities that bind together families as seriously as heterosexuals. It's remarkable, though hardly surprising, that most commentators seem not to have read Melanie's article. Most of the responses express the writer's personal moral and political views and prejudices. But Melanie's article was not itself about personal morality. It was about social reproduction, social stability, and the apparent suicide drive of Western elites, in this case taking the form of undermining marriage. No one has taken up, either to endorse or attack, Melanie's point that the government's proper interest in marriage is part of its interest in and responsibility for the survival of the society. Marriage is just about the only human institution which is truly universal, found in every time, place, culture, and environment known to history or archaeology (the incest taboo is another). Surely it takes some strong positive argument, other than "we feel like it", to overthrow this institution. Since no such argument is available, except the feeble leftist and libertarian (curious how the extremes meet) notion that any impulse I have should and must be indulged, the enemies of traditional marriage can only want one thing, the end of civilization. They have done extremely well so far and may succeed. Posted by: David G. at November 28, 2003 01:31 PMDavid G, The problem is that Melanie mis-characterises extent and the nature of the threat. And, in this article, she links it directly to the issue of same-sex partnership rights. It would have been far better if she had attempted to provide some proof that marriage as an institution has declined and examined some of the complex and inter-related causal factors involved. You, too, are being apocalyptic: 'the end of civilization'. People who are really threatened by truly apocalyptic events rarely write about them in the hyperbole-laden way that Melanie has for her Daily Mail readership. Even the very conservative 'Daily Telegraph' has come out in favour of same-sex partnership rights. It does not see any correlation between these and the decline of traditional marriage. My guess is that a few years down the road, Melanie will come to see that she vastly exagerated the 'threat' - whereas on global issues (terrorism, anti-semitism) etc, on which she writes very well - she will come to be seen as having been prophetic. Posted by: David at November 28, 2003 03:25 PM"As regards your comment about diseases, please note that HIV can be transmitted via normal sexual intercourse - in fact, the majority of patients globally are heterosexual"
You do confuse the argument. They have a problem because of 'dry sex' causing vaginal bleeding and infection. In the West it is a tossup between injection of needles and of fleshy protuberances; neach of which can transmit as you well know. Then we have the fascinating increase in the UK. If you break it down by postcode you find certain London boroughs, just as with TB. Break it down by race and you understand why the NHS now has a dedicated African AIDS Helpline........after all, which black African country does not have this problem ? As the gay man on Radio 5 Live last night stated, why don't soap operas stop portraying unmarried pregnant women, and hyping up casual sex without condoms......as if only gay men need to practise safe sex and the rest are somehow immune ? Posted by: 3G at November 28, 2003 04:31 PM3G, No confusion on my part. No need for confusion on your part. See explanation below: My comment: -- "As regards your comment about diseases, please note that HIV can be transmitted via normal sexual intercourse - in fact, the majority of patients globally are heterosexual" was part of a reply I made to a post above by Frisbee who wrote: -- "Let's ignore the fact that most homosexuals enter into a relationship that lasts no more than two years, what about the reliabe fact that they indulge in extremely risky behaviour by having anal intercourse? In truth, homosexuals are contributing in significant numbers to the spread of non-curable diseases. How is one's quality of life increased by indulging in "fisting" and "rimming"?". My reply was to counter Frisbee's and needs to be seen in that context. I could have further qualified it but chose not to at that moment. Posted by: David at November 28, 2003 04:52 PMAs I understand it, 'fisting' and 'rimming' aren't exclusive to the homosexual community. M Wilkins, 'Rimming' and 'fisting' are indeed not exclusively gay practices. A completely heterosexual work colleague of mine last year sent me and a colleague a link to a heterosexual web page expounding the 'joys of fisting'. It was something that raised some laughter and short-lived curiosity and comments such as 'as long as it never becomes compulsory'...'each to their own'...and 'good job they advocate wearing rubber gloves'....and some other unrepeatable ones. However, some biggots assume they are purely homosexual pastimes and seek to denigrate gays by raising them in other unconnected discussions (ie in relation to same-sex partnership rights) on blogs....they soon get hoist with their own petards though. Posted by: David at November 28, 2003 05:49 PMAlthough one can't prove this one way or the other, I very much doubt that most women enjoy having those things done to them. There may be some who do, but these activities are overwhelmingly the practices of gay men. To suggest that heterosexual women and gay men are completely alike in these ways is nonsence: they are generally very different in how they approach sexual relations with men. I actually support gay civil partnerships, but the fact is that relationships between gay men tend to be problematic due to the lack of complementary roles and the stability that women tend to bring. Hopefully, civil partnerships may encourage monogamy and respect in the gay male 'community' which has always been a hot-bed of cynical promiscuity. But I wouldn't bet on it. Posted by: Piers at November 28, 2003 11:10 PM"link to a heterosexual web page expounding the 'joys of fisting'."
David – You did expect me to come back didn’t you? You falsely charge me with being preoccupied with the sexual behaviour of homosexuals and not their relationships with each other. As I have pointed out most relationships do not last long and often those that do are not strictly confined to the current partner. For the most part then, gay marriages are less significant. It is right to accept that there are exceptions but these are in the minority! On the other hand, heterosexual marriage, even with its many problems, is superior in depth, substance and form from which is created a new generation. Your “Mayor of London” straw poll is an irrelevance and you know it. Homosexual marriages have higher rates of domestic violence and children are three times more likely to become homosexual than in conventional marriages. Men who marry men are three times more apt to be a widower before 55 and women are three times more apt to be a widow. In fact, the Danish form of homosexual marriage gives no evidence of its benefits! Homosexuality generally is not characterised by a commitment to faithfulness but rather to a personal hedonism that is sometimes of an extreme nature. Fisting and rimming being but an example of this. Incidentally, I am not aware of married women who are prone to this practice as Wilkins suggests. He clearly confuses the placing of the hand/forearm into a male’s anal passage with that of the vagina! And please, I am not condoning such aberrant behaviour amongst the heterosexual community. It is equally disgusting and dangerous as well as unhealthy! Then there are the exclusive homosexual practices of “bug chasing” and “bare backing” which border on the suicidal! And what about their proclivity to paedophilia? Little wonder they seek a licence to get at kids with the abolition of Section 28! Tell me I’m incorrect to suggest that AIDS was first identified amongst homosexuals from whom it spread into the heterosexual community? Today, the results are particularly evident in Sub-Saharan Africa where it flourishes because of prejudice, ignorance and poverty. It is noticeable; you do not challenge the proposition that homosexual behaviour is both physically and mentally risky. Little wonder then, that homosexuals are barred from giving blood to the transfusion services. And what about the difficulty of getting life insurance since their life expectancy is significantly curtailed? One can conclude that a homosexual lifestyle is far from being gay and this is borne out by the high incidence of depression and suicide amongst homosexuals! Their life-style holds the potential for humiliation, pain, disease and death. That being the case your admonition for “careful preventative action” in sexual matters is somewhat shallow. Many physicians have concluded that safe sex for homosexual men is abstinence from anal sex full stop. Current practice by homosexual men shows scant regard for any notion of “safe sex” so is it any wonder that the figures for HIV and other diseases continue to mushroom within the gay community? New drug-resistant skin infections (Staphylococcus auleus) are an emerging epidemic in California and doctors are concerned it might spread into the community at large. Recently, Peter Tatchell has pleaded for more medical attention to the growing menace of HPV (Human papilloma virus) or anal cancer. A quarter of HIV-negative homosexual and bisexual men are infected rising to 93% of those who are HIV-positive. This raises the important issue of “civil rights” that you refer too! What about my rights and that of the heterosexual community who also pay taxes? You imply they are less important! I do not agree you should have the right to an unhealthy life-style for which I and others ultimately will have to pay. Rather, what about your sense of responsibility to your family and the community at large? Now that’s a consideration on which homosexuals are almost entirely silent!
Funny how you attempt to rebut the claim that you are 'preoccupied' with the sexual behaviour of homosexuals . . . then you proceed to tell us *more* about fisting and something which I hadn't heard of called 'bug chasing'. I suggest that you acknowledge your own latent homosexuality and start to get your own house in order, rather than wasting your time pontificating to others. Posted by: Ian Rawes at November 29, 2003 02:07 PMThe problem in the discussion following the article is obvious. Except for a few that directly attack Melanie Phillips for expressing it -- with one master of diatribe even accusing Melanie Phillips of having produced diatribe (the ultimate in hypocrisy and ad-hominem attack), most of the commentators completely miss the point of Melanie Phillips' article. It appears that they can't see the forest as they each get in their licks and try to have everyone focus on a particular tree that blocks their view of the rest of the forest. Overall, the discussion deteriorated to a two-sided confrontation on discrimination and equal rights -- the very issues that Melanie Phillips identified as not being the primary ones. There is no longer any need to have Melanie Phillips point out the obvious, that marriage is being edited out of public life. Many individuals wrote it out of theirs a long time ago. Just as Antonio Gramsci prescribed, we successfully destroyed our society from within. In the space of little more than a single generation we covered a long way in coming from legalizing homosexuality to eradicating traditional social and moral values. Prohibition of traditional moral standards will be next. It is quite likely that mentioning the truth about the comparative merits of traditional vs. same-sex marriages will become illegal in all developed nations. In Canada it already is. We never quite managed to restore the glory and productivity of the Roman empire, but the present attempts have without any doubt failed, and western civilization will once more fall into darkness. I fear that this time it will be the darkness of total oblivion. We no longer have either the capability or the wish to survive our latest descend into chaos. Given our dismal birth rates, it is quite likely that this was the final battle in the war against the family. With the family, all of western civilization will expire -- never to be revived again. The question is not whether but when that will happen. That will depend on how long we will be permitted to live in peace and on how long it will take before outside forces will rush in to occupy the developing vacuum, just as it happened during the Saxon conquest of the Midlands. This time there will be no place to escape to. Walter Posted by: Walter H. Schneider at November 30, 2003 04:41 PMFrisbee, Your latest post unleashes a torrent of unproven statistics and assertions about the way you think homosexuals live (HOW do you KNOW?). It is clearly intended to show that homosexuals have pathological problems that should bar them from enjoying same-sex partnership rights. You simply cannot generalise about the mores and behaviour of a whole minority group based on the mores and behaviour of a minority of that minority group. Do you also make such generalisations about other minority groups (religious and racial ones) based on the mores and behaviour of a minority of their members? Clearly, if all homosexuals were as promiscious, irresponsible, violent and inclined to child abuse as you indicate, we would be dead, dying or in prison in the millions in the UK alone. I am not portraying all homosexuals as saints. But, since when has possessing the highest moral virtues been a pre-requisite for heterosexual couples to get married? Since never, of course. However, you seek to bar homosexuals from access to same-sex partnership rights on the basis of the mores and behaviour of some of them, but you are not quick to propose an equivalent 'moral means-test' for heterosexual couples who wish to marry. Why? I'll tell you: you are applying double standards, pure and simple. No one in their right mind would look at the disgraceful activities of a minority of heterosexual men (rape, wife-beating, sex slave trade) and then use these to tarnish ALL heterosexual men and to deny them the ability to marry. However, you have used exactly this tactic to tarnish homosexuals and bar them from an advance in their civil rights. My belief is simple and unaltered by your intemperate posts: - those gays who want to (many will not want to) enter into long-term relationships should have access to same-sex partnership rights that would afford them greater protection, security and dignity than is currently the case; - intoducing legislation to facilitate this would in no way damage traditional marriage. You seem to forget that lesbians account for 50% of homosexuals and would also benefit from the introduction of same-sex partnership rights. You do not mention them because, perhaps you believe, like Queen Victoria, that they cannot possibly exist. No doubt you can also think up As rights to marry or register a same-sex relationship are not dependent upon the morality of the people involved, perhaps you could explain why your posts are so graphic in depicting acts that you clearly believe are sexually immoral abominations. On taxes. Homosexuals pay taxes just like heterosxuals. Some of their taxes go towards paying for the education of children. I have never heard of any gay rights activists calling for gays to be exempted from paying taxes towards education despite the fact that most gays will never be parents. That is how the taxation system works: in relation to health as well. Finally, as your language and views are typical of those found on some American Christian fundamentalist websites, may I suggest you would be happier there? Posted by: David at November 30, 2003 06:01 PMDavid In 1986 the Homosexual Law Reform Act was passed in New Zealand. Prior to that, a number of religious groups circulated a petition opposing the bill. I declined to sign the petition because I believe in individual freedom. In hindsight that was a mistake because the people whose freedom I supported were happy to disregard mine rights as a parent. We have a compatriot of yours Tim Barnett who was a homosexual activist in England that has managed to be become a MP in our homosexual friendly government. I have quoted him below. “We will not have a queer-friendly government forever. We certainly will for the next 18 months. I believe there is a real urgency to completing the equal rights agenda, so that moving backwards becomes totally unthinkable and untenable and so that, over the ensuing generations, attitudes can finally come right. There is another side to all this. I am acutely aware that nothing is easier for a politician than lecturing the community from the dizzy heights of Parliament; we have material comfort which few can equal, we know much more than most about what Government could do it and is doing, and we have the luxury of being fulltime stirrers. It may be that our communities have reached a position which they can live with, finding financial and psychological ways of coping with the remaining inequality. Or it may be that the remaining issues are so divisive (e.g. relationship law) or marginalised (e.g. intersex rights) that no clear or powerful messages or mandate will emerge. As queer politicians our mission is to deliver equal rights under the law and ensure that the Government machine is working for our community.” This activist has been instrumental in delivering a lot of the homosexual agenda as well as inferring with the rights of heterosexuals. Some this legislation the homosexuals and their allies, the militant feminist and lesbians have forced throw Parliament that affect heterosexuals is: Legalising prostitution Property laws that give the same rights to de facto and same sex couples as married couples The right for girls under the age of consent (16) to have abortions without their parents consent or even knowledge They are pushing for the same right to adopt children. The schools teach our children and grandchildren that homosexuality is an equality valid life style. If one complains about these outrages they try to silence their critics as you are trying to silence Frisbee with accusations of homophobia. You accuse Freebee of using unproven statistics. How do you know they are unproven? Below is a quote from the Ministry of Health which is very homosexual friendly. http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2743514a11,00.html “Ministry figures showed unprotected sex between men continued to be the highest risk behaviour for HIV transmission within New Zealand with more than three-quarters of the cases in New Zealand believed to have been transmitted in this way.” Homosexuals account for less than 5% of the population at most. Can you explain why they are so over represented in HIV statistics if it is not for the fact that on average they have far more sexual partners than heterosexuals. Here are some more statistics 66% of men and 90% of women had ten or fewer partners throughout their lifetime. Source: Sex in America survey published 1994. 75% percent of white gay men had more than a hundred lifetime partners, 43% had more than five hundred, and close to a third had more than thousand. Source: Bell and Weinberg’s highly regarded book, Homosexualities. Would you like some statistics on analingus? That would explain their high rate of hepatitis. Posted by: Chuck Bird at December 1, 2003 01:19 AMChuck Bird, "If one complains about these outrages they try to silence their critics as you are trying to silence Frisbee with accusations of homophobia". I suggest you re-read my thread and reply to it more accurately. I have not used the word 'homophobia'. I never use that word nor do I agree with its use in such discussions. It is ill-conceived and over-used in such discussions. So, you are incorrect on that. I have not tried to silence Frisbee - that would be quite an absurd thing to try to do on a blog and I do not believe in trying to silence anyone as I believe in the tenets of western liberal democracy of which freedom of speech is a cornerstone. So, you are incorrect again. 'The people whose freedom I supported were happy to disregard my rights as a parent'. From what you say, you did not actively support the freedom of others - you merely decided not to oppose it by signing the petition. Please remove the mantle of freedom fighter immediately - it just does not fit - particularly with the facts as you yourself present them. If you are not happy that your rights are being protected then surely there are a number of avenues for your discontent - via various family organisations, parents-teachers associations, even the people who organised the petition against same-sex partnership rights. In other words, you can stand up and be counted and fight for what you believe in: again, may I remind you, it's called democracy: a participative not a passive process. Surely as a parent also you can and should teach your children the difference between what you regard as right and wrong. No one is interfering with your rights on that front, are they? However, none of what you have said diminishes the case in favour of same-sex partnership rights: that those who wish to enter into a long-term relationship should be able to do so in a way that enables those individuals to offer protection to eachother via property, pension and next-of-kin provisions that are currently extremely difficult (and not comprehensive)to organise and manage effectively. I am dubious about a lot of the statistics you quote although I do of course recognise that HIV is a big problem among certain groups of gay men (not lesbians, who make up 50% of gay people, and still, thankfully, among a small minority of gay men). Like Frisbee you mention activities (that I can honestly say that I have never done) that of course have a high risk of passing on STDs - however, why they exist and how to alleviate against their consequences is a totally different question than the one under discussion in this thread. So, to return to the central question of whether two people of the same sex who love eachother should be able to enter into a relationship that is legally underpinned in a way that offers greater protection for eachother and dignity etc - than is currently the case under existing private arrangements - my answer is resolutely 'yes'. Finally, I have to say that I just do not recognise your portrayal of gay people at all: I have observed carefully throughout my life, the relationships of those (family members, heterosexual and homosexual friends) close to me and can testify that, of my close gay friends, I know several couples who have lived devoted lives with their partners in excess of 20 years. My circle of gay friends includes people who work hard trying to improve the community they live and work in, it includes people who have a variety of political and spiritual views, and who work in a variety of professions from MDs to clerks. In other words a very varied group of people who have hopes, dreams, disappointments and who pay bills and taxes - mmm, just like heterosexuals in fact. However, you and Frisbee see fit to reduce homosexuals and their relationships to a set of statistics about STDs and other issues related to prostitution, obortion and children. A real reductio ad absurdem. I do not wish to silence you. My inspiration is not any politician alive today but Martin Luther King...and I too do have dreams. Posted by: David at December 1, 2003 11:20 AMMy inspiration is not any politician alive today but Martin Luther King...and I too do have dreams"
Trianon, I'm not quite sure of the point you're making there...'Martin Luther King was a fraud too'...in addition to...other politicians?..in addition to...me? Can you clarify please? Actually, don't bother...I don't think, from your opening remark, you are likely to have anything worthwhile to say. For the purpose of any other bloggers, however, I will state why I completely disagree with you and reject your label of him as a 'fraud'. He fought hard for the civil rights advancements of African-Americans particularly in the US southern states at a time - 1960s - when they suffered appalling abuses. He led a number of peaceful demonstrations aimed at ending forced segregation (of blacks from whites) on buses, in schools and in other public places. He rejected the use of violence. He spoke most eloquently and inspiringly about his dream of a day when people would be judged on the content of their character and not on the colour of their skin. He was immensely brave and spoke in public many times knowing that he risked the danger of being assassinated. He spoke, led, motivated people despite the personal risks to himself and his family. He agonised over decisions that fortunately few of us will ever have to take: personal and family's safety versus standing up and being counted and fighting for justice. In 1968, he was assassinated, as he had foreseen, for fighting peacefully for that in which he believed. In short, a brave, honest, inspiring leader who put his personal safety second to the struggle for a decent life for others and ultimately paid the price with his own life. In short, a hero. And you dismiss him and his contribution in 5 words... ...I guess I should not be surprised, having seen him in a recent UK tabloid 'Top 100 pop icons' list...incredible to see such a heavyweight listed in the first place in a list of 'pop icons'...incredible also to see him listed below, can you believe it, that great humanitarian, Madonna. Well done Melanie Phillips for pointing out that the gay rights lobby is actually inimical to marriage, which actually means that it is misogynistic. Women need marriage because they need the security it offers against philandering husbands dumping women who become less attractive as they grow older. The vast majority of young women today still want to marry, and want to be married and settled down with children by the age of 25. We are all wondering where all the decent, marriageable men have gone. What has happened is that 30 years of state disincentives to marriage have created a lumpenproletariat of unmarriageable young men, and the gay rights lobby is actually guilty of deliberately trying to lure young men to adopt the homosexual lifestyle. Don't think that no women have seen through this agenda; some of us have. The gay rights lobby and radical feminists are both united in their hatred and resentment of morally strong men with traditional virtues, and also of morally strong women with traditional virtues; their jealousy towards them is what leads them to conspire against heterosexual marriage. They have tricked a lot of younger women into seeing marriage as a prison for women, but some of us have not been fooled. All countries rely on the values espoused by traditionally-minded women for survival, which means that the gay and feminist lobbies must ultimately bow down to what we value. Societies that play with marriage as ours do play with younger women at their own peril. They do not understand the enormous amount of power women have, the power of revenge against a social setup that prevents us from marrying decent men and having children by them. It is women like this who are liable to turn to fascism or political Islam or both if they don't get their way, and once they do so, all Hell is let loose. My message to feminists in Whitehall, and to gay rights activists is, back off and put traditional heterosexual women first, or there will be trouble in a few years' time. Posted by: D at December 1, 2003 04:54 PMwonderful spoof 'angry of Swindon' post, D Love it!! congratulations :-)) Posted by: David at December 1, 2003 05:15 PMDavid The superficiality of your rambling argument is indicitive of the strength of your addiction to homosexuality. Clearly, sexual liberation is more important to you than life itself because it inexorably leads to disease and self-destruction. You should not be suprised then, if I find your logic entirely irrational! Posted by: Frisbee at December 1, 2003 07:25 PMBut David, You stated: "Clearly, if all homosexuals were as promiscuous, irresponsible, violent and inclined to child abuse as you indicate, we would be dead, dying or in prison in the millions in the UK alone." What do you base that estimate on? We have to assume that at the very least not all homosexuals in the U.K. are dead, seeing that you and your friends are very much alive. Based on your statement it follows that at the very least two millions of the homosexuals in the U.K. are dead or dying (your use of the plural implies that there are at least two million). That would perhaps be a worst-case scenario that nobody hopes for, but it means that you imply that at the very least considerably more than five percent of the population of the U.K. is homosexual. I suppose you are merely trying to use hyperbole to defeat an argument you don't like. However, there is much truth to the argument that you so clumsily try to defeat. Homosexuals die on average earlier than heterosexuals do, much earlier -- homosexual men more so than homosexual women. There is little use in citing the references for the statistics I will offer in the following. As you did with Chuck's references, I assume, you will dismiss them by stating that you are dubious of them. In the unlikely event that you should truly be interested to find out the sources of the statistics I offer, most of them are reputable and credible sources that are on the Internet. Nevertheless you will most likely prefer using your rhetoric instead of facts. That is truly too bad, because in the process of presenting uncorroborated arguments your side of the discussion loses much credibility. "[B]eing dubious about a lot of the statistics you quote" is not an acceptable refutation of statistics, especially not if you don't even bother to identify which of the quoted statistics you are dubious of and what or how many of them you do not accept (ten percent, 51 percent, 99 percent or anywhere in between?). To be successful in such attempts you must produce credible facts from credible sources and identify which of the quoted statistics that you don't accept your figures refute. Every second homosexual man becomes infected with HIV. In comparison, the average infection rate for all of the American population was one in every 333 (in 1992) -- and rising, while the incidence rate of HIV infections in some homosexual sub-groups is considerably higher than one in two. Homosexual men live on average about 20 fewer years, to about 55 years, as compared to the average in the population of all men in the developed nations being about 75 years. That 20-year reduction in the life expectancy of homosexual men is not only due to the enormously high incidence rate of HIV infections in homosexual men and women. The drug culture and shared needles, so prevalent in the "valid" alternative lifestyle of homosexuals, affect gay men and lesbians to almost identical extents and far more than heterosexuals. HIV infections are not the only cause of death typical of the homosexual lifestyle. Homosexuals suffer from high incidence rates of many diseases that are almost totally absent in non-homosexuals. The higher incidence rate of debilitating and deadly diseases other than HIV infections in homosexual men is almost entirely due to anal, intrusive sexual practices. The simple cause of that is that the anus evolved for the specific purpose of extrusion, not intrusion. Vaginal sexual intercourse is a far less likely route for the transmission of STDs. Without any doubt, you will now poise yourself to cart out the old argument that not all homosexual activities by men that have sex with men involve anal sex. In the US, oral sex by homosexual men has lately become a major route for the transmission of antibiotic-resistant strains of gonorrhea and syphilis. It costs about Cdn$150,000 to treat and care for a patient diagnosed with HIV until he passes away, and a disproportionately large number of homosexual males that do become infected are teenaged boys. Why would it be a good thing to promote a lifestyle with such deadly and costly consequences? Certainly, homosexuals pay for the education of other people's children, but so do far larger numbers of childless heterosexual people, and why not? Those children will eventually pay for the old-age security income and health care of everyone who is no longer productive. What makes it so hard for homosexuals to accept that? Heterosexuals accept it without making it a primary staple of their activism. Yet, homosexuals are the most likely to benefit from, and to have the least to offer in return for, the sacrifices that heterosexual parents make in raising their children. Do you perhaps labour under the illusion that having and raising children is a sure-fire route to riches? As to violence in heterosexual relationships or by heterosexual people, your complaints about that is nothing other than the pot calling the kettle black. Committed homosexual relationships are all but that. They last on average about 1.3 years (compared to the more than five years that heterosexual relationships last), and they are more violent, far more violent in the case of "committed" lesbian relationships. The study results you quoted from the article in the Telegraph mean nothing. Your claim is not verifiable, you cited neither the publication details for the article nor those for the study report you allege the claim was based on. At best, the claim would be a result of a single study that varies considerably and uncharacteristically from the average outcome of many objective studies examining the subject. At worst, the claim is incredible because it flies in the face of many objective studies that claim completely different. Most likely the claim is based on shoddy or advocacy research, a selective, non-random sample or biased interpretations of a self-reporting survey (or a combination of all of them) that will never, under any circumstances constitute a valid scientific finding. Aside from that, there is virtually never a tacit or overt agreement by heterosexual couples that they can and will engage in promiscuity, while one study in Holland found that out of 107 "committed" homosexual couples only one had after one year not yet engaged in "extramarital" sexual relations. The average individual of "committed" couples in that group had had eight "extramarital" sexual encounters during the course of one year. "Patient Zero" in the history of the North-American HIV/AIDS epidemic (Gaetan Dugas, a Canadian flight assistant), the man who is reputed (probably falsely) to have brought the HIV epidemic to North America reported that he had casual unprotected sex with about 250 homosexual men per year during the time it took him to do his best to spread the epidemic. He died in 1984. That does not mean that all men he had sex with became infected. Only a good number of them did, and they in turn infected many other men they had sex with in turn. The problem is that Geatan Dugas' promiscuity is typical of many homosexual men, as identified through numerous studies by objective researchers. Along with the dangers of promiscuity goes the danger posed by "bug chasers", a term that Ian Rawes, I believe, had problems with. A bug chaser is a homosexual man that deliberately has unprotected sex with other men in order to become infected with HIV. As bug chasers that are found to test positive for HIV claim, that is the ultimate of liberating experiences, because after having become infected with HIV they no longer have to fear even death itself. Ian Rawes also had a problem with the mentioning of "fisting". Ian's lack of knowledge (which, it can only be hoped, he alleviated by now) shows that he is a few years removed from the sex-education curriculum (developed and taught by homosexual rights activists) now routinely presented in tens of thousands North-American public schools to our children. Sex-ed for children now as a matter of course includes graphic explanations of what "fisting" entails and how to do it safely. Nothing is said in the sex-ed material of how truly dangerous that practice is. As does all anal sex, "fisting" even more so is likely to cause a rectal prolapse, but it is not quite so dangerous when lesbians use it as a form of sexual intercourse, at least not if they stay away from the orifice that is the only one available to gay men for that practice. You may wish to search the Internet for articles describing rectal prolapses and their treatment. Use the string (exclude the leading and trailing chevrons). In another area of violence, child sexual abuse, the average homosexual is more than twenty times more likely than the average heterosexual to commit pedophilia, and that doesn't even take into account the invisible crime of child sexual abuse by women. How dishonest the propaganda tactics of homosexualists are in that respect is illustrated by the fact that they harp on the truth that heterosexuals commit most child sexual abuse (about two-thirds). However, they *never* mention that homosexuals comprise two percent of the population and the fact that a mere two percent of the population commits the other third of child sexual abuse. The average homosexual therefore disproportionately and far more often than the average heterosexual engages in child sexual abuse. I don't quite understand why you hate heterosexuals so much. Is your argument that we will have a better society without traditional nuclear families? That never happened anywhere throughout history. Only nations and societies that promoted families and having children raised by both biological parents ever lasted for an appreciable length of time. They made their mark in history. Show a single society that did equally well by promoting homosexuality and equating it to, or elevating it, as you do, over the appreciation of, the traditional nuclear family. Either you or someone else made the claim that children raised by homosexual parents are no more likely than other children are to become homosexual. That claim is a fallacy. Children raised by homosexual parents are at the very least ten times more likely to become homosexual in turn, more often so in the case of girls raised by homosexual parents. The smoke screen you raise with your complaints prevents you from seeing the light that Melanie Phillips lit for you. The problem is not one of homosexual vs. heterosexual rights. The problem is that the developed nations in the West became infested with family-hostile activists that wage an outright and all-out war against the family for no other reason than to eradicate it. The family is, and always has been, the glue that held civilization together. Civilities are the little things that make civilized life pleasant. Families are more than that. They are a necessity of life for civilization. Civilization is what turned humans, from the lawlessness of the jungle and from being savage, to the regulation of sexuality and to becoming civilized humanity. David, never forget that the tolerance that homosexuals now enjoy and that so many of their activists now abuse would not ever have come into existence without the Christian cultural heritage of western civilization that gave recognition to the rights and privileges of individuals. Please, don't bite the hand that feeds you. That is unfair and demeaning to your character and those of others. Finally, you stated "…as your language and views are typical of those found on some American Christian fundamentalist websites, may I suggest you would be happier there?" You act like a loser who, if he can't win an argument, resorts to ad-hominem attacks. If being exposed to "American Christian fundamentalist" thought bother you so much, then I am sure that you would be far happier amongst a group of your friends, because you neither score points nor make any headway in this discussion. And Ian, if anyone would have used against you derogatory and insulting language like those that you routinely use to vilify, slander and ridicule Christians on this forum, I am sure that you would cry bloody murder. Homosexuals may think that they have a tough row to hoe before they become fully accepted by society, but you are not helping them by attempting to be one of the rudest individuals anyone ever encountered. The silence of the other homosexuals that therefore appear to be in agreement with Ian is not to the credit of any of the homosexuals that made an appearance in this discussion. Posted by: Walter H. Schneider at December 1, 2003 08:35 PMWalter H. Schneider - what a thoughtful and well-composed argument. Impressive ! Posted by: John of Gaunt at December 1, 2003 10:13 PMWell David, Martin Luther King was supposedly a preacher and a pious man, yet he was a serial adulterer......probably then a plaster saint. Posted by: Trianon at December 1, 2003 10:15 PMWalter, Permit me to cut through the fog that surrounds your ivory tower, to let some light in, and to remind you of the core arguments that I have advanced: 1) Two people of the same sex should be able to enjoy partnership rights covering property, pensions and next-of-kin access. (This is what will be proposed in a Bill to go before the British parliament during the current parliamentary session). 2) This would enable the two people in the same-sex relationship to offer each other and their relationship additional protection than is available under existing laws. 3) This would be an important civil rights advance for homosexuals and lesbians. 4) There is no evidence that the introduction of such a measure would have an effect upon traditional marriages of heterosexuals or upon their family life. You have failed to address these four points properly. Instead, you have advanced a long list of highly dubious statistics. You have failed to You have not even acknowledged the existence of lesbians (who account for 50% of homosexuals) and whose numbers need to be taken into account in your 'statistics'. Be honest. The use of your 'statistics' is a smoke screen and an attempt to divert people from focusing on the specifics of the argument in hand. The use of such 'statistics' is intended to prove the ideology that you wish to promote which is broadly as follows: -- No two homosexuals can ever be deserving of any civil rights that could offer strength and protection to their relationship because homosexuality is an abomination, practising homosexuals are sinners and all homosexuals wish to destroy the family unit. So, the more disgusted you can make people feel about all practising homosexuals by the production of 'statistics' and by the depiction of sexual practices, the more you believe you will make people hate homosexuals and the more you think it will be possible to stop and even reverse their civil rights. You add to your distortions outright lies: such as that I hate heterosexuals. That is totally untrue and I challenge you to provide evidence of this wicked assertion. However, you underestimate the people of Britain if you think they will fall for this agenda. They are democrats who treasure their freedoms - they tend to have a healthily cynical attitude about bible-bashing moralists and base their attitudes and their behaviour upon a mixture of personal experience and their own analysis of factual information. Posted by: David at December 1, 2003 10:17 PMGreat contribution Trianon. But, do you have a substantive point to make on the issues in question? Posted by: David at December 1, 2003 10:19 PMKing’s critics have long noted that much of the civil rights leader’s academic writings were plagiarized. Dyson concedes the point, but justifies the conduct by suggesting that this tendency had its roots in a “black tradition” of borrowing and expanding the ideas of other people. [Note: That “tradition” is not limited by ethnicity.] It is widely known that King was a womanizing adulterer Martin Luther King, Jr.’s image has been so glamorized by the popular press over the years (among blacks and whites alike), that the current black generation is inclined to distance itself from its prominent leader. The author characterizes King as a “safe Negro” with whom white people became comfortable.
You have not even acknowledged the existence of lesbians (who account for 50% of homosexuals)
Trianon, No!! :-))) I meant: do you have any substantive points to make on the question of same-sex partnership rights... My final comment on MLK: I think (regardless of his personal life) that he still made an extremely important contribution to the American black civil rights movement... Posted by: David at December 1, 2003 10:33 PMRomulus, Are you being serious? :-)) I used the term homosexuals to include men and women. I guess that the incidence of homosexuality is probably the same for male and female homosexuals. And therefore deduce that 50% of homosexuals are lesbians. I am open to being corrected on this if there are other more reliable figures available. Posted by: David at December 1, 2003 10:38 PMSurvival of the fittest: Let us make this a free for all, let the freaks of homosexuality and feminism express their inner most desires... they hardly reproduce anyway. Homosexuality and Feminism are Evolutionary Dead Ends. Gentleman, Well said. I concur from your post that you therefore favour same-sex partnership rights which will be legalised in the UK in the near future. Thanks for your support! Posted by: David at December 2, 2003 12:48 AMGentleman, bad grammar on my part, I meant 'I deduce from your post' and not 'I concur from your post'... Posted by: David at December 2, 2003 12:50 AMDavid About 1 % of the adult male population is exclusively homosexual and about 0.5% of the adult female population is exclusively lesbian at any given time. Source: My Genes Made Me Do It” by Neil Whitehead. Neil is research scientist with a Ph.D. in biochemistry. Dr Whitehead refers to “The Organization of Sexuality” (University of Chicago Press, 1994) Frisbee, Where have you been? I've missed your entertaining voice of doom and gloom. About your latest hilarious posting, where shall I start? 1) your post: "The superficiality of your rambling argument is indicitive of the strength of your addiction to homosexuality". My response: Hmm...no, actually, I am a person, not an addict. I have a wonderful relationship with my lover. We've been together many years and are very committed and love each other deeply and want to share the rest of our lives together. I bet you find that disgusting, eh Frisbee? 2) Your post: "Clearly, sexual liberation is more important to you than life itself because it inexorably leads to disease and self-destruction". 3) your post: "You should not be suprised then, if I find your logic entirely irrational!"...Frisbee, I would not be surprised at any wild, unfounded, and prejudiced assertions you might make, given the track record so far of your postings...... Goodnight and God bless Posted by: David at December 2, 2003 01:02 AMApparently, health care in this country is better than we've been led to believe if so few brits have ever been to a hospital that they think there's a guest list. In case you don't know: Gays already can visit loved ones in hospitals. They can also visit neighbors, random acquaintances and total strangers in hospitals – just like everyone else. Gays can also pass on property to whomever they would like, including their cats. Every few years you read about some daft rich widow leaving her entire estate to a cat. It's perfectly legal. You just need to write a will. Liberals have figured out how to get abortions for 13-year-old girls without their parents' permission. But we're supposed to believe that they just can't get their heads around how a gay guy could leave property to his partner. As for "living equally under the state laws as other people in the country," Gays do live equally under the state laws as other people in the country. There are no special speed-limit laws or trespassing laws or murder laws for gays. There is, however, some evidence of gay profiling with regard to the enforcement of fashion "don'ts." Posted by: Bob at December 2, 2003 01:03 AMGentleman I wish you were right about hardly reproducing. Have you not heard about recruitment? That is what this debate is about. The militant homosexuals what homosexuality portrayed as an equally valid lifestyle. They also want the right to go into the schools and teach this to our children and help any of those that may be unsure of their sexuality. Chuck Bird, Re your post: "About 1 % of the adult male population is exclusively homosexual and about 0.5% of the adult female population is exclusively lesbian at any given time". I have seen estimates that range between your figures and 4% for males and 3% for females. But, statistics alone are useless and need to be used to support or oppose an argument. And you argument is.....? I await with baited breath...
Bob, How I wish you were right... To correct you: 1) Hospital administrators can prevent anyone other than next of kin from visiting patients. Next of kin are defined as family members or spouses (ie husbands and wives). My partner and I carry written permission for each other to visit eachother in hospital in the event of hospitalisation. We hope that our wishes would be respected. There is, however, no guarantee. This is one of the issues that would be included in the legislation that the UK Government will propose on same-sex partnership rights. 2) Wills: once more, I wish what you say were true but sometimes wills are contested by family members and the onus is on the gay partner to prove that there was a relationship. Sometimes this is extremely difficult to do. Once again: same-sex partnership rights would overcome this. 3) There are no provisions for pension rights and once again this would be addressed in the forthcoming draft legislation. There are certain private arrangements that two same-sex partners can put into place with the aim of protecting eachother and their relationship. However, these draw on different aspects of civil law and can be complicated and expensive to establish and manage on an on-going basis. It is in order to redress these difficulties that the UK Government is introducing the same-sex partnership legislation. Its provisions would be available only to those who wished to use them and would not in any way affect the status of traditional marriages: please note the vocabulary: same-sex partnership rights for homosexuals as opposed to marriage for heterosexuals...they are very different things. I hope that clarifies...please feel free to ask me questions. I will try to answer them. thank you for being polite and not abusive (unlike some posters on this thread). Posted by: David at December 2, 2003 01:28 AMChuck Bird, Several people have tried to force me into heterosexuality (but have failed) during my life and when I was growing up. The little sex education that was provided in British schools when I was a teenager focused exclusively on heterosexuality. Somehow I still turned out to be gay. So the idea that it is possible to convert someone's inherent sexuality is false. The exceptions tend to be only in exclusively male or female environments (ie prison, single-sex schools) where there is a temporary adoption of homosexual relations by a minority of heterosexuals. So, the idea that militant homosexuals are 'recruiting' is a pernicious red herring. Posted by: David at December 2, 2003 01:42 AMBob, Sorry, I should add that whilst you are probably right about usual visits in wards, it is a different matter if the patient is intensive care...visitors are then monitored much more carefully. And, should I ever be on a life support machine, I would have total confidence in my partner making the right decision about whether or not it should be turned off. However, under current law, he would have no right to decide. Posted by: David at December 2, 2003 02:01 AMDavid It would be difficult to force a person to change their sexual preferences. However, many people have changed both ways, sometimes more than once. These people wanted to change. They exercised free will. You can repeat the homosexual mantra that homosexuals are born not made that way if makes you feel good, but scientific research shows otherwise. I suggest reading My Genes Made Me Do It” by Neil Whitehead. Neil is research scientist with a Ph.D. in biochemistry. Chuck Bird, I am familiar with some of the research relating to changes of sexual orientation and also with some of the organisations that promote it. Do not get me wrong: I have nothing against anyone who wants to try to change to go ahead and do so. However, I reject the argument that we SHOULD change. And, of those who have changed, many have reverted to their original sexual orientation. You may be aware of a Christian fundamentalist backed organisation in the US called 'EXODUS'. Its key objective is to try to change the sexual orientation of homosexuals. Earlier this year, one of their preachers found that, well actually, the change had not been successful...and then proceeded to abscond with another preacher who had also....well reverted. This rather undermined the strength of their public promotion that they could guarantee changes of sexual orientation and make happy heterosexuals out of unhappy homosexuals. I'm surprised none of their representatives have not been onto this site to try to look for people to convert. They certainly usually arrive en masse each summer in the quaint American seaside town where I (along with thousands of homosexuals) spend part of my holidays. They are quite active at approaching couples and offering their advice and services to them. And like to stand on street corners preaching. Fortunately, they don't stay for long and I gather than they find very few unhappy people who wish to be converted. Still, I have no objections - it's all part of 'freedom' - a minor irritation in the great scheme of things - rather like timeshare touts and the 'women of the night' who approach me when I am walking back to my city-centre pied-a-terre at night (I usually have a joke with them...and wish I could plan some kind of SAS-style rescue to save those among them who are being forced by unscrupulous pimps to ply their trade against their wills). Posted by: David at December 2, 2003 02:22 AMDavid I am not interested in converting any adult. My original point was about adolescents. I do not believe that a person’s sexual preferences or orientation if you prefer are set in concrete at an early age. What is of concern to me is adolescents, particularly those under 16 being taught in school that homosexuality is an equally valid lifestyle and encouraged to experiment. There are also told that their parents views are a bit old fashioned and out of date and that it would be best not to tell them what they are being taught in school. However, they are not told that if they choose the homosexual lifestyle statistically they are likely to live 20 years less. They may be lucky like some drunk drivers but the odds are against it. I do not know for certain if this type of sex “education” goes on in the UK. Perhaps others in the UK could inform me. Posted by: Chuck Bird at December 2, 2003 02:48 AMChuck Bird, I would tend to disagree with you about whether children are sometimes aware of their sexual orientation at an early age. Certainly I was. Some other people I know also state that they were too. However, I have also met people who did not know for certain until their late teens. I have no strong opinions on this particular issue. However, I would be very concerned if I were a parent and my child was being told not to tell me things about what he/she was being taught. And if he/she was being encouraged to experiment sexually by a teacher I would be very annoyed - not because I believe that a person's sexual orientation would be changed by experimentation (because I do not) but more because I think it is highly inappropriate for teachers to encourage pupils to experiment with any sexual activity. I am a traditionalist as far as schooling is concerned. I am strongly in favour of a focus on the 3Rs, traditional teaching methods and a highly-disciplined school environment. I don't think that school is the place for lots of sex education and I also do not feel it is important to include references to homosexuality in the sex education curriculum. I do not think it would be appropriate to make negative comments about homosexuality. Perhaps just no comments would be best. My concerns, as you will have noticed from my posts, are for the rights of consenting adults. Posted by: David at December 2, 2003 03:19 AMChuck Bird, "However, they are not told that if they choose the homosexual lifestyle statistically they are likely to live 20 years less". 1) I am glad to hear it. Telling children in school about the average life expectancy of certain activities during their adulthood would seem to be a little outside what I would consider to be a good curriculum in terms of traditional school subjects. This '20 years less life expectancy' ruse has been calculated not on the basis of fact but, again, on certain researchers' assumptions and projections and, again, on such faulty data collection methods as studying obituary columns. In short, such statistics have been widely discredited. It frankly beggars belief that people spend their time trying to collate such information in order to prove that homosexuals have shorter life expectancies than heterosexuals. Posted by: David at December 2, 2003 03:53 AMomosexual relationship is predicated in it's sexual expression. Homosexuality has not been proven as genetic, then neither has it been proven as not. If it is a sexual (choice) behaviour then to give that behaviour "rights" prejudices other sexual behaviours and they should have equal rights as long as there are people who engage in that sexual & lifestyle behaviour. If it is genetic then it stands that other sexual behaviours are also genetic and they should not be against the law nor be penalised by society. Where do we go from here? Mike Posted by: Mike at December 2, 2003 04:30 AMChuck Bird, Yes. The freaks (homosexuals and feminists) are zealous recruiters. This shows that heterosexuals should stand up and be equally zealous about marketing their beliefs. That way the freaks are exposed for the freaks they really are. The debate can be won by allowing the freaks their "marriage" but not in the terms they necessarily want. You can have marriage classified as heterosexual marriage, homosexual / abnormal / freak marriage, etc. The best part comes when government gets out of the business of marriage. The Roman Empire crumbled the very same way "western civilization" is crumbling now. This has happened before. --- David, I'm sorry, but you 'concurred' wrong. I strongly disapprove of homosexuality. For bible believing Christians, the punishment for homosexual acts is death... according to moses in the old testament in the book of Leviticus. Pro-Homosexual legislation shows your society is UN-Christian. Bin Laden and his fellow muslims are laughing hard right now seeing how western civilization can self-destruct. I am atheist and non-western. These are my honest scientific observations.
") There are no provisions for pension rights and once again this would be addressed in the forthcoming draft legislation."
If the Government is moving towards the German system of everything being pre-determined by Statute, this will involve a huge shake-up along the lines the EU is attempting to ordain how such matters are regulated in a highly-prescriptive form "which will be legalised in the UK in the near future. Thanks for your support!" The British Parliament is not a representative institution. NO parliament in the world is quite so powerful, in that it is controlled by the Executive completely, and the executive is elected by a minority of the electorate. Tony BLair was elected Leader of his party by some 13% members; he forms a government elected by 25% electorate; and 41% did not vote. The regime is responsive only to lobby groups and close associates, and is like a permanent coup Blair needs "eye-catching initiatives" because there is no foundation, no keying in to the fabric of the nation, this is skimming the surface hoping to put down a few roots. It is essentially passing time until the next election, humouring a metropolitan dinner party crowd and unanchored with the mainstream population. What you see in "The Third Way" in Germany or Britain, is social-democratic politics without purpose, without roots, blown on the winds of themes and fashion. Germany bankrupted itself by pushing the envelope of social costs to compete with the neighbouring GDR; with the collapse of the GDR it is now facing its own nemesis......and the Red/Green coalition has merely added burdens to industry as China loosens all ties. What you see in BRitain is Politics without Purpose. Posted by: John of Gaunt at December 2, 2003 07:32 AMPeter Williamson, "Should be" Monogamy (hypocritical at that) IS the root of the problem. If you stick with true Biblical scripture and Christian teachings, you will see that Polygamy is legal. Existing Polygamous societies do not have the endemic problems of "should be" monogamy societies such as: runaway divorce, not wanting to get married, institutional prostitution, tons of unmarried women who become feminists, population decline aka baby bust, homosexual marriage recognition, and a ruinous marriage institution. It will take you some time to be able to clear your polygamy mental block but I assure you that is the truth and I only found that out after many years of searching the answer to your question. >> "So maybe the discussion of the pro-traditional crowd should indeed focus on what really does lead to high divorce rates, unhealthy environments for childrearing, and how stronger monogamous relationships might be nurtured."
Peter Williamson, Answer: Stronger monogamous relationships will be nurtured once polygamous relationships become legal and culturally accepted. All women now have a chance at being married to competent men. They don't have to marry or have sex with jerks. Minimize abortion. Say goodbye to feminism. Say hello to a family revival and hello to the raising of birth rates to above zero population growth.
Posted by: Gentleman at December 2, 2003 08:19 AM
Your posting is a non-sequitur Posted by: Peter Williamson at December 2, 2003 10:11 AMGentleman, You are certainly a 'new phenomenon' on this thread. If you object to homosexuality but are an atheist I would be quite interested to understand the ideological and philosophical basis for the rejection of homosexuality. I think that to say that the UK is 'un-Christian' is not really correct. Certainly, Britain is a secular democracy where there is freedom to worship at which ever Church one wishes. However, Christian beliefs have made an important contribution to the social fabric of the UK. I am glad that there is no death penalty imposed for homosexuality, unlike under, for example, Sharia law. In western liberal democracies, freedom of speech and the rule of law are important principles. A modern democractic society is indeed very difficult to govern effectively. However, with all its problems, people are freer under such a system than they would be under the alternative totalitatian systems that (communism, fascism and other forms of dictatorships) treat people and their lives as totally secondary to the needs of the system and indeed where life itself is cheap. I am not sure about the state of mind of the evil, murderous Bin-Laden for whom all life - apart from that of his Islamofascist followers - appears to be totally expendable. I personally would happily voluntarily surrender some of the freedoms I currently enjoy in a democratic state if that was the price that needed to be paid in order to defeat those who would impose totalitarianism upon my country. Don't be fooled: although some of the vigorous arguments that you see expounded in the west relating to the rights, responsibilities and obligations of citizens, the vast majority of people fervently believe in maintaining the traditions and advantages of democracy that we are fortunate to enjoy and for which previous generations fought. Posted by: David at December 2, 2003 12:30 PMJohn of Gaunt, I would agree to an extent with what you say about Blair et al. The truth is that some of the biggest challenges that the UK faces (dealing with the health, education and transport systems) are so complex, difficult and fraught with layers of half-truth based policies over so many years that they represent enormous difficulties for effective future policy-making. Therefore, it is easier to pander to interest groups. Yes, that's correct too. However, like it or not (I have mixed feelings), interest groups are a very pronounced feature of political life in all liveral democracies. In fact, policy makers need the input of those groups of 'stakeholders' who are likely to be affected by future policy in order to be able to develop and implement effective policy. It is an irksome feature of modern political life because it means that citizens need to affiliate themselves with interest groups in order to represent their interests in relation to particular issues about which they feel strongly. He is out of touch with ordinary people and their concerns. Yes, I would agree on that too. Again, this is not an effective government in terms of tackling tough issues. It is lousy on improving crime prevention and detection and on forcing through changes that deter anti-social behaviour. Too often, the government sets out targets and tables rather than takes effective action. Given this background, I really can understand why married couples struggling with bringing up children look at the government's intention to introduce same-sex partnership rights and say 'What are they doing now?...why are they dealing with this small issue....when there are so many other more important things happening that affect a lot more people'. I certainly can really sympathise with that point of view. However, same-sex partnership rights are important for homosexuals. So, what are we to do? Say, well actually, Mr Blair et al, please don't bother to try to introduce these rights because there are so many more important issues that affect the life of the country? Clearly we are not going to say that. On the contrary many homosexuals (I cannot speak for all) would welcome the introduction of same-sex partnership rights. It is also worth noting that it is not just because there are other more important priorities that some people oppose the introduction of same-sex partnership rights. As you will have seen, there has been a good deal of pernicious posting on this thread alone seeking to vilify homosexuals as a means of not only denying homosexuals same-sex partnerhip rights but also, I suspect, as the basis for reversing the rights we already have. Posted by: David at December 2, 2003 12:54 PMRomulus, On pension rights, the thinking behind the new Bill is as follows: - survivor benefits that contracted-out pension schemes must provide would be extended to cover 'registered partners' - public sector schemes would provide survivor benefits to registered partners in the same way that they currently do for married partners - registered partners would be given the same state pension rights as married people (possibly from 2010). The UK government is actually BEHIND civil society (ie even the Armed Services now have same-sex pension entitlements in place) and companies in recognising the iniquity that their homosexual employees should be treated differently from their heterosexual employees. The UK government is actually behind several European countries that have already introduced same-sex partnership rights. Posted by: David at December 2, 2003 01:10 PMMarriage and family was destroyed long ago by so-called feminists, and we see the price we are paying more every day. After the queers, it will be the child-molesters next, which we are already seeing advocated by feminists, i.e. child-molestation is acceptable if the perpetrator is female. After that, who knows, perhaps the I-want-to-get-speacial-treatment-because-I-screw-my-dog "activists". It appears to me preventing homosexual marriage is more of preserving a false impression that society offers special protections to marriage, children, and families. In fact marriage has been reduced to financial guarantees for women, regardless of their behavior, regardless of what they do to their children, and regardless of the most basic rights of men. I think we should either restore marriage to its original meaning and intent, or let the queers have their way with it. One more nail in the coffin of a dead institution won't make much difference, except to make more people aware of just how meaningless marriage has become. Posted by: TAS at December 2, 2003 01:44 PM
As posters may have noticed, this site has had several posts from people who use the tactics of some of the more extreme members of the American Moral Majority and the Christian Fundamentalists. As is usual with these overlapping groups, they employ 'statistics' which infer an extremely high rate of HIV infection among homosexuals (one poster said '50%' just yesterday) and rate of child abuse(one said homosexuals abuse children 20 times more than do heterosexuals) which are clearly highly inflated. They also present 'precise figures' for the average life expectancy of homosexuals compared to heterosexuals which are not based on fact at all but on very dubious data collection methods (such as scanning obituaries in gay papers - both highly inaccurate and macabre to say the least). They use these 'facts' to denigrate and villify homosexuals and by a process of reductio ab absurdem they seek to characterise all homosexuals as diseased, child abusers who wish to destroy families and, well, civilization as we know it. However, most of these 'statistics' are unprovable. How, you ask, can I say this? Well, having worked in market research, I know just how important it is to work with accurate data based on scrupulously representative samples and to employ rigorous statistical testing procedures in order to avoid producing a totally misleading result. For example: in order to calculate an activity rate for a particular variable in a given population, it is necessary to divide the population by the number of occurences of the variable within a certain time limit. Let me give you an example. In order to calculate the murder rate for London. I don't know the exact figures. But, for the purposes of demonstration let's say: if 500 murders were reported in London during the course of a year, and if the population of London is say 8,000,0000, that gives a murder rate of 1 murder per 16,000 inhabitants or (as these figures are commonly expressed) 6.25 murders per 100,000. Now, you may think it is easy to calculate the murder rate of gay men, say, in London. Not so. Why? Because it is impossible to calculate exactly the actual number of gay men living in a particular town, city, region or country. Why is that? Because there is no reliable way of counting them. Therefore, it is necessary for researchers to guess the percentage of homosexuals in a given population. This is extremely difficult again, because there is no consensus on the percentage of men or women who are gay (estimates tend to range between 1% and 5% of the general population). Added to this difficulty is the fact that many gay people have traditionally migrated to large cities and you have another complicating factor in the compilation of accurate statistics (it is believed, for example, that the between 5%-10% of the population of London is gay). Therefore, dear readers, please treat with a massive pinch of salt the so-called 'reliable statistics' provided by advocates of the American Moral Majority and American Christian Fundamentalists. Even on a very conservative estimate of the rate of gay men in the general population the fact is that if 50% of gay men were HIV positive we would be talking about probably over 1,000,000 in the UK alone. There are no way near that number of HIV positive people in the UK. If there are ways of inflating figures in order to suit their arguments they will always find a way of doing so - in order to try to provide substance to their perniciously anti-gay agenda. The reason is that it's part of their mission to use homosexuals as an easy scapegoat for many of the complex difficulties facing modern families. They want to neuter homosexuals - to effectively have homosexuals kneeling in church and asking for forgiveness for their sins. That is why, occasionally on this web site, you will read alarming 'statistics' about homosexuals that are intended to convey the message: never trust a homosexual; all homosexuals are inherently distrustful, diseased, and extremely prone to abusive and violent behaviour and with extremely short life expectancies. Unfortunately, these tactics sometimes work in parts of the United States where there is sometimes great polarisation between groups of people on the grounds of different beliefs. However, these statistics and the agenda behind them are not supported or borne out by the experience of millions of people who work, socialise with, have family celebrations with, gay colleagues / gay friends / gay brothers/sisters. dear readers, I ask you to consider whether these tactics have a place in Britain. Think of your own experiences. There have been several senior openly gay politicians in the Labour Government who have served presumably to the best of their ability and as well as their heterosexual colleagues. Should they not be judged on their actual behaviour as whole people rather than just on the basis of their sexuality? British law is based upon the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty. British life itself is refreshingly meritocratic, based on the assumption that a person's worth is based upon his/her deeds rather than his/her supposed activities in bed. This Labour Government's intention to introduce same-sex partnership rights fits well into this tradition of fair play and justice. In fact, the British Government is just catching up with many parts of civil society where businesses and parts of the public sector already recognise that their gay employees make as valid contribution to the business as do their heterosexual employees and that same-sex partnership rights are merely a recognition of that fact. Posted by: David at December 2, 2003 02:21 PM"We could talk all day of how gays are a small percentage of the population yet commit a disproportionate percentage of child abuse..." Yes, we could...it's disproportionately SMALL... "And what about their proclivity to paedophilia? Little wonder they seek a licence to get at kids with the abolition of Section 28!" Are you totally mad?? Comments like this, I'm afraid, let down your whole argument (whatever that is) as they prove that what you write has no basis in fact or reality...seems to me you've been reading The Daily Mail for too long... "Tell me I’m incorrect to suggest that AIDS was first identified amongst homosexuals from whom it spread into the heterosexual community?" You're incorrect...there! better? Posted by: Johnny at December 2, 2003 04:27 PM"After the queers, it will be the child-molesters next, which we are already seeing advocated by feminists, i.e. child-molestation is acceptable if the perpetrator is female. After that, who knows, perhaps the I-want-to-get-speacial-treatment-because-I-screw-my-dog "activists"." Oh, dear - some serious nutcases on the loose...always refreshing when homosexuals are lumped together with child-molesters...thing is, it's more often than not heterosexual men who fiddle with the kiddies...isn't it, guys? Posted by: Johnny at December 2, 2003 04:30 PM"Given this background, I really can understand why married couples struggling with bringing up children look at the government's intention to introduce same-sex partnership rights and say 'What are they doing now?...why are they dealing with this small issue....when there are so many other more important things happening that affect a lot more people'. I certainly can really sympathise with that point of view." I SO disagree with this. When is the right time to deal with 'small' issues then? There will always be 'married people struggling with bringing up children'. There will always be problems with crime, health, education, ect - the BIG issues. Are you saying that the governement shouldn't deal with small issues as well? Who decides, then, what is small and what isn't? 'Small' to some people is 'big' to others and our society is made up of many different groups, all paying taxes and contributing to the community and all with differing needs. It is the governement's role to look at all the issues, big and small - if they didn't, what sort of a society would we become? Posted by: Johnny at December 2, 2003 05:30 PMJohnny, re 'small issue'... I was refering to this as seen from the perspective of a married heterosexual for a moment for whom same-sex partnership rights is not a mainstream issue. Of course, for homosexuals it IS a big issue. Please see my comments in the wider context of the posting in which they appeared. I am very much in favour of same-sex partnership rights. Best wishes Posted by: David at December 2, 2003 05:41 PM"I don't think that school is the place for lots of sex education and I also do not feel it is important to include references to homosexuality in the sex education curriculum. I do not think it would be appropriate to make negative comments about homosexuality. Perhaps just no comments would be best." No comments would be best? What a completely ridiculous suggestion - let's just pretend it isn't there and let more generations of young gay people suffer and feel alone and keep the disproportionate rate of suicide amongst young gay people up where it currently stands? I am seriously wondering if some of the people posting here are living in a real, adult world... And no, I'm not talking about 'recruiting' or 'encouraging' - just 'acknowledging'...I find the concept of just ignoring it completely bizarre! And, you know, to those who quote Leviticus (hello??) - if the bible says it's wrong, do you ever question why? OK, you believe homosexuality is wrong..why do you believe that? Just cos the bible says so? And do you know why it says that - ie what the actual reason is? Why not try thinking for yourselves instead of hiding behind other's words and opinions... "Of course, for homosexuals it IS a big issue." David - gotcha...but it should be a big issue for ANYONE who believes in equality and fairness, surely? Posted by: Johnny at December 2, 2003 05:44 PMAnyway, I seem to be posting like a madman today so I'm stopping. The thing is that the government is introducing this same-sex partnerhip recognition so all I say is...deal with it! It's here, it's Queer and it ain't going away... ;-) Posted by: Johnny at December 2, 2003 05:48 PM6 August 2003 The Justice and Electoral Select Committee, Parliament Buildings, Wellington, NEW ZEALAND ON The Care of Children Bill General/Summary I am opposed to the provisions of the Care of Children Bill (“the Bill”) that recognise as legal parents (and therefore as guardians) same-sex de-facto partners. While it is accepted that some gay and lesbian relationships will involve children, I do not regard this as a situation to be legally encouraged. The shifting paradigm of sexual morality is a source of much controversy in Western culture, and homosexuals, though less than 3 percent of the population, are at the centre of this controversy. The secular civil rights of consenting adults are increasingly coming into conflict with the traditional Judeo-Christian foundation for the family and society. This is no accident. The three main roadblocks to its goal of a secular and socialist world order are private property (which provides material independence from state power), the family (which affords loyalties prior to the state), and religion (which claims authority above that of the state). Homosexual activism was long ago identified by the political left as a social force that could be harnessed and directed to undermine the traditional family and the Judeo-Christian foundation of Western culture, thus expanding the role of the state into personal relationships once thought to lie beyond its purview. Publications meant for a homosexual readership openly state that the gay activist agenda is to subvert heterosexual marriage as the basic building block of civil society. Recognition of same-sex de-facto partners as legal parents is therefore highly dangerous to the established social order. Gay activists regard this as the first step in securing gay marriage rights, thus relegating heterosexual marriage to just another lifestyle option among many. Compelling reasons exist for resisting this move. There are undoubtedly male and female homosexual parents whose parenting is exemplary. However, this submission will demonstrate (with evidence) that as a group or class, male and female homosexuals are less fit parents than heterosexuals, all things being equal. Legislating same-sex parenting is in incompatible with Clause 4 of the Bill -- “the principle that the welfare and best interests of the child must be paramount” -- for the following reasons: 1. A large body of evidence attests to the relative instability of same-sex relationships, which must impact on the stability of children's relationships. 2. There is an indisputable connection between male homosexuality and the sexual abuse of boys and youths. 3. Gay men are at enormous risk of an early death from sexually transmitted diseases including but not limited to AIDS, which must also impact on the stability of children's relationships. 4. Children of both male and female homosexual parents are likely to be exposed to sexual practices regarded by the community as pathological, which can only detrimentally affect their mental health and well-being. 5. Homosexuality, male or female, is a strong predictor of adjustment problems such as depression, anxiety disorders, alcohol and drug abuse, and attempts at suicide, all of which hardly contribute to the well-being of dependent children. Introduction Over the past thirty years, Western culture has been inundated with politically motivated agitation on gender issues. Since the 1960s, when the various Marxist-influenced “rights” movements took it upon themselves to reshape society’s governing ideas, homosexuals and radical feminists have mounted a huge propaganda effort, channeled through the media, to change the West’s cultural norms. At the core of this unsought evolution are a multitude of studies purporting to prove that sexism, heterosexism and homophobia are the cause of most of the problems of women and homosexuals, as well as of our society in general. Some Committee members may be familiar with the highly overblown and questionable research claiming a biological basis for homosexuality. The underlying aim of this research seems to be to “prove” that homosexuality is inborn and normal, and that the problems, alienations and discontents of homosexuals stem not from the abnormality of their condition, but from social discrimination against them. Many in socially influential positions have argued that homosexuality is a genetic orientation. Despite the fact that this is untrue, a significant portion of the population has accepted that homosexual inclinations are rooted in the genetic code of individuals. This rhetorical victory now drives a movement that seeks to grant homosexual couples the same rights and privileges that heterosexual couples enjoy. Gay activists now demand affirmation for their lifestyle choices. They have made no secret of this. As activist Jeff Levi stated to the National Press Club during the 1987 Gay Rights March on Washington: We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right -- as heterosexual Americans already have -- to see government and society affirm our lives. Until our relationships are recognised in the law -- in tax laws and government programs to affirm our relationships, then we will not have achieved equality in American society. Law, psychiatry, science and the media have all been pressed by gay activists into the service of establishing homosexuality as a normal variant of human behaviour. There is, however, no conclusive or compelling empirical evidence showing any absolute biological, genetic or hormonal causation for homosexuality. While most psychiatrists acknowledge the possibility of a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality, this is far different from causation. Such a possibility is far from scientifically proven. And a predisposition toward something does not make it inevitable, nor that such a disposition cannot or should not be resisted and overcome. For example, some people may be predisposed toward alcoholism, yet we do not affirm their disposition but rather help them to change. A growing body of empirical evidence accrued by psychotherapists over more than seventy years of clinical experience supports the environment as the greatest influence over sexual orientation. While homosexuality is not a single clinical entity and homosexual behaviour stems from a variety of motivations, there are too many environmental common denominators among homosexuals to conclude that the causes are random or biological. The most common male homosexual developmental pattern includes childhood sexual abuse by an adult male, an emotionally distant or detached father, an unhealthy relationship with the mother, and a feeling of non-acceptance from male peers. Homosexual attractions are a reparative drive and symbolise the urge to connect with other men and to connect with masculinity. But men looking for masculinity outside themselves cannot find it sexually through other men. The common female homosexual developmental pattern includes childhood rape or incest by an adult male or female, an overbearing or domineering father, and an over-identification with and idealisation of the mother, along with a disparagement of the father brought about through an identification with mother’s gender-narcissistic rage against men. The mothers of lesbians tended to be women frustrated by the traditional female role, who harbour deep feelings of resentment toward their husband and toward men in general. Again, lesbian attractions are a reparative drive and symbolise the urge to connect with other women and to connect with femininity. But women looking for femininity outside themselves cannot find it sexually through other women. Despite the claims of gay activists, it is evident that homosexuality as a psychological condition, rather than a genetic or hereditary one. Homosexuality is therefore a disorder of psycho-sexual development, and like all other such disorders, is amenable to therapy and a strong desire to change. Yet this is one more issue on which elite opinion and popular opinion (backed by scientific evidence) diverge. The media and academic elite would have it that anyone opposed to the outright endorsement of homosexuality is motivated by bigotry and irrational fear (homophobia). The timeworn tactic used by gay activists to smear and close down someone who questions their choice of organised religion -- their sexual preference -- is to demonise opponents as "homophobic," “intolerant” or “judgemental.” Those who apply such labels do so only as a means of arresting discourse. Their agenda is to preclude rational debate from those seeking to discuss this question consequentially. However, what began as pleas for private tolerance soon became demands for public endorsement and that homosexuality be recognised as functionally equivalent to heterosexuality. These demands are accompanied by intellectually dishonest denials of widespread homosexual promiscuity; obfuscation of the connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse; an unwillingness to accept that homosexuality is incontrovertibly linked to HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases; deliberate muddying (sic) of the fact that dirty, dangerous sexual practices are far more prevalent among gays than the population at large; and disavowal of the fact that homosexuals as a group are statistically less well-adjusted mentally than the rest of the population. Today, thanks to years of social conditioning and the saturating drumbeat of homosexual activists in the media, many New Zealanders have decided that homosexuality is no longer an important concern. The fact is, no matter how much we might want to subscribe to a “live and let live” philosophy, we cannot. The gay and lesbian community has made it quite plain it is unprepared to settle for that either. Homosexual activists have a strategic, systematic agenda to enforce, not just tolerance, but complete acceptance and affirmation of their lifestyle choices. The connection between male homosexuality and child sexual abuse Gay activists claim people are born gay, that it isn't possible to make of a man (or boy) something he wasn't already inclined to, and that men who have sex with boys and youths are simply helping the kids to "come out." Really? Thus, "individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to forty percent of all sex crimes against children." This surely lends weight to fears that should homosexuals be permitted unsupervised access to boys and youths through adoption, scouting, sports coaching and the like, children may be molested, encouraged to become sexually active, or even "recruited" into adopting a homosexual identity and lifestyle. A dangerous, pathological and unsanitary lifestyle Homosexuality is undoubtedly a dangerous, pathological and unsanitary lifestyle, not to mention biologically redundant behaviour. It is impossible to take seriously the suggestion there is no functional difference between sperm swimming towards eggs or swimming towards faeces. That which is normal is that which functions according to its design. The anus is an organ of excretion, not of procreation. As US columnist, Joe Sobran puts it: "How bright do you have to be to work out the consequences of inserting a life-giving organ into the poop chute?" The fact that some individuals suffer from sexual attraction disorder doesn't make this behaviour normal, natural or socially desirable. Some forms of mental illness are evident in every area of a sufferer’s life. Others with psychological disorders seem to be able to function quite normally, while keeping the pathological portion of their psyche compartmentalised and separate from their daily lives. Male homosexuals are often -- in the part of their lives displayed to the public -- intelligent, well educated, personable, sociable, epicures, connoisseurs and aesthetes. Many hold highly paid jobs, are financially successful and live in beautiful homes surrounded by objects d'art. Yet in the compartment containing their sex lives, it would be hard to imagine anything more unaesthetic than activities like “fisting and “rimming.”. A significant number of the male homosexuals who post on the website www.manscat.com (one gives his occupation as "computer geek") would undoubtedly present as meeting external assessment criteria for parenting. However, few New Zealanders would regard people admitting to such predilections as fit parents. (Committee members are urged to check out the photographs and stories, just not before dinner). Few heterosexual adults would regard these people's sex lives as anything but disgusting and pathological. Most would consider it psychologically detrimental for such details to be disclosed to dependent children, whether deliberately or inadvertently. Gabriel Rotello is one gay activist prepared to concede that the male homosexual lifestyle carries with it a significant health risk. In Sexual Ecology, Rotello wrote, "gay men created almost laboratory conditions to amplify STDs within highly active core groups of individuals and spread these diseases throughout the gay population." AIDS research released in 1982 by the U.S. Centre for Disease Control reported that the typical gay man interviewed claimed to have had more than 500 different sexual partners in a 20-year "lifetime." Gay men with AIDS studied averaged more than 1,100 "lifetime" partners. Some reported as many as 20,000. The most comprehensive study of gay lifestyles ever undertaken before 1980, revealed that: A study of San Francisco gay men published in Psychology Today (February 1981) also reported that 28% of gay men surveyed had engaged in sex with more than 1,000 partners. Contact tracing has not proved very effective among gay men, even for those diseases (syphilis and gonorrhea) which are, in a sense, "designed" for it. In the three weeks incubation period for syphilis, the average gay man will have three sexual partners to report. Wisconsin's HTLV-III contact tracing proposal calls for the tracing of partners back to 1980: that suggests quite a large pool of people to contact for each positive test given to a gay/bisexual man. But the reality is that many of those contacts would have been anonymous or so casual that memories of names, addresses, and dates would be long lost. The Division of Health can't trace my partners if I can't recall who they were.
Studies reported by Bell and Weinberg (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981) indicated that only 3% of gay men they surveyed had had fewer than 10 "lifetime" sexual partners. Only about 2% could be classified as either "monogamous" or even "semi-monogamous." Infection with a bewildering array of pathogens is the inevitable result of this sexual saturnalia. The American Journal of Tropical Medical Hygiene reported as early as 1968 that certain gay communities had begun to display rates of STDs and gastrointestinal parasites equivalent to those of a third world slum in Uganda or Bangladesh. Given the statistical proof that gay males die early deaths, the potential for early loss of not one, but both parents should therefore automatically rule out gay adoption. Evidence exists in the literature and in gay self-admissions that lesbians exhibit high levels of promiscuity relative to the general female population. Jay and Young's Gay Report revealed that 38% of lesbians surveyed claimed to have had between 11 and more than 300 sexual partners lifetime. In Homosexualities, authors Bell and Weinberg reported that 41% of Caucasian lesbians admitted to having had between 10 and 500 sexual partners lifetime. An article Throughout the book from which this article is taken, lesbian women speak about the rampant promiscuity of lesbian lifestyles, not, in their scheme of things, as a negative, but simply as a fact of the lifestyles themselves. MENTAL INSTABILITY CONCLUSION It's a simple biological fact that heterosexual relationships produce life, while homosexual relationships produce nothing but bacterial life. Sexual inversion rules out human reproduction, simple as that. And that's a choice people make when they elect to follow an alternative sexual preference. Society should rightly tolerate a variety of relationships between consenting adults, including same-sex relationships. But where homosexuals are granted custody or adoption rights, there are third parties involved who are neither consenting, nor adults. They’re called children. And at the end of the day, the rights of the child must come before the pseudo-rights wanna-be gay parents are lobbying to manufacture for themselves. Reuben, Like other posters who have used long speels full of judgements on homosexuals you simply fail to see the wood for the trees. The introduction of same-sex partnership right is about the relationship between two people who wish to commit to a long term relationship. It is not marriage. It is not about children. Wake up and face the specific facts instead of trying to obscure them. Also,I suggest a trip around the internet - or any large city's red lights district - would enlighten you as to some of the lurid sexual practices of some heterosexual men. However, nobody seeks to use this evidence in order to bar ALL heterosexual men from being able to marry. Just examine the lack of logic of your position! Finally, you do not mention lesbians...they make up a substantial proportion of homosexuals...but there is little evidence that they are promiscous - perhaps you don't think they exist?... Yo David, we certainly found Reuben very logical. You should give Reuben the respect he deserves. Applause to Reuben! "Publications meant for a homosexual readership openly state that the gay activist agenda is to subvert heterosexual marriage as the basic building block of civil society." Do they? I've never seen any, and if they do exist then they are the extreme and not the norm. You might find that most homosexuals do not, in fact, have any idea of subverting marriage. You might find that they are not obsessed with the lifestyles of heterosexuals as you seem to be with those of homosexuals... "There is an indisputable connection between male homosexuality and the sexual abuse of boys and youths". No there isn't...and there is an indisputable connection between male heterosexuality and the abuse of girls and young women...I don't think many gay men abuse girls, but I think you will find that a sizeable proportion of abuse of boys is carried out by heterosexual men... "Homosexuality, male or female, is a strong predictor of adjustment problems such as depression, anxiety disorders, alcohol and drug abuse, and attempts at suicide, all of which hardly contribute to the well-being of dependent children." Yes, because of the warped attitudes of people like you, Reuben, who insist that homosexuals are sick and not as good as you...if you were gay and grew up with that attitude thrown at you from every angle you'd be a little upset, too... "Many in socially influential positions have argued that homosexuality is a genetic orientation. Despite the fact that this is untrue..." Is it? You seem very certain...and even if it were a choice (which I don't believe - so what? Why are you so threatened by it? As you have pointed out, it is a tiny proportion of the population - you are (presumably) in the big heterosexual majority...what are you so worried about? "The most common male homosexual developmental pattern includes childhood sexual abuse by an adult male, an emotionally distant or detached father, an unhealthy relationship with the mother, and a feeling of non-acceptance from male peers" If that is true, why are you not sympathetic and helping to make life a little easier for people who have obviously had a rough deal in the past? Why are you so ready to condemn them even more? Not very kind...or Christian... "Gay activists claim people are born gay, that it isn't possible to make of a man (or boy) something he wasn't already inclined to, and that men who have sex with boys and youths are simply helping the kids to "come out." Really?" Again, you might find an extremist saying this - there are extremists in all walks of life, but you shouldn't allow yourself to be fooled into thinking that most gay people agree with that. They don't...someone has been having you on, Reuben... "To demonstrate this, he connects several statistics related to child sex abuse: [1] men are almost always the perpetrator; [2] up to one-third or more of child sex abuse cases are committed against boys; [3] less than three percent of the population are homosexuals. Oh, BIG mistake here. You are making the very stupid assumption that all (or at least most)cases of abuse against boys are carried out by homosexual men. If you care to look into this you will discover that most cases of sexual abuse - aginst boys and against girls - are carried out by heterosexual men. Are you a heterosexual man, Reuben?? If so, it's your lot that should be looking to clean up this appalling record of abuse against children...shame on you all... "The anus is an organ of excretion, not of procreation. As US columnist, Joe Sobran puts it: "How bright do you have to be to work out the consequences of inserting a life-giving organ into the poop chute?" Aha - back to buggery - a pastime enjoyed by many homosexual and heterosexual people around the world. Joe Sobran's words apply to all, I'd say... "A significant number of the male homosexuals who post on the website www.manscat.com (one gives his occupation as "computer geek") would undoubtedly present as meeting external assessment criteria for parenting. However, few New Zealanders would regard people admitting to such predilections as fit parents. (Committee members are urged to check out the photographs and stories, just not before dinner)." Again, a rather extreme example and not representative at all... "Yet in the compartment containing their sex lives, it would be hard to imagine anything more unaesthetic than activities like “fisting and “rimming.” Well, you know, sex is a rather unappealing asthaetic concept at the best of times. And we all end up with sticky fingers, don't we? As for fisting and rimming, I agree that they don't seem terribly pleasant - but then I live in a free society where I don't have to see images of them, take part in them or even think about them...I suggest you stop thinking abou tthem as well... ;-) Posted by: Johnny at December 3, 2003 12:49 PMFact: Islamic Families, the Islamic Population, is the fastest growing religion in the world. (National Geographic) Maybe we can learn something from the Islamic PURPOSE of Marriage: #1 To Provide spiritual and legal foundation of the Biological FAMILY. #2 To Ensure the preservation of the human species and the continuation of the human race. Cohesive, polygamous, rapidly reproducing Islamic families are immigrating in large waves all over Europe. Their superior family system will overrun failed secular systems such as those pandering to homosexual farce marriages. Posted by: Gentleman at December 3, 2003 12:56 PMDavid If you read Reuben’s post you would have noted that it was submission to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee on the Care of Children Bill. The Chairman of the committee is a homosexual activist Member of Parliament by the name of Tim Barnett. He and another homosexual activist MP have adoption on their agenda. I will quote from an article by them in a homosexual newspaper, “We are also using the opportunity offered by general revamping of other laws (for example, matrimonial property or adoption) to bring them in line with human rights principles.” You may believe that same-sex partnership rights is about the relationship between two people who wish to commit to a long term relationship is not about children but you do not speak for the majority of homosexuals. Likewise I do not speak for the majority of heterosexuals. I personally do not have a problem with same-sex partnerships gaining some specific rights such as signing for an operation if their partner is unconscious. Where I have a problem is when the homosexual lobby wants to have all the rights of a married couple and be linked to any changes that apply to married couples. I see in Britain the case of a wealthy homosexual couple that paid a university student for her egg. They then fertilised her egg with a mixture of their sperm and paid a woman in the US a substantial sum of money to carry the child for them. With the risk of sounding judgemental I find this whole thing very sick. Incidentally, I am not a Christian and I know a number of atheists that are very unhappy with how the homosexual agenda is being implemented in the western world. Just as some people are concerned about experimenting with the human gene others are very concerned about the social experiments that homosexual activists are lobbying for. David Homosexuals live unhealthy lifes. This is not the ranting of some Right-wing American Religious Cult but those of leading specialist British physicians who know what their talking about. Have a look at this extract:- Increase HIV screening for gay men, says HPA
The agency revealed that the number of people infected with HIV rose by 20 per cent between 2001 and 2002, and now stands at 49,500. And it says gay and bisexual men accounted for about 80 per cent of the 1,842 new UK HIV infections in 2002. The number of gonorrhoea infections also nearly doubled in this group in 1999 to 2002, and syphilis cases rose from 52 to 607 in the same period. The agency says urgent consideration should be given to strengthening prevention of sexually transmitted infections among gay men and that, as well as offering yearly HIV tests, routine syphilis screening should be extended to those who are HIV-positive. The HPA also wants more HIV testing among migrants from sub-Saharan Africa and more chlamydia screening. However, a Health Select Committee report published in June highlighted that GUM clinics were already under pressure with appointment waits as long as eight weeks. Ministers have responded to the HPA report by announcing £15m to modernise GUM clinic premises and facilities. Dr Achim Schwenk, consultant in HIV and AIDS at North Middlesex University Hospital, said annual HIV testing of gay and bisexual men attending GUM clinics was a sensible solution but should not just be restricted to this group. And Prof Michael Adler, GUM professor at University College, London, suggested that only those at risk should be tested. Weblink www.hpa.org.uk Johnny If one has sex with someone of the opposite sex they are a heterosexual. I have not been able to work out the sort of logic that homosexuals use to assert that if a male has sex with an under age adolescent boy that he is neither a homosexual or a bi sexual but a heterosexual. I think I recall an argument that goes something like this. The man’s main sexual outlet is an adult female but he occasionally is attracted to adolescent boys, but not adult men. His sexual orientation should be determined by his main sexual outlet. Even if this was true story of some perverts sexual history classing him as a heterosexual would be a nonsense. I doubt very much if there would be many men as described. If an adult male has sex with 13 to 15 year old boy I doubt very much if he would turn down a good looking 16 year old boy. I also doubt if he would stop sexually abusing the boys before they turned 16 when he could do so legally. Kindly explain how any men who sexual abuses boy can be classed as a heterosexual . What you refer to as heterosexuals are simply closet homosexuals. Gentleman - What on earth are you talking about? Muslims are well into pedophilia. Don't they marry girls as young as 10? More than that, they have multiple wives! And what about Muslim buggery? One of the reasons the Taliban of Afghanistan were at first welcomed was because they stopped the widespread practice of sodomy on young boys. No, Muslims can teach the West very little about the spiritual purpose of marriage! Posted by: Frisbee at December 4, 2003 12:58 AMTHE TRUTH ABOUT HIV/AIDS The fact that AIDS is a heterosexual disease in the third world (“heterosexual females are the fastest growing HIV-positive population in the world”) is often advanced by gay spin doctors as “proof” that gay sexual behaviour can’t be singled out as a vector for this disease. This is nothing but miselading and dishonest spin-doctoring. We now know that HIV is extremely selective and only produces epidemics only when a population’s behaviour provides it with a niche. The manner in which HIV has spread around the world shows that AIDS is a biological epidemic exploiting certain behaviours, chief among them the practice of having large numbers of sexual partners, straight or gay. In “Sexual Ecology,” gay activist, Gabriel Rotello demonstrates that human societies are made up of sexual ecosystems consisting of groups of people who choose their sexual partners from among others like them. Each social system has its own sexual ecology. For example, students at a university typically date one another and their sexual activity is characterised by high levels of casual partner exchange compared to the rest of the population. Because student sexual activity occurs in the same pool of partners, their sexual ecosystem is characterised by high rates of fast-moving STDs such as gonorrhoea and chlamydia, which spread quickly where people switch partners before they discover that they are infected and get treatment. Married couples change partners mostly in the form of occasional adultery, divorce and remarriage. Since the social and financial costs of adultery, divorce and remarriage are far more onerous that the casual partner switching among university students, partner change is understandably far more infrequent, and STD rates are a fraction of those of university students. Gay sexual behaviour, on the other hand, is extraordinarily conducive to the transmission of HIV. As Rotello puts it: “gay men created almost laboratory conditions to amplify STDs within highly active core groups of individuals and spread these diseases throughout the gay population.” Practices that facilitate the spread of AIDS in the gay population include anal sex (“butt-fucking” “fisting,” “rimming”) with multiple partners, sex games with urine (“golden showers”) and excrement (the deliberate oral ingestion of human faeces for sexual gratification), the existence of core groups of men who engage in extraordinary levels of sexual behaviour, and high rates of sexual mixing between people in those core groups and the rest of the gay population. A growing emphasis on “versatile” anal sex in which partners played both receptive and insertive roles meant that a person injected with the AIDS virus could switch roles and become the injector into others, who could themselves become infected passively, reverse positions and pass it on to others in their turn. HIV is difficult to transmit and needs to be injected into the body and bloodstream, making it easier for the insertive partner to infect the receptive one. This creates what some epidemicologists call the “dead end” factor, that inhibits HIV transmission from women to men in the developed world. Where strict role separation is practised the virus is likely to hit a dead end. For this reason, the AIDS virus has failed to produce a self-sustaining heterosexual epidemic in the middle class population. As the NZ AIDS Foundation (“NZAF”) acknowledges on its website, “Heterosexual transmission of HIV has so far failed to become the dominant mode of transmission in any developed country.” Twenty years into the AIDS epidemic among gays, the absence of a self-sustaining heterosexual epidemic can no longer be explained by the fact that it hasn’t had time to occur. It is not occurring because the sexual ecology of middle-class Western heterosexuals does not promote the efficient spread of HIV, and it will not occur unless there are major changes in the biology of HIV or the behaviour of heterosexuals or both. Most heterosexual HIV infection in developed nations has resulted from bisexuals or IV drug users passing the virus on to their sexual partners and children. The number of bisexual men who didn’t tell their wives and girlfriends that they also had sex with men is alarmingly high. A 1996 NZAF study found that of 1, 852 New Zealand men who’d had sex with another man in the past five years, one third were currently, or had been married or in a long term relationship with a woman. More than half of those surveyed had never told their female partners they also had sex with men. NZAF statistics show that to December 1998, there were 669 reported New Zealand AIDS cases and 1336 reported cases of HIV. Some 82.1 percent were homosexual men, 4.8 percent were women, and 4.0 percent became infected through IV drug use. Figures for female-male transmission were [unaccountably] not given, but as discussed, this mode of transmission is relatively uncommon in the developed world. Assuming female-male transmission rates of perhaps 2.4 percent, this leaves 6.7 percent who became infected through blood transfusions, were born to HIV-positive mothers, or were unsure of how they’d acquired the disease. As we can see, gay men make up the majority of HIV and AIDS cases in New Zealand. A similar pattern of infection is evident throughout the Western world. The drop in new HIV infections noted in the developed countries in the mid-80s probably occurred because most of the susceptible gay men had already been infected. Now that a new cohort of susceptible gay men has become sexually active, they too appear to be becoming infected at rates not dissimilar to those of the previous generation. The NZAF has noted a disturbing new trend in New Zealand. Bisexual men are no longer the major source of HIV transmission to their female partners: “[M]ost sero-positive straights are [now] either from or have had sex with people from places where heterosexual transmission of HIV is common’ i.e. from Africa and Asia.” Heterosexual females are the fastest growing HIV-positive population in the world owing to the sexual ecology of Third World countries, particularly that of Africa. Many African men leave home for months at time to work, contracting HIV from prostitutes servicing hundreds of clients, and returning home to pass it on to their wives and unborn children. Their wives, left without financial support and with dependent children, often turn to prostitution themselves to make ends meet until their men return. This sexual promiscuity, ignorance, and lack of ready access to medical care means men and women frequently have untreated venereal sores that allow the AIDS virus to enter the bloodstream directly. African women commonly douche with astringents before intercourse to dry out the vagina and heighten sensation for their partners. This makes them more susceptible to the microscopic internal tearing through which the AIDS virus makes its way into the body. It is dishonest spin-doctoring to lump Third World statistics for HIV infection together those of developed countries without disaggregating them according to the sexual ecosystems from which they are generated. While AIDS may indeed be ”everybody's problem” in Africa and other Third World nations, in Western countries, it remains overwhelmingly confined to gay males, and is a disease spread primarily by rampant promiscuity and unnatural sexual practices. Gay activists are deliberately manipulating the AIDS debate to deflect attention from the unsanitary gay sexual habits by which HIV/AIDS is spread, and to avoid jeopardising the gains made by the gay movement over the last two decades. In an article entitled “The Overhauling of Straight America,” (Guide Magazine, November 1987) gay spin doctors, Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill (aka Hunter Madsen) are quite open about this tactic: “The AIDS epidemic is sparking anger and fear in the heartland of straight America. As the virus leaks out of homosexual circles and into the rest of society, we need have no illusions about who is [deservedly] receiving the blame. The ten years ahead may decide for the next forty whether gays claim their liberty and equality or are driven back, once again, as America's caste of detested untouchables.” In order to accomplish this whitewashing of the gay community: “[T]he masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible.” A little closer to home, the taxpayer-funded gay lobby group NZ AIDS Foundation is pushing much the same line, as “Intimate Details and Vital Statistics” [edited and contributed to by gay rights activist Dr Peter Davis, Prime Minister Helen Clark’s “beard”] makes clear at p. 113: “Since the advent of AIDS in the US, ‘gay rights’ campaigns had been steadily losing ground to the ‘family rights’ backlash. Scarce [NZAF] resources were now required to meet not only the enormous demands of AIDS, but also for the defence of the [gay] legislative gains of the previous decade.” Hands up anyone who still believes the NZAF is committed to telling the truth about AIDS and HIV? Most New Zealanders are not homophobic and couldn’t care less what homosexuals get up to in private. Just don’t try forcing them to accept that it’s normal or healthy to be a fudge-packer. Reuben P. Chapple Posted by: Reuben P. Chapple at December 4, 2003 02:23 AMFrisbee, Spirituality and morality is useless. I am talking about reproductive success. The muslims and their polygamous society is a reproductively more successful society. While the seculars and the christian populations are on the decline because they can't even get their basic family structure done right, the muslims are progressing and taking over the lands you live in today. Hard numbers. Indisputable numbers. Muslims are "invading" European lands. The Secular (Roman) monogamous system of marriage obviously bombed out big time because you can't even reproduce to replace yourselves. And here you are doing all this infighting about gay marriage that obviously does not help you increase your numbers. Numbers. It is a game of numbers. The muslims in due time will conquer all of europe because they obviously are doing something correctly... they pay no mind to homosexual activists!
"If one has sex with someone of the opposite sex they are a heterosexual. "Kindly explain how any men who sexual abuses boy can be classed as a heterosexual . What you refer to as heterosexuals are simply closet homosexuals." Now, Chuckee, you are contradicting yourself. First you state that someone who has sex with both sexes is bi-sexual, and then you state that someone who abuses boys is a closet homosexual. Bearing in mind that most men who abuse male children also have sex with women it must follow that abusers (of boys) are mainly bi-sexual and not homosexual. The thing is, you are talking rubbish and I think you probably know it. If you had an ounce of intelligence you would understand that abuse of children is not about the sex of the child. It is about power. And it is a simple statistical fact that most abuse of children is carried out by 'heterosexual' men. It's quite simple and quite true. You are sadly living in a world which seems to bear little relation to te real one. Most things - including sexuality - are not black and white. But if you really want to start breaking down the staistics and applying labels - and bearing in mind that most abuse (of boys and gilrs) takes place at the hands of men who have sex with women - then it seems it is the BISEXUALS who are the biggest threat!! And the thing is, Chuckee, they are allowed to marry - isn't that a disgrace? All the time you have been thrown off course by the idea of same-sex registered partnerships and the real bad guys have already got that freedom! I'm sure you'll be grateful to me for highlighting the huge holes in your argument but think nothing of it. I'd hate to think of you going on and making a fool of yourself as you pursue the cause against Bisexuals - it's always best to get your facts straight at the beginning or you could end up looking like a ridiculous, bigoted and, frankly, laughable old fool and that would be a real shame... Good luck with your new fight...
Melanie, You have already been emailed my response to your article (which you have replied to) but I have posted it in its entirety as below so that other readers can see it. I apologise for the length being long but it is difficult to condense my comments when feeling so infuriated by your article. I have always thought the Daily Mail a factual, broad minded, compassionate and common sense newspaper. Indeed I have found it highly educational and have been very appreciative that it has always appeared to stick to hard facts rather than grossly inaccurate, self-opinionated assumptions like some other 'news' papers. Vanessa - You say you are a journalist! You obviously haven't read the many apposite postings on this site and are in serious need of lessons in clarity and logic. On the other hand, it is obvious, you are a troubled "young" lady. David Have you been to the GUM Clinic yet for your MOT. Best do it soon or it may be too late! Posted by: Frisbee at December 4, 2003 07:40 PMReuben I can appreciate the problems you face in New Zealand! Isn't Helen Clark, your Prime Minister, a dyke in a marriage of convenience with Peter Davies an active gay lobbyist! Posted by: Frisbee at December 4, 2003 07:46 PMJohnny If you want debate issues fine, but if you want to send abusive posts I would suggest to you and to Melanie that you would be better on another list. My name is Chuck not Chuckee. One might say that is not a big deal but it is a step towards the debate on this list degenerating very quickly. Offering you opinion as to someone’s intelligence offers nothing to rational debate. I have seen discussions on these list degenerate into posts of mutual abuse because of provocation by homosexual militants in the past. When they get a response they then claim they are victims. A standard homosexual ploy. It is important that the public knows that there is direct link between those who partake in homosexual activities and the sexual abuse of underage children. The fact that some these abusers may also have sex with women is not relevant. Webster’s defines homosexual of or characterised by a sexual desire of the same sex as oneself. Therefore bisexuals are homosexuals. If you find this fact offensive, that is not my intention. I just what as many people as possible to aware of this fact so that adolescents may be protected. To keep this post brief I refer those with an open mind to refer to the link below. Why I am Proud to be Homophobic http://www.savethemales.ca/021101.html Johnny, if you cannot make a civil reply I suggest you leave it to one of your homosexual friends to contribute to this discussion in a serious matter. Frisbee Helen Clark has denied being a lesbian so anyone in New Zealand could be sued for liable if the stated that she was in fact a lesbian. However, you are quite correct in stating her husband; Peter Davis is a homosexual rights lobbyist. He in fact contributed to and edited a book titles “Intimate Details & Vital Statistics”. It is about HIV from a homosexual prospective. The following is a quote from him. "Finally it is important to pay tribute to those who have paid the ultimate price for the AIDS pandemic. This book is dedicated to their memory and to the fortitude and grief of their cared and loved ones." I do not know if you could class their marriage as a marriage of convenience but it is certainly unorthodox. Before she first got elected as Prime Minister, TV went inside her house and interviewed her and Peter Davis. Stuck to the frig with a magnet was a note "Peter owes Helen $40 for power". It is of course possible that at some stage that Helen may have partaken in some lesbian activities but just forgotten. She is known for having memory lapses particularly when it comes to signing paintings that she has not painted. Maybe she has memory lapses in other areas of her life. If you care to ask her, her email address is pm@ministers.govt.nz. Posted by: Chuck Bird at December 5, 2003 01:45 AMChuck I am certainly sorry if I offended you by not using your correct name - I guess the intention was to provoke as I feel so very angry that you seem to be an eloquent person who could put their persuasive debating skills to good in this world and are, instead, peddling misinformation and encouraging bigotry and hatred. However, that is my opinion of YOUR opinions and I sincerely hope you will accept my apology for mis-using your name. Your points about the link beteween homosexuals and sexual abuse of children are still way off the mark. At the end of the day there are children who are sexually abused by (mostly) men. Some of these men will be heterosexual and some will be homosexual. You and I could argue about definitions of Heterosexuality/Homosexuality (Webster's is not my bible, I'm afraid) which would therefore affect the way we look at the breakdown of statistics regarding the abuse of children (although I am convinced you will find that most abuse of children is by heterosexual men and you seem to be ignoring lesbians - hardly any abuse - and the problem of abuse carried out by what you would define as heterosexual men). But it doesn't matter. Any child that suffers sexual abuse is a casualty. This debate was about the legalisation of same-sex partnerships. Do you really believe that is going to be a factor in abuse of children? If you do then you are wrong. It is inaccurate and unkind and, frankly, hysterical to follow this train of thought. You are somebody who is never going to see the world the way that I see it. It is a shame, you know, because gay people have always been around and always will be around. They are good and kind and compassionate and loving and cruel and mean and nasty and caring and all of the good and bad things that straight people are. They are the same as you and me. Just the same. And gay people - who have suffered hundreds/thousands of years of oppression are finally being recognised for this. The balance is being redressed - slowly, but surely. This is happening, Chuck, and I am convinced people like you would have a happier life if you would put things in perspective and stop being eaten up with hatred for an enemy which doesn't even exist. If you don't, you will be left behind and you will be the loser (not you as a heterosexual - I'm assuming, here - but you as someone who can't accept an inclusive world). Once again I will repeat my apology for messing with your name - I won't say I didn't mean to offend but, in hindsight, I am sorry. I would say to Frisbee, however, you are a pretty nasty and sad individual - and there won't be an apology coming for that... Posted by: Johnny at December 5, 2003 10:56 AMFrisbee, Nobody sensible on this thread takes your rantings seriously. Here is an assortment of 'Frisbee's World', just in case other reader's have missed his 'wisdom': 1) Personal comments about the PM of New Zealand: "Isn't Helen Clark, your Prime Minister, a dyke in a marriage of convenience with Peter Davies an active gay lobbyist!" 2) Patronising comments posted to Vanessa, who wrote a compassionate post calling for people to be treated as individual human beings rather than pre-judged: "On the other hand, it is obvious, you are a troubled "young" lady. 3) To me: merely because I am a homosexual and I support the introduction of same-sex partnership rights for those individuals who wish to further protect and dignify their relationships by using them: "Have you been to the GUM Clinic yet for your MOT. Best do it soon or it may be too late!" 4) To Genteleman, on the sexual practices of Muslims: "Muslims are well into pedophilia. Don't they marry girls as young as 10? More than that, they have multiple wives!" "And what about Muslim buggery?" 5) On the Taliban: "the Taliban of Afghanistan were at first welcomed was because they stopped the widespread practice of sodomy on young boys." Much as I dislike the use of ad hominem attacks I feel compelled to remind people that people should be judged on their behaviour (including they way they speak and write) and not upon the basis of their 'caste', 'class', 'gender', 'religion', 'race'. Posted by: David at December 5, 2003 11:35 AM Bird, "It is important that the public knows that there is direct link between those who partake in homosexual activities and the sexual abuse of underage children." There is no direct link. SOME homosexuals abuse children as do SOME heterosexuals. ALL child abusers should be dealt with severely under the law. However, you infer that ALL homosexuals are responsible for child abuse. This is completely ludicrous. And, you are a liar spreading pernicious lies.
Johnny, You are being far too polite to Bird...Just see what he has now said to which I have refered and replied in my post above. Posted by: David at December 5, 2003 11:55 AMBird, "Johnny, if you cannot make a civil reply I suggest you leave it to one of your homosexual friends to contribute to this discussion in a serious matter."... Given the pernicious lies about homosexuals that you are using this site to spread, I would say that Johnny and I have been the model of restaint in response
Reuben, "Male homosexuals are often -- in the part of their lives displayed to the public -- intelligent, well educated, personable, sociable, epicures, connoisseurs and aesthetes. Many hold highly paid jobs, are financially successful and live in beautiful homes surrounded by objects d'art. Yet in the compartment containing their sex lives, it would be hard to imagine anything more unaesthetic than activities like “fisting and “rimming.”." In response: This is a very clever and cynical mis-characterisation of male homosexuals on a par with some of the kinds of characterisations of Jews used in anti-semitic screeds. It contrasts what is presented a the 'nice behaviour' of homosexuals in public with what you mistakenly infer are their sexual practices (one of the one you mention is rare) in private. What is says is: never trust these people no matter how nice they appear to be because they are not. The direct or indirect of the promotion of such views would appear to be to spread fear and distrust of homosexuals: ie: they cannot be trusted and therefore should not be able to work in certain jobs and should not enjoy certain rights. I hope that your deposition was filed where it should be: in the trash can. However, just as some of the practices of heterosexuals are not used to prevent them from getting married, why are you (and your fellow travellers) seeking to prevent any two homosexuals who wish to have their partnership registered from doing so and by consequence from enjoying some provisions aimed at strengthening, protecting and dignifying their relationship? I guess it's because you see homosexuals purely as sexual animals and not in terms of their wider relationships. Are you not aware that most long-term relationships, after the first flushes of vigorous love-making, tend to concentrate more on mutual support, commitment and companionship than they do upon pure sex? And that this is true of both homosexuals and heterosexuals? Finally, the promotion of such material and views can have some very unpleasant results when they fall into the hands of less cerebral and more physical 'campaigners' than yourself: such as when my partner and I were surrounded by a gang of heterosexual men a few years ago, spat at and jostled, and called 'AIDS spreaders'. Do you approve of such behaviour?
"Do you approve of such behaviour?" David - I wouldn't be surprised if you get a resounding YES to this question... Posted by: Johnny at December 5, 2003 01:18 PMInteresting article over at JewishWorldReview.com that explores the an interesting coalition of religious conservatives and an extreme Islamic group who are working together to oppose same-sex marriage.... "JewishWorldReview.com has discovered that prominent religious conservatives — Jews, Catholics and Evangelical Christians — are allied with a radical Islamic group to stop gay marriage. Pushing a constitutional amendment that would restrict marriage to heterosexuals, they work with the Islamic Society of North America. What is ISNA? According to terrorism expert Steve Emerson, ISNA: Do I have to say more about the extreme nature of some of the forces now working together to oppose gay relationships? See more at JewishWorldReview.com Johnny, I am less inclined to expect that. Some of the more learned and articulate people who would see us denied new rights - and indeed see our existing rights reversed - dissociate themselves from what the way some less learned people demonstrate similar beliefs! Posted by: David at December 5, 2003 01:27 PMGentleman, "Numbers. It is a game of numbers. The muslims in due time will conquer all of europe because they obviously are doing something correctly... they pay no mind to homosexual activists!" I don't think so. As Muslim immigrants become more settled and integrated in the countries to which they have immigrated, there will be an increasing number who will wish to have smaller families in similar vein to most married couples of Christian (or no) faith. You seem to know little about the dramatic change in demographic patterns in Europe over the last few decades. It was traditional for catholics to have very large families a generation ago. Now, the birth rate of countries like Italy, Spain, France and Portugal has slumped. Muslims will almost certainly follow the same trend in their new secular countries. There will also be an increased questioning of the roles, responsibilities and duties of citizens (particularly women) in both Islamic countries as well as among Muslims in western countries. So, you are wrong to be so sure that Muslims will continue to have large families. Posted by: David at December 5, 2003 03:25 PMFrisbee you state I said I am a journalist? Where have I said that in my comments?? Yes, I have said I have worked for publishers, editors, journalists but by that why assume that I too am a journalist? A typical ignorant response from you based on an assumption. Perhaps you can now see yoursef that you probably have made misguided assumptions about other opinions you have?!. And as for the other abusive comments directed to me from other people - all you do is show yourselves up as hate-filled and not particularly nice people to know. Happily, I have nothing to feel guilty of and am accepted by people who matter to me as the nice, decent person that I am. Posted by: Vanessa at December 5, 2003 05:54 PMFrisbee, Just to clear up a misunderstanding: I can see that you thought I was a journalist by my starting the sentence 'As a journalist...' This was referring to Melanie being a journalist. Also it has been stated in my further email communication with Melanie that I have worked with journalists, editors, etc. __________________________ Are you a social worker? Posted by: Frisbee at December 5, 2003 07:26 PM_______________________ As to your misunderstanding, I don't think it was my misunderstanding, but you may have thought it was. If that is the case, you will agree it is not my misunderstanding, but a misunderstanding between two people, or should I say that the greater probability was a misunderstanding on your part. Whichever part you think it is, it is not so big a misunderstanding that we should fall out. Any misunderstanding, if any, on my part, excluding your part, is entirely fortuitous. I hope that clears up any misunderstanding because otherwise we will only land ourselves, or yourself, in confusion. So your not a journalist - Thank God! But you still need a lesson in clarity and logic! Posted by: Frisbee at December 5, 2003 07:34 PM
By Michael Swift, "We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us. Women, you cry for freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them; we will embrace them when they weep. Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of with men. Then go and be with each other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known because we are foremost men too, and only one man knows how to truly please another man; only one man can understand the depth and feeling, the mind and body of another man. All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men. All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy. If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap, superficial, sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema screens. We shall sculpt statues of beautiful young men, of bold athletes which will be placed in your parks, your squares, your plazas. The museums of the world will be filled only with paintings of graceful, naked lads. Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigueur, and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles. We will eliminate heterosexual liaisons through usage of the devices of wit and ridicule, devices which we are skilled in employing. We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators, your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among you; we may be sitting across the desk from you; we may be sleeping in the same bed with you. There will be no compromises. We are not middle-class weaklings. Highly The family unit-spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence--will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants. All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and esthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough. The exquisite society to emerge will be governed by an elite comprised of gay poets. One of the major requirements for a position of power in the new society of homoeroticism will be indulgence in the Greek passion. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from a position of influence. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men. We shall rewrite history, history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions. We shall portray the homosexuality of the great leaders and thinkers who have shaped the world. We will demonstrate that homosexuality and intelligence and imagination are inextricably linked, and that homosexuality is a requirement for true nobility, true beauty in a man. We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages. We too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution. Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks." HIV infections soar among homosexuals
David, Truth: Homosexuality sabotages your own numbers. Sure, you and other population controllers wish the muslims to have smaller families. But their "smaller" families will be BIGGER than your European white, secular, former Christian, homosexual families (who don't reproduce by the way). Marriage is 50% of an islamic's faith: men and women. Allowing Polygamy ensures more intact families than serially divorcing hypocritical monogamists who legalize abortion, prostitution and homosexuality to mop up the "excess" unmarrieds. Ergo, you are correct that islamic families will start to get smaller, while the current secular - former christian families are destroyed because secular marriage has been destroyed by feminists and homosexuals. You may want to congratulate yourself for the advancement of your "homosexual agenda": selfish, metaphysical concepts about recognition. But homosexual marriage only pulls down your numbers. Numbers. Numbers. There is no escaping the numbers game. Rome fell to the barbarians, South African whites were overwhelmed by superior numbers of blacks, Zimbabwean whites succumbed to superior numbers as well. This is why the rich countries spend so much on promoting population control around the world: if your numbers are falling with the help of homosexuals and feminists; then drag everybody else down with you. I send my deepest sympathies to the seculars and Christians still fighting for their population's survival. It has been and always will be a numbers game. Those with superior numbers will eventually overwhelm those with less. >> So, you are wrong to be so sure that Muslims will continue to have large families. Posted by: Gentleman at December 6, 2003 12:44 AMJohnny and David Rather than respond to your childish name calling I will supply you with more facts about what many of your kind get up to. On one hand I have some sympathy for the argument that what adults do in private is there own business. On the other hand I do not want people as described below serving me in a restaurant. I have supplies details of the author and the book from which have quoted below. The author is in fact a homosexual. The Synergy of Plagues 69 Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Man by Gabriel Rotello
A compelling warning about gay culture and the imperative need for a change in beliefs and behavior, issued by a gay activist and journalist. Rotello, a founding editor of Outweek magazine and former columnist for New York Newsday, once promoted the belief that it was simply an accident that in the United States AIDS first manifested itself among gay men. Here he dismisses that notion with persuasive scientific and epidemiological data. The term ``sexual ecology'' refers to all the biological and behavioral factors that influence the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. According to Rotello, ``the simultaneous introduction of new behaviors and a dramatic rise in the scale of old ones produced one of the greatest shifts in sexual ecology ever recorded,'' one that had ``a decisive impact on the transmission of virtually every sexually transmitted disease, of which HIV was merely one, albeit the most deadly.'' The new behaviors that Rotello cites are multipartner anal sex, particularly in core groups centered in commercial sex establishments, widespread abuse of recreational drugs, and high intakes of immune-system-compromising antibiotics to deal with high rates of hepatitis, herpes, syphilis, and other sexually transmitted infections. The key to AIDS prevention, cautions Rotello, lies not in technological fixes but in changes in the way gays live. Rotello's message that absolute sexual freedom has been biologically disastrous for gay men and that behavioral changes are crucial has been carefully and convincingly laid out. In his closing, Rotello offers up for discussion his own suggestions for building a healthy and positive gay culture. Well aware that his call for increased sexual restraint will be seen as reactionary and homophobic by those who cling to an orgiastic view of gay liberation, he anticipates their arguments and answers them persuasively in this impressive analysis of a pressing social problem. (Author tour) -- Posted by: Chuck Bird at December 6, 2003 01:57 AMFrisbee I don't need lessons in clarity and logic thank you. I have admitted that I can see by how I started a sentence (As a journalist...) that it was ambiguous and has been misunderstood by yourself (yes, my 'fault' for causing a misunderstanding with that particular sentence if you want to be bloody-minded about it - at least I have spotted the slip and done something about it - I must have used clarity and logic there, huh?. Just shows you up when you just can't accept an apology but have to go on seemingly sarcastically in your comments about misunderstandings and confusion, no doubt with glee? My comments are sincere and based on my own truthful experiences. So regardless that in your eyes I lack clarity and logic my disagreement with Melanie's article still stands. I am speaking from life-learned facts rather than assumptions. And yes, thank God I am NOT a journalist - the more I read of some journalists' one-sided, opinionated articles, which seem to incite hatred - such as this one we are all discussing, the more I am glad I chose a different career. As for your statement 'On the other hand, it is obvious, you are a troubled "young" lady' - more assumptions about me? You know nothing about me and can only base your knee-jerk opinion on my comments you have read. Seems a bit narrow minded to me. Thanks for calling me young - I shall take that as a compliment! And yes you are correct in saying I am 'troubled' - 'troubled' by Melanie's article and the hate-filled, homophobic, inaccurate assumptions that have come from people such as yourself. Perhaps I should now start thinking ALL heterosexuals are like you??? Obviously NOT. Posted by: Vanessa at December 6, 2003 11:39 AM_______________________ Are you a social worker then? Posted by: Frisbee at December 6, 2003 12:42 PM_________________ All the sodomites and lesbians on this site are in deep denial. This has important ramifications for the future health of society at large. Of course, there is no more important example of this than the plague of AIDS which is sweeping the world and which is intensifying. As this plague rapidly mutates, common sense would tend to suggest it will defy modern science and remain incurable! I am at a total loss as two why the medical profession world-wide remain silent about the importance of abstinence amongst the homosexual community? This week the British Lancet has come out heavily against passive smoking and wants to see it banned in certain circumstances, yet they remain totally silent about the Gay Plague which is much more serious. Ever heard the story about the gay chef who, as a jesture of angst, spate surreptitiously into customers food? Posted by: Frisbee at December 6, 2003 01:01 PMFrisbee No I am not a social worker. Why? Have you got some warped opinion about them too? I didn't think social workers had jobs in publishing (which for 'clarity' and 'logic' - purposes I shall again spell out - that I have had much experience working in publishing without being a journalist). As for the 'gay plague' (another of your provocative remarks) - how is it that a frighteningly high amount of hetersosexual men and women and children in Africa (as well as other countries) have got this dreadful disease? My heart goes out to them - I don't think 'well that serves them right for them having sex' (which is the usual opinion when the person suffering is homosexual). I suppose now you will be blaming a homosexual for spreading it everywhere? Statistics and facts speak for themselves. Everyone, whether gay or straight is at risk from the HIV virus and AIDS, like any other disease and to digress slightly anal sex and the risks it involves is not just restricted to those homosexuals who practice it (not all do). Did you not know that there are men and women who also have anal sex for pleasure and that in some countries it is used as a form of birth control? I'm told Arabs are well known for that but don't know if that's true. HIV is not just transmitted via anal sex but vaginally or any other way where body fluids mix. Perhaps people should focus their dislike on certain sexual acts that both homosexual and heterosexuals may practice rather than victimising homosexuals just for the fact they are homosexual? Homosexuals as well as heterosexuals can have positive, fullfilling, loving, committed relationships, of which sex is just a small part. It's the complex emotions of a person which determines whether they are gay or straight and not just the sexual act which can be done with anybody. I would have thought having love, affection, commitment and other values in society is far more beneficial - regardless of whether it is with one's own sex or not, than having hatred and wars amongst each other. I would rather see two men (or two women) being affectionate and loving with each other (to the point where they may have a sexual relationship as a part of their deep love for each other) rather than see them fight and cause instability and all the other negative stuff we see some men and women cause in society. Note I say 'love for each other', I'm not talking about sex for sex's sake without any sincere, loving attachment which is another issue altogether. Before you say it...NO I am not anti-men, the usual argument hurled at gay women (although there are gay women who are 'separatists' but that's not to say that all gay women must be). I love and respect my father, my brother and my male friends, etc, but I am honest enough to see that a full-on being-in-love and sexual relationship with a man is not what is natural for me. Those intense in-love feelings have been with a woman not a man. They are the same feelings, no different to a heterosexual woman. If I and others lived a lie by doing what society expected of us (such as being with an opposite sex partner and having children within that relationship) then that to me would be far more harmful to the opposite sex partner and the children brought into that environment. I respect men not to live a lie in this way. A would-be male partner of mine could have a more fullfilling life with a heterosexual woman so what would the point be in me, or other homosexual, trying to please society by being with someone when it clearly wasn't truthful and right? And on that point why should a homosexual be celibate, as some people would want? Relationships are all about companionship, sharing and being emotionally and spiritually close to someone as well as the sexual element. To have someone live a solitary life not allowing them to reach their potential in certain areas would to my mind seem destructive in society. Going back to your 'gay plague' comment I would just like to add that heterosexuals can be just as promiscuous as homosexuals. When people talk about men having sex with dozens of men in a night, etc, as a gay person that sickens me too. However, no-one should tarr all gay men and women with the same brush that we are all promiscuous and using such an extreme example such as that mentioned to try and prove a point. I have often heard about some men sleeping with many women in a night or a women who has had several male lovers. No doubt there are people who find this distasteful but then it does not mean that every heterosexual is going out there and sleeping around. Some heterosexual men and women also practice unprotected sex and apart from the risk of HIV infection, hepatitis, herpes, and all other transmitted diseases they also run the risk of unwanted pregnancies. Statistics also show a rise in transmitted diseases and pregnancies in the heterosexual world so one cannot just assume sexual diseases are a problem caused by homosexuals. My belief is that we should look at the humanist values of what makes a good person and an asset to society and support these knowing that there are both good and bad homosexuals and heterosexuals out there rather than trying to blame one section of society. Only then, when we can look at any 'act' being possibly bad rather than the person assumed to be doing it (whether gay or straight) can we be unprejudiced and not offend innocent, decent members of society. Posted by: Vanessa at December 6, 2003 06:36 PMFrisbee I am lodging a complaint against the Acting Director of Public Health in New Zealand for continually urging the public to practice “safe sex” as a means to reduce the level of HIV in this country. There is no way that having receptive anal intercourse with someone that is HIV+ is safe. It is unsafe. The doctor’s advice is in fact encouraging people, mainly homosexuals to put themselves and others’ lives at risk. It is not possible to prevent people from having sex. However, health authorities should encourage homosexuals to reduce the high numbers of sexual partners they have and to refrain altogether from having sex with anonymous partners they often meet at bathhouses and public toilets. It is just speculation as to how much this advice would be followed. However, the health authorities should at least be giving honest advice rather than allowing homosexual rights lobbyist such as the Prime Minister’s husband to determine sexual health policy in New Zealand. Vanessa It has been established that you are not writer or a journalist. It seems you are much of a reader either because if you have read the previous posts you would see that the points you are trying to make have been discounted. Read this statement carefully. In the western world homosexuals are greatly overrepresented in HIV statistics. http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2749803a7144,00.html “Acting Director of Public Health Douglas Lush said sexually active people needed to know the rate of infections was increasing and how to protect themselves. Unprotected sex between men remained the highest-risk behaviour for HIV transmission, accounting for more than three-quarters of infections. Women were most likely to be infected by a person from a country with a higher prevalence of HIV, either in New Zealand or while travelling.” Continually repeating statistics about the third world, repeating the obvious facts that some heterosexuals have HIV and practice anal intercourse does not alter the fact that 2 to 3 % of the population at most account for 75% of HIV cases in this country. I do not have the statistics for the UK but homosexuals there are also greatly overrepresented in HIV statistics as they are throughout the western world. Homosexual lobbyists that continually repeat their mantra in spite of their arguments having already been addressed shows either their dishonesty or their stupidity. Exclusive lesbians do not pose this risk to public health. Why do you persist in supporting a group of narcissistic hedonist that puts their sexual gratification way ahead of public safety? Ugh! I just can't believe there are so many closed-minded people out there. Homosexual practices do not pose a danger to society! *Living* in society poses a greater danger. Why does everyone always have to bring AIDS into the picture when trying to justify their hate for homosexuals. And yes, it is hate, because how can you just deny someone their rights as a human being unless you hate them? You guys are frightened that if we allow homosexuals to get married that the sanctity of marriage will be ruined. Get a life! Only in your mind will that sanctity be ruined; it will only be ruined, because you allow it. It is not homosexuals' fault that you are so close-minded that you cannot share the idea of marriage with them. Geez. And I'm happy for gay rights activists! It is activists that make society the way it is; if it wasn't for activists then countries like England and America would still have slavery and child labor. As for homosexuals having 40-50 partners: if heterosexual men were granted sex by any woman that they approached, then their sexual partners would be A LOT. This is what happens with homosexual men; it isn't because homosexuals are just so sex crazy, it's because men are sex crazy. So maybe we should just ban men then, huh? By the way, heterosexuals have anal intercourse as well. Posted by: Bobby Smith at December 7, 2003 04:39 AMBobby Do homosexuals have problem reading and retaining information for more than a couple of minutes? It has been repeated ad nauseam than some heterosexuals have anal intercourse. This fact is not being disputed. The fact remains that 2 to 3 % of the population at most account for 75% of HIV cases in this New Zealand. You are correct that heterosexuals would have more sex if woman never said no. However, that is not how the human race works. The reason for that should be obvious but ever if you cannot work it out, homosexuals as group are a drain on the health resources of most countries and because of bisexuals they put the lives of heterosexuals at risk. I despise anyone that thinks this is acceptable. I hope this does not include the majority of homosexuals. Chuck - Okay, then you are saying that we should just kill homosexuals? I'm sorry, but this is what it sounds like to me. Why not ban alcohol, cigarettes, or even pain killers then? Doesn't this cause death, health concerns, and not to mention severely psychological problems (well alcohol and pain killers)? What about people with diabetes. Are they not "a drain on the health resources of most countries?" Don't they breed and produce people with the same problems? Should we sterilize them? Your ideas are absurd to me; they really are. However, if I am misunderstanding your comment, then please clarify. Thanks. I'm not homosexual by the way. Posted by: Bobby Smith at December 7, 2003 06:37 AMChuck-- I think I pressed "Post" a little too quickly the last time. I wanted to answer your comment about homosexuals having a problem reading and retaining information. First of all, from my last post, I told you I am not homosexual. Well, I'm not bisexual either. So, you are lumping me in a category that I don't belong in. Second, earlier, when I first posted, I had just found this site, and, I'm sorry, did not thoroughly read the information. I think I was just posting for post's sake, just so I could get my opinion and comments out there. I'm terribly sorry that I didn't read all the comments, but, you have to excuse me; there are so many. But, after I posted the last comment, I was reading a little more of everyone else's comments. I remember reading one of your posts when you say that there is a link between homosexuals and child abuse. Well, I believe you are mistaken there. I have repeatedly read in psychology books and elsewhere that pedophiles are almost always about 98% of the time white, married, heterosexual men. I don't know where you get your statistics, but I assure you sometime in the near future I will get you a reliable reference to go on. Why else would every single psychology class and book tell me this statistic? I think psychology books are valid references, do you? And, if you are using the argument that homosexual men abuse small boys so that you can hate gay men, then you should hate heterosexual men as well, because they rape young girls and women. Or do homosexuals do that too? Heck, lets just hate everyone everwhere, because every single race, sex, age, and type of person has done something horrific before. Anyway, I look forward to continuing our discussion, and I will have those statistics for you shortly (when I have time). Thanks. Posted by: Bobby Smith at December 7, 2003 07:05 AMBobby Firstly, my apologies for thinking you were a homosexual. It appears that homosexuals have been very successful in casing themselves into the role of victims. They get very welling meaning people to jump to their defence. I am getting a little tired as I have the flu so I just respond to your first post this evening and respond latter to the link between homosexuality and paedophilia. I will be interested in seeing your reference in the meantime. I am not saying that we should kill homosexuals. However, I despise homosexual rights lobbyist that think they have the right to determine a countries sexual health policies when they are a major cause of the problem. Please read my earlier posts, 1-12; 1:19am, 3-12; 11:37pm, 5-12;1:45am, 6-12; 1:57am, 6-12;11.57am. We do not ban alcohol, cigarettes or pain killers. However we put restriction on their sale and use. The NZ government which is very much pro homosexual just banned smoking in pubs and clubs. They are considering reducing the alcohol limit for driving on dubious statistics. I believe that the police should clamp down on homosexuals cruising public toilets for anonymous sex. I also think that authorities should take a serous look at homosexual clubs. See excerpt at end of my post from a book written by a sensible homosexual author that realises that homosexual should change their lifestyle. There is big difference between people with health problem that are no fault of there own and say drunk drivers or those that partaken in group anonymous sex as described below. I hope that goes some way to clarifying my position. I suggest you do a text search to find al my other posts.
Consider, for example, the case of San Francisco’s Blow Buddies, a new-style sex club for gay men devoted, as its name implies, almost exclusively to oral sex. It and many others like it across the nation came into being in large part because of the argument that oral sex is safe, and have been defended as models of safe sex by gay AIDS prevention workers. AIDS educator Eric Rofes, a prominent figure in the "new prevention" movement and former head of San Francisco's Shanti Project, described a visit to Blow Buddies in Reviving the Tribe, his book about gay men and AIDS prevention: [M]y eyes took a moment to adjust. I was in a large space filled with small wooden cubicles, like cupboards, in which men were apparently expected to kneel and give head. Glory holes were drilled into these closets, and other men came by, hoisted out their dicks, and inserted them into the holes in the cubicles. In another part of the room, men stepped up on a raised platform and other men stood below, eager to suck them off in a standing position. While there may have been thirty men in the room, none were talking. The only sounds were the throb of the music and the sounds of cocksuckingslurps, gagging, coughing, moans of relief . . .. . I moved toward the next room and discovered more cupboards, aligned along an elaborate maze filled with several dozen men moving, glancing, stopping, moving, kneeling, sucking, moving, unzipping . . . . As my eyes adjusted, I recognized more and more people colleagues from political work, neighbors from my apartment building, friends from the gym. Everyone seemed plugged into the same intense energy and focused on the same thing oral sex. What Rofes describes is, in the opinion of many prominent AIDS educators and prevention workers, a model scene, an example of what sex-positive gay life ought to be like in the age of AIDS. Blow Buddies, they point out, is gay owned and operated. It has an excel- lent record of cooperation with San Francisco's Coalition for Healthy Sex, a community-based group dedicated to the self-monitoring of the city's sex clubs. Blow Buddies earns high marks from the coalition for not allowing unprotected anal sex on its premises, for providing plenty of AIDS materials and condoms and brochures, and for providing guidelines that encourage patrons to use condoms during oral sex-although as Rofes points out, no one does. But what does that matter? In light of the message that oral sex is safer sex, Blow Buddies is indeed an exemplary institution. While Rofes, who is a thoughtful and honest voice in the new prevention movement, writes that after his visit he was confused about why so many people ignore the club's advice to use condoms and avoid ejaculate, he nonetheless writes that he “left Blow Buddies that evening sexually satisfied, and happy with the ability of gay men to create environments which encourage men to enjoy a lot of sex." Posted by: Chuck Bird at December 7, 2003 09:12 AMChuck, More assumptions in me not being much of a reader because I have not read the previous comments to the one I posted. I have posted my comments after having personally corresponded with Melanie. Admittedly, I have not read any of the comments which were posted before mine as up until I had a response from Melanie I wasn't even aware such a website existed. That is not to say I am not aware of people's opinions across the board. That is the reason why I have written my own opinion. It doesn't necessarily follow that I have to read everything on this website and from everywhere else before I write something that is, as I said before based on my own life experiences and knowledge I have accumulated elsewhere. However, I do believe it is right for myself, and others, to keep an open mind and not to be too dogmatic in their views. Statistics always change and depending on the way they have been collated there is still room for misinterpretation. They can only be used as a guide and are not foolproof. Ask any statistician. Regardless of statistics, the fact is that HIV is still a risk for all people regardless of how many of a certain section of society seem to be inflicted with it. One can argue all the time about blame and who to point the finger at. This does not get anybody anywhere and we should be using our energy in more constructive, civil ways. Before there was aids there were other serious and often fatal sexually transmnitted diseases such as syphillus and gonorrrhoea more prevalent during the first and second world war years. Nobody seems to harp on about the fact that it was heterosexual men (soldiers) who did a lot to spread this disease around. And what about smallpox, polio, et-al? Nobody in their right mind goes around blaming everyone else for having these terrible diseases. And why has there just been a tv programme highlighting the worry by scientists and authorities that most of a certain part of Africa (millions of the population not just a few hundred)is infected with HIV, if it's just a gay problem? Regarding someone's comment about gays and their sexual health needs draining the health service: everything can be a drain on NHS resources and is specific to any person's life style, the location of the hospital and the personal needs of the people using it. One could argue that smokers, drinkers, people playing dangerous sports, etc are also a drain on the hospital's resources. Smokers run the risk of getting cancer and other serious diseases - taking up beds with lung cancer and . Many have to have their limbs amputated, etc. Nobody forced them to smoke. You could argue that patients having non-life threatening surgery such as plastic surgery was a drain on resources. When you get thinking about what actually goes on in a hospital you will see that all sections of society use it for what ever reason and thank God it's there and more so that the staff don't take judgemental biased views and turn away patients for treatment because of some narrow view they have - 'Well we are not treating him again, he's just broken yet another bone falling off his hang-glider - what a waste of resources' What about STD clinics full of heterosexual sexually active people coming in because of one night stands or worried that their partner has given them some sexually transmitted disease. Should we all get on our high horses and start attacking them for draining resources? I hope not. Hopefully, you may get my point? Regards all of these comments about men cottaging, the terms 'fisting', 'rimming' and all the rest. Does it not occurr to anti-homosexual brigade that the homosexuals who do these sorts of activities are actually a minority of an already small minority of the population (eg homosexuals)? And more importantly, not all homosexuals indulge in such practices and I think you will find that when one speaks to anybody gay they may find that they are also repulsed by certain practices and can understand why some heterosexuals are freaked out and concerned by it. Homosexuals can be repulsed by these practices too. Go to any trendy straight night club these days and you will find nights where they hold fetish parties, s&m, bondage evenings, it is not just certain homosexual clubs which do these things. It may be of interest to know that I recently attended a council chambers meeting over a couple - two unmarried heterosexuals who were trying to turn their hotel into a sex club which had themed rooms and was to be only open to members only. You can imagine what we all thought was going to happen in there! And yes being a gay person sitting in that meeting I was totally against them having the opportunity to turn the place into a sex den for moral reasons in the same way if it had been two homosexuals wanting to do the same thing then I would have still strongly objected. I am trying to highlight the fact that it is not just some gays who may indulge in such qusetionable behaviour. Read any newspaper and there is always some talk of some heterosexual celebrity sleeping around, etc. And if they are normally 'straight' and then are pictured with a lover of the same sex you can bet it's just been done as a sexual kick and an experiment which is not how a true homosexual is (ie it's the consistently complex and truthful feelings not the one-off sexual act which determines that person's sexuality). Don't you read about swingers and wife swap parties which seem to becoming all the rage? If anything I could say these people were destructive to conventional marriages and the structure of society. And what about prostitutes, brothels, etc? We could all start arguing about the rights and wrongs of them. As I keep stressing, I truly believe that people should be accepted on their own merits, not pre-judged and tarred with the same brush as everybody else and it should be the 'acts' which can be performed by everyone in society (whether gay or straight)that should be focussed on rather than targeting, by prejudice and hate innocent people that others just 'assume' come under their judgemental umbrella. Posted by: Vanessa at December 7, 2003 12:00 PMVanessa, "I truly believe that people should be accepted on their own merits, not pre-judged and tarred with the same brush as everybody else and it should be the 'acts' which What a breath of fresh air your comments are! You are so right. They are similar to some of the ponts that I have been trying to make from the beginning of this thread: ie: two homosexuals who wish to spend their lives together in a loving relationship should have access to property, pension and next-of-kin rights that would confer greater protection and dignity on their relationships than is currently possible given existing laws. Whilst there are some who may oppose this position (as is perfectly their right) there are a few people on this site (whom I believe are completely unrepresentatitive of heterosexuals in democratic countries) who seem incapable of engaging in debate on the issues in question and have instead decided to bombard us with a torrent of highly-dubious 'statistics' aimed at 'proving' that all gay men (it is gay men in particular that they condemn - they seem to be in denial about lesbians!) are feckless, irresponsible, untrustworthy, child-abusing, disease spreaders with a short life expectancy. You and I know this is nonsense from our life experience based on loving families and our knowledge and experience of the way we know our friends live and behave. We also know that a fair proportion of homosexuals are lesbians (I'm not sure if we are 50%-50% gay men / lesbians?) and that they too will benefit from the introduction of same-sex partnership rights when it is hopefully introduced to the UK (just as it has been in other European countries such as France, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Portugal). However, this reality has not stopped these people from continuing to focus almost entirely upon their theories and views on gay men's sex lives....with a focus on the seamier side of what a small minority of gay men. Some of our adversaries believe that gays are just not capable of 'loving relationships'. They never mention 'embracing', 'holding','kissing' etc - but characterise our relationships as being purely sexual by giving the most extreme examples (ie'fisting'...and worse...YUK). However, when one mentions that there are some heterosexuals who also engage in all sorts of activities of which others may not approve - and which do not disqualify them from legibility for marriage - one is attacked for 'hating heterosexuals'. This happened to me earlier in this thread when I dared to menion the huge global sex slave trade as a result of which an estimated 25 million women have been foreced to live as 'sex slaves' - a 'trade' organised largely by SOME heterosexual men for SOME heterosexual men. I pointed this out merely to demonstrate that some heterosexual men do bad things - but to add that we do not condemn ALL heterosexual men for the sins of some heterosexual men. I argued that perhaps homosexuals might be treated on the basis of the same principle. Thank God that most heterosexuals nowadays know homosexuals through family, friends and work, and know that some of the pernicious untruths that some people are posting on this site ('all homosexual activity is directly linked to child abuse' being a particularly disgusting example) are just that. Anyway, I just wanted to add my voice to yours. It's nice to hear a sensible woman's voice on this thread after seeing so many posts from a small number of angry men who are by no means representative, thank God, of heterosexuals or men. Posted by: David at December 7, 2003 04:35 PMThanks David for reinforcing the fact that these men who are so against gay rights are just a small number of people and are by no means representative of the rest of the population. I think when I first entered the site, my emotions were too overwhelmed, and I didn't focus on the real point: homosexuals in marriage. It's just that when I see so many comments by homophobic men, I get angry, upset, and defenseful. I am not a homosexual, and I am not a man, and I take deep and utter offense to what has been said on this site. When I see some of the disgusting, hateful comments on this site, I am ashamed to be a human being. But your last post just reassured me that these are not representative of the human race. And I'm grateful for your reassurance. Posted by: Bobby Smith at December 7, 2003 05:23 PMDavid, Many thanks for your support. I have read some of your previous comments and I agree with your opinions too. I find them objective and non-extreme which is refreshing. It's so nice to be able to discuss things with people in a calm, open-minded way without it being abusive or turning into a hideous farce. Personally, I am open to learning about what makes a person gay based on 'facts' and not assumptions. I would like to have a deeper understanding of it and why it exists. But it doesn't seem possible to be to get a definitive answer. Even the scientists can't agree. So. I aim to just live my life in the best way I can and try not to harm or offend anyone. It saddens me that there is so much hatred in the world. I was brought up to treat all humans and animals, in fact all life with understanding and respect and I try to do just that. To me good values and loving emotions don't have a gender. Love comes in all shape and forms and if it's love rather than exploitation, violence and hate regardless of who's loving who then surely that can only be a good thing? I'm not talking about sexual relations here to those people who now will read this and think ok so paedophiles say they 'love' children is that what I'm condoning?). We all know whether we are gay or straight that it's both immoral and illegal to have sex with a child (not to mention repulsive. When I see TV pictures of some churchmen standing up in church (for example in some Evangelical and traditional churches in America and Africa, in particular) smashing their fists down on the podium and shouting and screaming about evil and sin and everybody should repent or go to hell, etc, that disturbs me. Actions such as these do not in my mind come across as loving and calm and rational but seem to incite hatred, anger and a whole lot of other disturbing feelings which are hardly constructive and 'Christian'. To my knowledge Jesus Christ taught love, compassion and understanding. He did not go round ranting and raving and scaring everyone to death! He was wise and got his message across without inciting hatred! I would rather have two people of the same sex walking down a road together full of love than two drunken violent yobs scaring everyone which it seems is more acceptable in this society of ours. Heterosexuals can show simple affection in public such as holding hands, kiss on the cheek, etc. Homosexuals doing this would be ridiculed and worse. Yet, want I don't understand is that it is the same emotion and sincerity that is in this affection regardless of who it's done with. I don't think anybody would like to see two people almost having sex on the pavement whether they are straight or gay yet it amazes me that people can be so revolted by a demonstration of simple love and affection! As a society I think we still have a lot to learn. There are arrogant people out there who think they and we as a society know all the answers to everything and yet don't realise that the planet is in a constant state of change and growth and we are all having to go a long with it like it or not! An interesting thing happened to me recently which I would like to share with whoever cares to read this: I met a very nice, gentle, wise and compassionate old man. He is actually a true Native American (an 'Indian') and his whole manner was one of love and hope and understanding. I was quite touched by what he said about the history of his race of people. Native Americans are well known for their respect of living things, the planet, their family bonds, their wiseness and deep understanding about everything, etc. I asked him what the Native American view was regarding homosexuality (amongst other questions I had about life). I was half expecting him to say something I may find upsetting and offensive. However, that was not so. He told me that their beliefs were that a homosexual was not made to conform to the rest of the tribe but allowed to be themselves. They see homosexuality as a positive, natural (yet different) part of life. Homosexuals are asked to take the tribes' sacred ceremonies. The reason being that the Native Americans believe that a homosexual has a combination of both masculine and feminine energies (two souls) and they believe that the homosexual can relate to both sexes. To the Native Americans they believe this is a good thing. To some people (probably anti- Native American!) this probably sounds rediculous but as Native Americans have been around a long, long time and are a very spiritual and caring race I thought this was lovely! I found that refreshing! Posted by: Vanessa at December 7, 2003 06:27 PMChuck, you said: "There is big difference between people with health problem that are no fault of there own and say drunk drivers or those that partaken in group anonymous sex as described below." I'm not saying that having unprotected sex with a multitude of partners is a smart thing to do, but, you have to admit, that many many men, maybe even you, would probably go some where they could have free sex with a multitude of women. This is why there is so much gay men sex, like Bobby said. Just because there are gay men out there who actually go out and have unprotected sex with a lot of other men, doesn't mean that we should make gay sex illegal or regulate gay sex. And, this surely does not mean that we should not allow gay people to marry. What does the amount of gay sex have to do with marriage anyway? Secondly, I've seen many people trying to say that being homosexual is a person's choice. They say that there is no evidence that it is not a choice. Well, let me give you some evidence, and all it takes is some common sense: 1. Why would people choose to become homosexual if all they do is get attacked and persecuted by people like you? 2. If homosexuals can choose whether or not they are gay, then that means heterosexuals can also choose. Are you telling me that you chose to be heterosexual, or was it just an innate response inside of you that made you attracted to women? I'm a heterosexual women, and I know that I did not choose this. Ever since I was little I have been attracted to men. I'm sure it is the same case for homosexuals. All it takes is a little common sense to see that homosexuality is not a choice. Posted by: claire at December 7, 2003 10:09 PM___________________________ In the face of alarming increases in HIV and STD* infection rates among Gay, Bisexual, and other men who have sex with men, we--the MSM HIV/STD Prevention Task Force--issue this Manifesto calling for desperately needed community norms and actions. We, the MSM HIV/STD Prevention Task Force are a group of individuals. We include both HIV-positive and HIV-negative persons. We include all genders and sexual orientations. We are people of varied ethnicity and age. Many of us are HIV prevention workers, or Public Health employees. We are researchers, educators, activists and instigators. Knowingly transmitting HIV is avoidable; its transmission is unacceptable.
Up-to-date, relevant information about HIV and STD prevention.
*Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD), including syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and herpes are transmitted from person to person through sexual contact and increase the risk of getting or passing on HIV. All Gay, Bisexual, and other men who have sex with men must care about health--their own, the community's, and each person's-as an act of self-love and an affirmation of self worth by: Joining together to make safer sex-the proper use of condoms and treating each partner with honesty and compassion-our community norm.
We who are HIV negative or don't know our HIV status must believe that HIV infection is not inevitable, must learn what our status is, take responsibility for not acquiring HIV, and get tested regularly. We cannot assume we are HIV negative if, since the last HIV test, we have had unprotected anal sex with a partner whose HIV status is positive or unknown. To all Gay, Bisexual, and other men who have sex with men: If you have multiple sex partners, use a condom for anal sex and get tested regularly for HIV and STDs. Accept that your actions have consequences. Get tested. Future generations of Gay, Bisexual, and other men who have sex with men must not inherit HIV! Stop transmitting STDs and HIV NOW! ___________________________ Will this admonition make any difference? I don't think so. Homosexual posters on this blog have directed an extraordinary outpouring of vituperation and ad hominem attack towards anyone questioning received gay activist dogma. Having internalized a particular set of shared assumptions regarding the “normality” of their behaviour, they display a strong emotional resistance to having it questioned. They are unprepared to accept the massive weight of statistical evidence regarding homosexual promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rampant STD infections amongst queers and psychological adjustment disorders. Anyone seeking to wave away these findings is surely required to come up with an equal or greater weight of countervailing statistical evidence. Our gay friends have conspicuously failed to do this, taking refuge instead in accusations of “bigotry,” “homophobia,” “right-wing Christian fundamentalism,” and insinuations that opponents are unhealthily fixated on gay sexual behaviour because they are themselves closet cases. Isn't it funny, that probably the only monogamous homosexuals in Great Britain, who have never been promiscuous, never sodomised, rimmed or fisted anybody, never had sex with an underage partner, never suffered from a raft of STDs, and who are otherwise well-adjusted, just happen to be posting on this site? Quite coinicidental, I'm sure.
"Gay" monogamous relationships are rarely faithful. "Monogamous" seems to imply some primary emotional commitment, while causal sex continues on the side. Source: Con nell, RW. Crawford, J., Dowsett, GW., Kippax, S., Sinnott, V., Rodden, P., Berg, R., Baxter, D., Waston, L., " Danger and context: unsafe anal sexual practice among homosexual and bisexual men in the AIDS crisis," Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology (1990 ) 26: pp.187-208. The national gay and lesbian publication, The Advocate, reported " of 600 gay and bisexual male Milwaukeeans, 73% said they've had sex in the past six months with someone they never saw again." Source: The Advocate, June 14, 1994, p.16. A story in US gay newspaper, The Advocate reported that although 71% of homosexual men claimed that they prefer long-term "monogamous" relationships, only 33% live with a partner, only 11% have a "primary male partner, only 8% are dating one particular person, with 87% involved in multiple dating. Source: Lever, Janet. " The 1994 Advocate Survey of Sexuality and Relationships: The Men," The Advocate, August 23, 1994. Dr. Martin Dannecker, a homosexual German Sexologist, studied 900 homosexuals in 1991 living in "steady relationships". 83% of males had numerous sexual encounters outside their partnerships over a one-year period. Dr. Dannecker observed "clear differences in the manner of sexual gratification" between single and non-single gay men that were the reverse of what he expected. Of the homosexual men in steady relationships, he wrote, " the average number of homosexual contacts per person was 115 in the past year." In contrast, single gay men had only 45 sexual contacts. Source: Wittmeier, Carmen, " Now they know the other half," Alberta Report, 1999 06 07, p.27. NORMAL SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR? Ingestion of human waste is a major route for contracting hepatitis A and the enteric parasites collectively known as Gay Bowel Syndrome. An according to The New England Journal of Medicine homosexual men consumption of feces has also been implicated in the transmission of typhoid fever. Source: Dritz & Braff, " Sexually transmitted typhoid fever," The New England Journal of Medicine, 1977; vol.296: pp. 1359-1360. Two colleagues of Alfred Kinsey ( the modern day father of 'sexology') reported on their research in the 1940's on the lifetime experiences of male homosexual behaviors for sexual pleasure. The results are as follows: 83% engaged in oral penis sex, 68% in anal intercourse, 59% in rimming (insert the tongue in or around the anus), 10% in urine sex or "golden showers" ( drinking or being splashed with urine), 22% in sadomasochistic sex ( torture or painful sex ), 61% engaged in public or orgy sex, and 31% had sexual relationship with minors. Source: Gebhard & Johnson, The Kinsey Data, New York: Saunders, 1979. In the largest survey of lifetime experiences of "gay" men ever conducted, 99% engaged in oral penis sex. 91% had anal intercourse. 83% engaged in "rimming". 22% enjoyed "fisting". 23% admitted to "golden showers". Overall 76% admitted to public or group sex with 41% saying they had sex in public restrooms, 60% reported sex in gay bath houses. There were positive testimonials with no apparent shame from those having sex with (animals) Labrador retrievers, cows and horses: " My first sexual experience...was...with a cow - not bad but boys are better." Most homosexuals have had some experience with oral-anal sex, sadomasochism, group orgies, bondage, or transvestism. 22% to 37% of homosexual men indulge in painful or violent sex and 4% would eat the feces of the sexual partner for gratification. 23% had sex with boys. Contemporary gay writers have even suggested that there is something revolutionary about both promiscuity and public sex. 40% of homosexual men reported a past history of Gonorrhea and 69% of gay men report a history of Pubic Lice or "Crabs". Scabies is reported by 22% of homosexual men. Scabies are mites that cause itching lesions, nodules and encrustations on parts of the body where skin meets skin. Also 40% of male homosexuals and 39% of female homosexuals had either seriously contemplated or attempted suicide ( p.728 ). Source: Jay, K., and Young, A., The Gay Report, ( NY: Summit ), 1979. Homosexuals men have oral sex in almost all of their sexual contacts and ingest semen from about half of these. Also in this study of the average 110 sexual encounters, 68 were rectal per year. 70% of the gay men engaged in fecal activity as a result the annual rate of Hepatitis A in homosexual men was 22% whereas no heterosexual men acquired the virus. Source: Corey, L. and Holmes, K.K. "Sexual transmission of Hepatitis A in homosexual men," New England Journal of Medicine 1980: Vol. 302, pp. 435-38. 90% of homosexually active men demonstrate chronic or recurrent viral infections with herpes virus, CMV, and Hepatitis B. Homosexuals also have a group of rare bowel disease, usually thought to be limited to the topics. These are generally lumped together under the designation " gay bowel syndrome." Because many male homosexuals ingest fecal matter, it is estimated that up to 50% have contracted parasitic amebiasis, a disease of the colon caused by parasites. One public official found 40% of homosexual men attending sexually transmitted disease clinics had the problem. Source: David Ostrow et al., eds., Sexually Transmitted Disease in Homosexual Men ( New York: Plenum Medical Book Co., 1982 ), p. 204. Some studies show between 50 to 75% of homosexual men have or have had Hepatitis B. Source: J. Kassler, Gay Men's Health ( New York: Harper and Row, 1983 ), p. 38. In 1983 The New England Journal of Medicine reported, " at least 80% of homosexual men presenting to our sexually transmitted disease clinic with anorectial or intestinal symptoms were infected with one or more sexually transmissible anorectial or Enteric pathogens. Such infections were also found in 39% of homosexual men presenting to the clinic without intestinal symptoms." Over the last month the researchers recorded that 90% of gay men had engaged in oral penis sex and 69% had anal intercourse. Source: Quinn TC, Stamm We, Goodell SE, Mkrtichian E, Benedetti J, Corey L, Shuffler Md, Homes KK, " The Polymicro Origin of Intestinal Infections in Homosexual Men," The New England Journal of Medicine, 1983; Vol. 309, pp. 576-82. A U.S. study in 1983 found the proportion of homosexual men with intestinal parasites was 25%. Their sexual behavior over the past year was noted as follows: 99% practiced oral penis sex, 95% engaged in anal intercourse, 63% had done "rimming" and 34% practiced "fisting". Source: Jaffee, H., et al " National case-control study of Kaposi's sarcoma, " Annals of Internal Medicine, 1983; Vol. 99, pp. 145-51. In another study from Canada, a survey was done of lifetime sexual behaviors of homosexual men and any changes due to the AIDS crisis. Here are the results of that study: 99% engaged in oral penis sex, 98% had anal intercourse, 92% enjoyed "rimming" and 47% had done "fisting". Source: Schechter et al, "changes in sexual behavior and fears of AIDS," Lancet, 1984; vol.1: p. 1293.
The article below is an eloquent demolition of the arguments for gay marriage, parenting and adoption rights. You fudge-packers and rug-munchers are going to need to come up with slightly better arguments than personal abuse and claims of “dubious statistics if you want to be credible to anyone but yourselves. “Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk” - Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D. A number of studies in recent years have purported to show that children raised in gay and lesbian households fare no worse than those reared in traditional families. Yet much of that research fails to meet acceptable standards for psychological research; it is compromised by methodological flaws and driven by political agendas instead of an objective search for truth. In addition, openly lesbian researchers sometimes conduct research with an interest in portraying homosexual parenting in a positive light. The deficiencies of studies on homosexual parenting include reliance upon an inadequate sample size, lack of random sampling, lack of anonymity of research participants, and self-presentation bias. The presence of methodological defects--a mark of substandard research--would be cause for rejection of research conducted in virtually any other subject area. The overlooking of such deficiencies in research papers on homosexual failures can be attributed to the "politically correct" determination within those in the social science professions to "prove" that homosexual households are no different than traditional families. However, no amount of scholarly legerdemain contained in an accumulation of flawed studies can obscure the well-established and growing body of evidence showing that both mothers and fathers provide unique and irreplaceable contributions to the raising of children. Children raised in traditional families by a mother and father are happier, healthier, and more successful than children raised in non-traditional environments. David Cramer, whose review of twenty studies on homosexual parenting appeared in the Journal of Counseling and Development, found the following: The generalizability of the studies is limited. Few studies employed control groups and most had small samples. Almost all parents were Anglo-American, middle class, and well educated. Measures for assessing gender roles in young children tend to focus on social behavior and generally are not accurate psychological instruments. Therefore it is impossible to make large scale generalizations . . . that would be applicable to all children.[1] Since these words were penned in 1986, the number of studies on the subject of homosexual parenting has steadily grown. The fact that these studies continue to be flawed by the methodological errors warned about by Cramer has not inhibited the proponents of homosexual parenting from their sanguine assessment of the outcomes of children raised in homosexual households. Silverstein and Auerbach, for example, see no essential difference between traditional mother-father families and homosexual-led families: "Other aspects of personal development and social relationships were also found to be within the normal range for children raised in lesbian and gay families." They suggest that "gay and lesbian parents can create a positive family context."[2] This conclusion is echoed in the official statement on homosexual parenting by the American Psychological Association's Public Interest Directorate, authored by openly lesbian activist Charlotte J. Patterson of the University of Virginia: In summary, there is no evidence that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect. . . . Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.[3] PROBLEMS WITH HOMOSEXUAL PARENTING RESEARCH In addition, Patterson acknowledges that "research in this area has presented a variety of methodological challenges," and that "questions have been raised with regard to sampling issues, statistical power, and other technical matters (e.g., Belcastro, Gramlich, Nicholson, Price, and Wilson, 1993)." She adds, revealingly: Research in this area has also been criticized for using poorly matched or no control groups in designs that call for such controls. . . . Other criticisms have been that most studies have involved relatively small samples [and] that there have been inadequacies in assessment procedures employed in some studies.[5] Though she admits to serious methodological and design errors that would call into question the findings of any study, Patterson makes the astonishing claim that "even with all the questions and/or limitations that may characterize research in the area, none of the published research suggests conclusions different from those that will be summarized below." But any such conclusions are only as reliable as the evidence upon which they are based. If the alleged evidence is flawed, then the conclusions must likewise be considered suspect. One suspects that the lack of studies with proper design and controls is due to the political agendas driving the acceptance of homosexual parenting, which favor inadequate and superficial research yielding the desired results. In a study published in the Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, P. Belcastro et al. reviewed fourteen studies on homosexual parenting according to accepted scientific standards. Their "most impressive finding" was that "all of the studies lacked external validity. The conclusion that there are no significant differences in children raised by lesbian mothers versus heterosexual mothers is not supported by the published research data base."[6] Similarly, in their study of lesbian couples in Family Relations, L. Keopke et al. remark, "Conducting research in the gay community is fraught with methodological problems."[7] A careful reading of studies used to lend support to homosexual parenting reveals more modest claims than are often attributed to them, as well as significant methodological limitations: Nearly all of the existing studies of homosexual parenting have major deficiencies in sampling: They use a small sample size; they fail to obtain a truly representative sample due to sources of sampling bias; they do not use a random sample; or they use a sample with characteristics that are inappropriate for the crucial development research question involved in the study.[8] Inadequate Sample Size. • After finding no significant difference between a group of nine children raised by lesbians and a similar group of children raised by heterosexual parents, S. L. Huggins admitted, "The meaning and implications of this finding are unclear, and the small sample size makes any interpretation of these data difficult."[9] • A report by J. M. Bailey et al. in Developmental Psychology, commenting on studies of the children of gay and lesbian parents, notes that "available studies [are] insufficiently large to generate much statistical power."[10] • S. Golombok and F. Tasker admit in their follow-up study of children reared by lesbians, "It is possible that the small sample size resulted in an underestimate of the significance of group difference as a result of low statistical power (Type II error)."[11] Elsewhere they caution that negative effects of children reared by lesbians "could have remained undetected because of the relatively small sample size. Therefore, although discernible trends were identified, caution is required in interpreting these results."[12] • In his study published in Child Psychiatry and Human Development comparing the children of homosexual and heterosexual mothers, G. A. Javaid frankly admits that "the numbers are too small in this study to draw any conclusions."[13] • J. J. Bigner and R. B. Jacobson state in the Journal of Homosexuality: Those who do study gay fathers may be frustrated by the difficulties of obtaining valid and adequate sample sizes. Most often, researchers must deal with many methodological problems in locating and testing gay fathers in numbers sufficiently large to make acceptable statistical analyses of data. For this reason, what is known currently about gay fathers is weakened by these methodological problems. It is practically impossible to obtain a representative sample of gay fathers, and those studies published to date frequently utilize groups of white, urban, well-educated males for study because of convenience sampling.[14] • In her study of lesbian families, Patterson admits to sampling bias: Some concerns relevant to sampling issues should also be acknowledged. Most of the families who took part in the Bay Area Families Study were headed by lesbian mothers who were White, well educated, relatively affluent, and living in the greater San Francisco Bay Area. For these reasons, no claims about representativeness of the present sample can be made.[15] • Similarly, N. L. Wyers, in his study of male and female homosexual parents that appeared in Social Work, acknowledges that his study "cannot be considered representative" and that "therefore, the findings cannot be generalized beyond the sample itself."[16] • By contrast, R. Green et al. writing in Archives of Sexual Behavior, found that the few experimental studies that included even modestly larger samples (13-30) of boys or girls reared by homosexual parents: [Found] developmentally important statistically significant differences between children reared by homosexual parents compared to heterosexual parents. For example, children raised by homosexuals were found to have greater parental encouragement for cross-gender behavior [and] greater amounts of cross-dressing and cross-gender play/role behavior.[17] Lack of Random Sampling. • L. Lott-Whitehead and C. T. Tully admit the inherent weaknesses in their study of lesbian mothers: This study was descriptive and, therefore, had inherent in its design methodological flaws consistent with other similar studies. Perhaps the most serious concerns representativeness. . . . Probability random sampling . . . was impossible. This study does not purport to contain a representative sample, and thus generalizability cannot be assumed.[18] • N. L. Wyers acknowledges that he did not use random sampling procedures in his study of lesbian and gay spouses, rendering his study "vulnerable to all the problems associated with self-selected research participants."[19] • Golombok et al. write of their study: A further objection to the findings lies in the nature of the samples studied. Both groups were volunteers obtained through gay and single-parent magazines and associations. Obviously these do not constitute random samples, and it is not possible to know what biases are involved in the method of sample selection.[20] Lack of Anonymity of Research Participants. • M. B. Harris and P. H. Turner point out in the Journal of Homosexuality: Most gay/lesbian parents who participate in such research are concerned about their parenting and their children, and most have established a public gay identity. 'Closet' gay parents are difficult to identify, and their problems may be quite different from those of more openly gay parents.[21] • Harris and Turner employed superior research techniques to ensure the complete anonymity of their research subjects. As a result, in contrast to other studies, they reported problems associated with being a homosexual parent that had gone unreported by earlier studies: "Perhaps the anonymity of the present sampling procedure made subjects more willing to acknowledge those problems than those in earlier studies."[22] Self-presentation Bias. • In their National Lesbian Family Study, N. Gartrell et al. found that eighteen of nineteen studies of homosexual parents used a research procedure that was contaminated by self-presentation bias. Gartrell mentions the methodological problems of one longitudinal study of lesbian families: Some may have volunteered for this project because they were motivated to demonstrate that lesbians were capable of producing healthy, happy children. To the extent that these subjects might wish to present themselves and their families in the best possible light, the study findings may be shaped by self-justification and self-presentation bias.[23] • Harris and Turner admit, with regard to their study: There is no way of knowing how representative the sample is. . . . The high proportion of gay subjects who indicated a willingness to be interviewed suggests that they were perhaps unusually interested in the issues raised in the questionnaire and thus willing to divulge their homosexuality to the researchers. Moreover, even though the questionnaire was anonymous, the gay parents may have been particularly biased toward emphasizing the positive aspects of their relationships with their children, feeling that the results might have implications for custody decisions in the future. Thus, all generaliza-tions must be viewed with caution. . . . Because all uncorroborated self-report data are subject to biases, and because parents may deliberately or unconsciously minimize the extent of conflicts with their children, these findings cannot be accepted at face value.[24] Evidence from Marmoset Monkeys? The twenty-six species of marmosets live in family groups of up to thirty monkeys. Only the dominant female of the group gives birth, usually to twins. What Silverstein and Auerbach find so impressive about these tiny primates is that, after birth, the males as well as females of the group help carry the baby marmosets, passing them back to the mother for nursing. It is difficult to grasp the significance Silverstein and Auerbach attach to what they readily admit is an "extreme example" of the supposed "limited parenting involvement by mothers."[26] The authors contend, "Male marmosets behave like full-time mothers." It seems there are specific chores that the male marmosets cannot perform. As the authors themselves admit, marmoset mothers perform the essential function of nursing their young, without which the baby marmosets--who must depend upon their mother's milk for the first three months of life--could not survive. In turn, the males of the group fill the vital role of watching the baby marmosets, protecting them from predators, while the nursing mother forages to replenish herself. In short, one could just as well argue, contrary to Silverstein and Auerbach, that the behavior of marmoset monkeys demonstrates that both male and female fulfill separate and important functions in the raising of young. Psychologist David Blankenhorn, head of the Institute for American Values and author of Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem, criticized such attempts to rely upon behavioral studies of non-human primates to draw conclusions about the character of human families: "I always appreciate critical articles, because they can focus your argument and point out weaknesses. But [Silverstein and Auerbach's] article was unusually silly. Not one thing they said was what I would call a serious insight."[27] In their thorough review of homosexual parenting studies, Robert Lerner and Althea K. Nagai found little evidence to support the oft-repeated mantra that homosexual households are "just like" traditional families: "We conclude that the methods used in these studies are so flawed that these studies prove nothing. Therefore, they should not be used in legal cases to make any argument about 'homosexual vs. heterosexual' parenting. Their claims have no basis."[28] HARMFUL ASPECTS OF THE HOMOSEXUAL LIFESTYLE Homosexual Promiscuity. • A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with five hundred or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.[29] • In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners.[30] • A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than 100 sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than 1,000 sexual partners.[31] • In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."[32] Promiscuity among Homosexual Couples. • In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison report that in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years: Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.[33] Most understood sexual relations outside the relationship to be the norm, and viewed adopting monogamous standards as an act of oppression. • In Male and Female Homosexuality, M. Saghir and E. Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[34] • In their Journal of Sex Research study of the sexual practices of older homosexual men, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that only 2.7 percent of older homosexuals had only one sexual partner in their lifetime.[35] Comparison of Homosexual 'Couples' and Heterosexual Spouses. • In Sex in America, called by the New York Times "the most important study of American sexual behavior since the Kinsey reports," Robert T. Michael et al. report that 90 percent of wives and 75 percent of husbands claim never to have had extramarital sex.[36] • A nationally representative survey of 884 men and 1,288 women published in Journal of Sex Research found that 77 percent of married men and 88 percent of married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows.[37] • In The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States, E. O. Laumann et al. conducted a national survey that found that 75 percent of husbands and 85 percent of wives never had sexual relations outside of marriage.[38] • A telephone survey conducted for Parade magazine of 1,049 adults selected to represent the demographic characteristics of the United States found that 81 percent of married men and 85 percent of married women reported that they had never violated their marriage vows.[39] While the rate of fidelity within marriage cited by these studies remains far from ideal, there is a magnum order of difference between the negligible lifetime fidelity rate cited for homosexuals and the 75 to 90 percent cited for married couples. This indicates that even "committed" homosexual relationships display a fundamental incapacity for the faithfulness and commitment that is axiomatic to the institution of marriage. Unhealthy Aspects of 'Monogamous' Homosexual Relationships. • The journal AIDS reported that men involved in relationships engaged in anal intercourse and oral-anal intercourse with greater frequency than did those without a steady partner.[40] Anal intercourse has been linked with a host of bacterial and parasitical sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS. • The exclusivity of the relationship did not diminish the incidence of unhealthy sexual acts, which are commonplace among homosexuals. An English study published in the same issue of AIDS concurred, finding that most "unsafe" sex acts among homosexuals occur in steady relationships.[41] Of paramount concern are the effects of such a lifestyle upon children. Brad Hayton writes: Homosexuals . . . model a poor view of marriage to children. They are taught by example and belief that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature. Sexual relationships are primarily for pleasure rather than procreation. And they are taught that monogamy in a marriage is not the norm [and] should be discouraged if one wants a good 'marital' relationship.[42] Violence in Lesbian and Homosexual Relationships • In a survey of 1,099 lesbians, the Journal of Social Service Research found that "slightly more than half of the [lesbians] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner. The most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse."[44] • In their book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence,D. Island and P. Letellier postulate that "the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population."[45] Rate of Intimate Partner Violence within Marriage. A little-reported fact is that homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households: • The Bureau of Justice Statistics (U.S. Department of Justice) reports that married women in traditional families experience the lowest rate of violence compared with women in other types of relationships.[46] • A report by the Medical Institute for Sexual Health concurred: It should be noted that most studies of family violence do not differentiate between married and unmarried partner status. Studies that do make these distinctions have found that marriage relationships tend to have the least intimate partner violence when compared to cohabiting or dating relationships.[47] High Incidence of Mental Health Problems among Homosexuals and Lesbians. Among the sample as a whole, there was a distressingly high prevalence of life events and behaviors related to mental health problems. Thirty-seven percent had been physically abused and 32 percent had been raped or sexually attacked. Nineteen percent had been involved in incestuous relationships while growing up. Almost one-third used tobacco on a daily basis and about 30 percent drank alcohol more than once a week; 6 percent drank daily. One in five smoked marijuana more than once a month. Twenty-one percent of the sample had thoughts about suicide sometimes or often and 18 percent had actually tried to kill themselves. . . . More than half had felt too nervous to accomplish ordinary activities at some time during the past year and over one-third had been depressed.[48] Substance Abuse among Lesbians. Like most problem drinkers, 32 (91 percent) of the participants had abused other drugs as well as alcohol, and many reported compulsive difficulties with food (34 percent), codependency (29 percent), sex (11 percent), and money (6 percent). Forty-six percent had been heavy drinkers with frequent drunkenness.[49] Greater Risk for Suicide • Another study published simultaneously in Archives of General Psychiatry followed 1007 individuals from birth. Those classified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual were significantly more likely to have had mental health problems. Significantly, in his comments in the same issue of the journal, D. Bailey cautioned against various speculative explanations of the results, such as the view that "widespread prejudice against homosexual people causes them to be unhappy or worse, mentally ill."[51] Reduced Life Span. In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age twenty for gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.[52] Concern about children placed in homosexual households who are orphaned because of the destructive homosexual lifestyle is well founded. In 1990, Wayne Tardiff and his partner, Allan Yoder, were the first homosexuals permitted to become adoptive parents in the state of New Jersey. Tardiff died in 1992 at age forty-four; Yoder died a few months later, leaving an orphaned five-year-old.[53] Sexual Identity Confusion. • Studies indicate that 0.3 percent of adult females report having practiced homosexual behavior in the past year, 0.4 percent have practiced homosexual behavior in the last five years, and 3 percent have ever practiced homosexual behavior in their lifetime.[54] A study in Developmental Psychology found that 12 percent of the children of lesbians became active lesbians themselves, a rate which is at least four times the base rate of lesbianism in the adult female population.[55] • Numerous studies indicate that while nearly 5 percent of males report having had a homosexual experience sometime in their lives, the number of exclusive homosexuals is considerably less: Between 1 and 2 percent of males report exclusive homosexual behavior over a several-year period.[56] However, J. M. Bailey et al. found that 9 percent of the adult sons of homosexual fathers were homosexual in their adult sexual behavior: "The rate of homosexuality in the sons (9 percent) is several times higher than that suggested by the population-based surveys and is consistent with a degree of father-to-son transmission."[57] • Even though they attempted to argue otherwise, Golombok and Tasker's study revealed in its results section a clear connection between being raised in a lesbian family and homosexuality: "With respect to actual involvement in same-gender sexual relationships, there was a significant difference between groups. . . . None of the children from heterosexual families had experienced a lesbian or gay relationship." By contrast, five (29 percent) of the seventeen daughters and one (13 percent) of the eight sons in homosexual families reported having at least one same-sex relationship.[58] • These findings have most recently been confirmed in a study appearing in the American Sociological Review. Authors Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz alluded to the "political incorrectness" of their finding of higher rates of homosexuality among children raised in homosexual households: "We recognize the political dangers of pointing out that recent studies indicate that a higher proportion of children of lesbigay parents are themselves apt to engage in homosexual activity." • Stacy and Biblarz also reported "some fascinating findings on the number of sexual partners children report," that: The adolescent and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to have been more sexually adventurous and less chaste. . . . In other words, once again, children (especially girls) raised by lesbians appear to depart from traditional gender-based norms, while children raised by heterosexual mothers appear to conform to them.[59] Incest in Homosexual Parent Families. A study in Adolescence found: A disproportionate percentage--29 percent--of the adult children of homosexual parents had been specifically subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents having reported sexual relations with their parent. . . . Having a homosexual parent(s) appears to increase the risk of incest with a parent by a factor of about 50.[60] A POLITICAL AGENDA: REDEFINING MARRIAGE • Paula Ettelbrick, former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, has stated, "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . . . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society."[61] • According to homosexual writer and activist Michelangelo Signorile, the goal of homosexuals is: To fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. . . . The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake . . . is to transform the notion of "family" entirely.[62] • Signorile goes so far as to redefine the term monogamy: For these men the term "monogamy" simply doesn't necessarily mean sexual exclusivity. . . . The term "open relationship" has for a great many gay men come to have one specific definition: A relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often, put away their resentment and jealousy, and discuss their outside sex with each other, or share sex partners.[63] • The views of Signorile and Ettelbrick regarding marriage are widespread in the homosexual community. According to the Mendola Report, a mere 26 percent of homosexuals believe that commitment is most important in a marriage relationship.[64] Former homosexual William Aaron explains why even homosexuals involved in "committed" relationships do not practice monogamy: In the gay life, fidelity is almost impossible. Since part of the compulsion of homosexuality seems to be a need on the part of the homophile to "absorb" masculinity from his sexual partners, he must be constantly on the lookout for [new partners]. Consequently the most successful homophile "marriages" are those where there is an arrangement between the two to have affairs on the side while maintaining the semblance of permanence in their living arrangement.[65] Even those who support the concept of homosexual "families" admit to their unsuitability for children: • In their study in Family Relations, L. Koepke et al. observed, "Even individuals who believe that same-sex relationships are a legitimate choice for adults may feel that children will suffer from being reared in such families."[66] • Writing in the Journal of Homosexuality, J. J. Bigner and R. B. Jacobson describe the homosexual father as "socioculturally unique," trying to take on "two apparently opposing roles:that of a father (with all its usual connotations) and that of a homosexual man." They describe the homosexual father as "both structurally and psychologically at social odds with his interest in keeping one foot in both worlds: parenting and homosexuality."[67] In truth, the two roles are fundamentally incompatible. The instability, susceptibility to disease, and domestic violence that is disproportionate in homosexual and lesbian relationships would normally render such households unfit to be granted custody of children. However, in the current social imperative to rush headlong into granting legitimacy to the practice of homosexuality in every conceivable area of life, such considerations are often ignored. But children are not guinea pigs to be used in social experiments in redefining the institution of marriage. They are vulnerable individuals with vital emotional and developmental needs. The great harm done by denying them both a mother and a father in a committed marriage will not easily be reversed, and society will pay a grievous price for its ill-advised adventurism. CHILDREN NEED A MOM AND A DAD Homosexual or lesbian households are no substitute for a family: Children also need both a mother and a father. Blankenhorn discusses the different but necessary roles that mothers and fathers play in children's lives: "If mothers are likely to devote special attention to their children's present physical and emotional needs, fathers are likely to devote special attention to their character traits necessary for the future, especially qualities such as independence, self-reliance, and the willingness to test limits and take risks." Blankenhorn further explains: Compared to a mother's love, a father's love is frequently more expectant, more instrumental, and significantly less conditional. . . . For the child, from the beginning, the mother's love is an unquestioned source of comfort and the foundation of human attachment. But the father's love is almost a bit farther away, more distant and contingent. Compared to the mother's love, the father's must frequently be sought after, deserved, earned through achievement.[69] Author and sociologist David Popenoe confirms that mothers and fathers fulfill different roles in their children's lives. In Life without Father Popenoe notes, "Through their play, as well as in their other child-rearing activities, fathers tend to stress competition, challenge, initiative, risk taking and independence. Mothers in their care-taking roles, in contrast, stress emotional security and personal safety." Parents also discipline their children differently: "While mothers provide an important flexibility and sympathy in their discipline, fathers provide ultimate predictability and consistency. Both dimensions are critical for an efficient, balanced, and humane child-rearing regime."[70] The complementary aspects of parenting that mothers and fathers contribute to the rearing of children are rooted in the innate differences of the two sexes, and can no more be arbitrarily substituted than can the very nature of male and female. Accusations of sexism and homophobia notwithstanding, along with attempts to deny the importance of both mothers and fathers in the rearing of children, the oldest family structure of all turns out to be the best. In his analysis of human cultures, the eminent Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin argued that no society has ceased to honor the institution of marriage and survived. Sorokin considered traditional marriage and parenting as the fulfillment of life's meaning for both individuals and society: Enjoying the marital union in its infinite richness, parents freely fulfill many other paramount tasks. They maintain the procreation of the human race. Through their progeny they determine the hereditary and acquired characteristics of future generations. Through marriage they achieve a social immortality of their own, of their ancestors, and of their particular groups and community. This immortality is secured through the transmission of their name and values, and of their traditions and ways of life to their children, grandchildren, and later generations.[71] In the 1981 Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, Pope John Paul II summarized the importance of marriage-based families: The family has vital and organic links with society since it is its foundation and nourishes it continually through its role of service to life: It is from the family that citizens come to birth and it is within the family that they find the first school of the social virtues that are the animating principle of the existence and development of society itself.[72] None of this is possible in homosexual or lesbian households, which are by definition incapable of creating progeny and contributing to the "procreation of the human race." Any children found in such households are of necessity obtained either from married couples or otherwise through the sexual union of male and female, artificially or otherwise. Thus such households are ironically dependent upon the very womb of society--the union of male and female--that they wish so fervently to deny. In It Takes a Village, Hillary Rodham Clinton refers, probably inadvertently, to indelible "laws of nature" when she observes that "every society requires a critical mass of families that fit the traditional ideal." Similarly, an organism needs a critical mass of healthy cells to survive, and--as every oncologist knows--the fewer abnormal cells the better. In a democratic society, those who choose to cohabit in "alternative" familial arrangements such as same-sex unions have the freedom to do so. But toleration is one thing; promotion and "celebration" are another. To entrust children to such arrangements is wholly beyond the pale. As history shows, a society that champions such unions at the expense of traditional families does so at its own peril. But with the formidable forces of nature, culture, and history arrayed against them, such efforts to remake the most fundamental institution of society are not likely, in the end, to prevail. _ Dr. Dailey is senior fellow in culture studies at the Family Research Council. He earned his Ph.D. at Marquette University. END NOTES Homosexual posters on this blog have directed an extraordinary outpouring of vituperation and ad hominem attack towards anyone questioning received gay activist dogma. Having internalized a particular set of shared assumptions regarding the “normality” of their behaviour, they display a strong emotional resistance to having it questioned. They are unprepared to accept the massive weight of statistical evidence regarding homosexual promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rampant STD infections amongst queers and psychological adjustment disorders. Anyone seeking to wave away these findings is surely required to come up with an equal or greater weight of countervailing statistical evidence. Our gay friends have conspicuously failed to do this, taking refuge instead in accusations of “bigotry,” “homophobia,” “right-wing Christian fundamentalism,” and insinuations that opponents are unhealthily fixated on gay sexual behaviour because they are themselves closet cases. Isn't it funny, that probably the only monogamous homosexuals in Great Britain, who have never been promiscuous, never sodomised, rimmed or fisted anybody or had these things done to them, never had sex with an underage partner, never suffered from a raft of STDs, and who are otherwise well-adjusted, just happen to be posting on this site? Quite coincidental, I'm sure. Some statistics below. Put up or shut up. GAY PROMISCUITY "Gay" monogamous relationships are rarely faithful. "Monogamous" seems to imply some primary emotional commitment, while causal sex continues on the side. Source: Con nell, RW. Crawford, J., Dowsett, GW., Kippax, S., Sinnott, V., Rodden, P., Berg, R., Baxter, D., Waston, L., " Danger and context: unsafe anal sexual practice among homosexual and bisexual men in the AIDS crisis," Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology (1990 ) 26: pp.187-208. The national gay and lesbian publication, The Advocate, reported " of 600 gay and bisexual male Milwaukeeans, 73% said they've had sex in the past six months with someone they never saw again." Source: The Advocate, June 14, 1994, p.16. A story in US gay newspaper, The Advocate reported that although 71% of homosexual men claimed that they prefer long-term "monogamous" relationships, only 33% live with a partner, only 11% have a "primary male partner, only 8% are dating one particular person, with 87% involved in multiple dating. Source: Lever, Janet. " The 1994 Advocate Survey of Sexuality and Relationships: The Men," The Advocate, August 23, 1994. Dr. Martin Dannecker, a homosexual German Sexologist, studied 900 homosexuals in 1991 living in "steady relationships". 83% of males had numerous sexual encounters outside their partnerships over a one-year period. Dr. Dannecker observed "clear differences in the manner of sexual gratification" between single and non-single gay men that were the reverse of what he expected. Of the homosexual men in steady relationships, he wrote, " the average number of homosexual contacts per person was 115 in the past year." In contrast, single gay men had only 45 sexual contacts. Source: Wittmeier, Carmen, " Now they know the other half," Alberta Report, 1999 06 07, p.27. NORMAL, NATURAL SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR? Ingestion of human waste is a major route for contracting hepatitis A and the enteric parasites collectively known as Gay Bowel Syndrome. An according to The New England Journal of Medicine homosexual men consumption of feces has also been implicated in the transmission of typhoid fever. Source: Dritz & Braff, " Sexually transmitted typhoid fever," The New England Journal of Medicine, 1977; vol.296: pp. 1359-1360. Two colleagues of Alfred Kinsey ( the modern day father of 'sexology') reported on their research in the 1940's on the lifetime experiences of male homosexual behaviors for sexual pleasure. The results are as follows: 83% engaged in oral penis sex, 68% in anal intercourse, 59% in rimming (insert the tongue in or around the anus), 10% in urine sex or "golden showers" ( drinking or being splashed with urine), 22% in sadomasochistic sex ( torture or painful sex ), 61% engaged in public or orgy sex, and 31% had sexual relationship with minors. Source: Gebhard & Johnson, The Kinsey Data, New York: Saunders, 1979. In the largest survey of lifetime experiences of "gay" men ever conducted, 99% engaged in oral penis sex. 91% had anal intercourse. 83% engaged in "rimming". 22% enjoyed "fisting". 23% admitted to "golden showers". Overall 76% admitted to public or group sex with 41% saying they had sex in public restrooms, 60% reported sex in gay bath houses. There were positive testimonials with no apparent shame from those having sex with (animals) Labrador retrievers, cows and horses: " My first sexual experience...was...with a cow - not bad but boys are better." Most homosexuals have had some experience with oral-anal sex, sadomasochism, group orgies, bondage, or transvestism. 22% to 37% of homosexual men indulge in painful or violent sex and 4% would eat the feces of the sexual partner for gratification. 23% had sex with boys. Contemporary gay writers have even suggested that there is something revolutionary about both promiscuity and public sex. 40% of homosexual men reported a past history of Gonorrhea and 69% of gay men report a history of Pubic Lice or "Crabs". Scabies is reported by 22% of homosexual men. Scabies are mites that cause itching lesions, nodules and encrustations on parts of the body where skin meets skin. Also 40% of male homosexuals and 39% of female homosexuals had either seriously contemplated or attempted suicide ( p.728 ). Source: Jay, K., and Young, A., The Gay Report, ( NY: Summit ), 1979. Homosexuals men have oral sex in almost all of their sexual contacts and ingest semen from about half of these. Also in this study of the average 110 sexual encounters, 68 were rectal per year. 70% of the gay men engaged in fecal activity as a result the annual rate of Hepatitis A in homosexual men was 22% whereas no heterosexual men acquired the virus. Source: Corey, L. and Holmes, K.K. "Sexual transmission of Hepatitis A in homosexual men," New England Journal of Medicine 1980: Vol. 302, pp. 435-38. 90% of homosexually active men demonstrate chronic or recurrent viral infections with herpes virus, CMV, and Hepatitis B. Homosexuals also have a group of rare bowel disease, usually thought to be limited to the topics. These are generally lumped together under the designation " gay bowel syndrome." Because many male homosexuals ingest fecal matter, it is estimated that up to 50% have contracted parasitic amebiasis, a disease of the colon caused by parasites. One public official found 40% of homosexual men attending sexually transmitted disease clinics had the problem. Source: David Ostrow et al., eds., Sexually Transmitted Disease in Homosexual Men ( New York: Plenum Medical Book Co., 1982 ), p. 204. Some studies show between 50 to 75% of homosexual men have or have had Hepatitis B. Source: J. Kassler, Gay Men's Health ( New York: Harper and Row, 1983 ), p. 38. In 1983 The New England Journal of Medicine reported, " at least 80% of homosexual men presenting to our sexually transmitted disease clinic with anorectial or intestinal symptoms were infected with one or more sexually transmissible anorectial or Enteric pathogens. Such infections were also found in 39% of homosexual men presenting to the clinic without intestinal symptoms." Over the last month the researchers recorded that 90% of gay men had engaged in oral penis sex and 69% had anal intercourse. Source: Quinn TC, Stamm We, Goodell SE, Mkrtichian E, Benedetti J, Corey L, Shuffler Md, Homes KK, " The Polymicro Origin of Intestinal Infections in Homosexual Men," The New England Journal of Medicine, 1983; Vol. 309, pp. 576-82. A U.S. study in 1983 found the proportion of homosexual men with intestinal parasites was 25%. Their sexual behavior over the past year was noted as follows: 99% practiced oral penis sex, 95% engaged in anal intercourse, 63% had done "rimming" and 34% practiced "fisting". Source: Jaffee, H., et al " National case-control study of Kaposi's sarcoma, " Annals of Internal Medicine, 1983; Vol. 99, pp. 145-51. In another study from Canada, a survey was done of lifetime sexual behaviors of homosexual men and any changes due to the AIDS crisis. Here are the results of that study: 99% engaged in oral penis sex, 98% had anal intercourse, 92% enjoyed "rimming" and 47% had done "fisting". Source: Schechter et al, "changes in sexual behavior and fears of AIDS," Lancet, 1984; vol.1: p. 1293. Hepatitis A (HAV) is present in approximately 40% of homosexual men, of which 5-7% will acquire the disease annually - at least 3 times the rate of the general population. At least 65% of homosexual men carry the disease Hepatitis B (HBV) or have a history of it, and at least 16% contract HBV annually. Source: E. B. Keeffe, " Clinical Approach to Viral Hepatitis in Homosexual Men," The Medical Clinics of North America 70, No.3 ( 1986 ); pp. 567-582. In 1987 another study dealing with anal cancer in homosexual men, " Our study lends strong support to the hypothesis that homosexual behavior in men increases the risk of anal cancer: 21 of the 57 men with anal center (37%) reported that they were homosexual or bisexual, in contrast to only 1 of 64 controls." Source: Daling JR, Weiss NS, Hislop G, Maden C, Coates RJ, Sherman KJ, Ashley RL, Beagrie M, Ryan JA, Corey L, " Sexual Practices, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and the Incidence of Anal Cancer," New England Journal of Medicine, 1987; Vol.317 no.16, pp. 937-973. Another study found that amoebiasis, a parasitic disease, afflicts around 32% of homosexual men. Giardiasis, also a parasitic disease, afflicts 14% of homosexuals ( no heterosexuals in the study were found to have either parasites ). Gonorrhea afflicts 14% of homosexuals and 11% of homosexuals had anal warts. Source: L. Christopherson, T. Menne, A. Friis-Miller, J. Nielsen, B Hansted and J. Ohlenschloeger, " Sexually transmitted diseases in heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual males in Copenhagan," Danish Medical Bulletin (DYN), 1988, June; Vol. 35(3), pp. 285-288. One of the most common diseases is amebiasis, which causes inflammation of the rectum and colon, resulting in severe diarrhea and cramps. It affects 25-40% of homosexual men. Amebasis is linked primarily to oral-anal contact. Also, Giardiasis, which affects 10-30% of homosexual men, is also linked to oral-anal contact. It affects the small intestine and produces diarrhea, bloating, cramps and nausea. Source: D.I Abrams, " The Relationship Between Kaposi's Sarcoma and the Intestinal Parasites among Homosexual Males in the United States," Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome 3, supplement 1 ( 1990 ); p. 545, table 1, 615 &622. Dr. Steven Wexner of the Cleveland Clinic in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, chronicle the diseases in 1990, " Up to 55% of homosexual men with anal-rectal complaints have gonorrhea; 80% of the patients with syphilis are homosexuals. Chlamydia is found in 15% of a symptomatic homosexual men, and up to 1/3 of homosexuals have active anorectal herpes simplex virus. " a host of parasites, bacterial, viral, and protozoan are all rampant in the homosexual population." Source: Wexner, SD, " Sexually Transmitted Disease of the colon Rectum and Anus," Disease of the Colon and Rectum, 1990; Vol. 33, pp. 1048-62. A study of 260 homosexual men seen by proctologists, 134 ( 51.5% ) had anal warts, the Human Papillomavirus. " Esophageal and gastrointestinal infection with CMV is an exceeding common finding among homosexual men with AIDS and in one autopsy series of AIDS patients was identified in 90% of cases." Source: Quinn, TC, & Stamm, WE, ( 1990 ), " Proctitis, proctoolitis, enteritis, and esophagitis in homosexual men. In KK Holmes, PA Mardh, PF Sparling, & PJ Wiesner ( eds ), Sexually Transmitted Diseases ( 2nd ed ), p. 674-675. In his book, "AIDS, The Unnecessary Epidemic", author Dr. Stanley Monteith describes the sexual practices of homosexual men as follows: 100% engaged in oral sex, that is mouth to penis. 93% had anal intercourse and the rectum is simply not made for that. 92% do something called "rimming"; this is sticking one's tongue in or around the anus which can not be done without digesting some form of feces. 29% either swallow or bath in urine called "golden showers". 47% do "fisting", which is sticking one's arm up the rectum for sexual pleasure and this tears the inner lining of the rectum. 8% actually play or eat feces. 11% take enemas for sexual pleasure. 37% are into painful sex or Sadomasochism (S&M). 88% seek public sex or participate in group sex (orgies). 24% prefer sex with boys rather than men. Does this sound like a healthy lifestyle to you? Source: Stanley Monteith, MD., " Aids, The Unnecessary Epidemic," 1991. The British Co-operative Clinical Group noted that homosexual men acquired syphilis at a rate 10 times that of heterosexuals. Source: Hutchinson CM, Rompalo AM, Reichart MT, Hook EW, " Characteristics of Patients with Syphilis Attending Baltimore STD Clinics," Archives of Internal Medicine, 1991; Vol. 151, pp. 511-16. Another Canadian study done over a three month period of time discovered the following sexual practices of homosexual men. 76% engaged in oral penis sex, 62% had anal intercourse and 34% enjoyed "rimming". Source: Myers Et al, AIDS: Knowledge, attitudes, behaviors in Toronto, AIDS Committee of Toronto, 1991. 59% of homosexual men have intestinal parasites like worms, flukes and ameba. Source: Biggar, R.J., " Low T-lymphocyte ratios in homosexual men," Journal of American Medicine Association, 1984; Vol. 251, pp. 1441-46. Wall Street Journal, 7/18/91, BI. Condylomata, or anal warts, is caused by the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) which are transmitted by anal intercourse and skin to skin contact. They affect 30-40% of homosexual men with the virus present in as many as 65%. Furthermore, a history of genital warts is strongly linked to anal cancer, the incidence of which is rapidly increasing among homosexual men. Source: C.L. H Law et al., " Factors Associated with Clinical and Sub-clinical Anal HPV Infection in Homosexual Men," Genitourinary Medicine 67 ( 1991 ), p.94. J. Darling et al.," Sexual Practices, STDs and Incidence of Anal cancer," New England Journal of Medicine 317 ( 1987 ); pp. 973-77. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), homosexual men are a thousand times more likely to contract AIDS than the general heterosexual population. Source: " The HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report," U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Division of HIV/AIDS, January, 1992, p. 9. In the largest random survey of gays, 29% reported urine-sex. 66% reported having sex in public restrooms and 67% had sex in gay bath houses.0 Over that same time period of a month of sexual history, it was reported that 67% of gay men had oral penis sex, 100% engaged in anal intercourse, 89% enjoyed "rimming" and 63% practiced "fisting". Source: Beral, V., et al " Risk of Kaposi's sarcoma and sexual practices associated with fecal contact in homosexual or bisexual men with AIDS," Lancet, 1992; Vol. 339, pp. 632-635. The rectum is subject to rupture and tearing under the physical force of penile thrusting or the practice of "fisting" which involves the insertion of the hand or arm into the rectum. Ongoing anal intercourse often leads to the breakdown of normal rectal functions due to trauma to the anal sphincter muscle. Source: Miles, A.J., et al., " Effect of anal-receptive intercourse on the anal-rectal function," Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 86:3 ( March 1993 ), pp. 144-147. According to the British Journal of Sexual Medicine, 50% of homosexuals have gonorrhea, more than 50 % have nonspecific urethritis and one in five have genital herpes. Although homosexuals make up a small percentage of the nation's population, they carry one-half of the country's syphilis and are 14 times more likely to have had the disease than heterosexual. Source: David T. Moore, " Five Lies of the Century," What Can I say to a Gay Friend? (1995), p. 222. The rectum was not designed for to accommodate the fist and those who do so can find themselves consigned to "leakage" for life and as result hepatitis C is 10 times more prevalent in homosexual men. Source: Ndimbi et al, " Hepatitis C virus infection in a male homosexual cojort; risk factor analysis," Genitourin Medical, 1996; vol.72, pp. 213-16. More than 2,750 homosexual/bisexual male clients of an HIV testing clinic in Mexico City participated in a survey. For this population, more than one-third reported rectal bleeding, including 8 % who said they bleed in at last one of every 2 encounters. Rectal bleeding was associated lots of anal intercourse and the practice of "fisting". Those men who bled during the majority of their sexual contacts had an 80% higher risk of HIV infection. Men who had anal warts and bled during intercourse were 3.5 times more likely to be HIV infected. Source: Coplan, PM, Gortmaker,S., Hernandez-Avila, M., Spiegelman D., Uribe-Zuniga P., Mueller, NE, (1996), HIV infection in Mexico City; Rectal bleeding and anal warts as risk factors among men reporting sex with men. American Journal of Epidemiology 144 (9), pp. 817-827. One 1982 study found that the anal cancer rate for homosexual men is 25 to 50 normal; a 1992 study found it may be a high as 84 times the norm. Source: Council on Scientific Affairs, "Health care needs of gay men and lesbian in the United States," Journal of American Medical Association; May 1, 1996, p. 1355. Homosexual men average somewhere between 10 and 110 different oral sex partners per year. Surveys indicate that about 90% of gays have engaged in rectal intercourse, and about two-thirds do it regularly. Source: Hays et al "Actual versus perceived HIV status," AIDS, 1997; Vol. 11, pp. 1495-1502. Corey & Holmes, " Sexual transmission of Hepatitis A in homosexual men," New England Journal of Medicine, 1980, Vol. 302, pp. 435-438. GAY PEDOPHILES A 1948 sex survey revealed that 28% of homosexual men and 1% of lesbians admitted to sexual relations with children under 16 while they themselves were adults. Source: Gebhard, P.H. and Johnson, A.B., " The Kinsey Data: Marginal Tabulations of the 1938-1963 Interviews Conducted by the Institute for Sex Research," NY: Saunders, 1979. Judge J.T. Rees concluded that "the male homosexual naturally seeks the company of the male adolescent, or of the young male adult, in preference to the fully-grown man. [In 1947] 986 persons were convicted of homosexual and unnatural offences. Of those, 257 were indictable offences involving 402 male victims...The great majority [whom]... were under the age of 16, only 11% ...were over 21. The problem of male homosexuality is in essence the problem of the corruption of youth by itself [i.e. by other boys] and by its elders [And thereby]... the creation...of new addicts ready to corrupt a still further generation of young men and boys in the future." Source: Ress, J. T., and Usill, H. V., "They Stand Apart," 1956 NY: Macmillian, pp. 28-29. In a random survey of British 15-to-19 year olds, 35% of the boys and 9% of the girls claimed to have been approached for sex by adult homosexuals and 2% of the boys and 1% of the girls admitted to succumbing. Source: Schofield, M., The Sexual Behavior of Young People, Boston, Little, Brown: 1965. Dr. C. H. McGaghy estimated that "homosexual offenders [1-3 percent of the population] probably constitute about 50% of molesters who work with children." Source: "Child molesting," Sexual Behavior 1971; Vol.1: pp.16-24. In 1970 the Kinsey Institute interviewed 565 white gays in San Francisco: 25% of them admitted to having had sex with boys aged 16 or younger while they themselves were at least 21. Source: Bell, A.P., and Weinberg, M,S, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1978. The Gay Report stated that 23% of male homosexuals and 6% of lesbians had sex with children. Source: Jay, K., and Young, The Gay Report, NY: Summit, 1979. In France, 129 convicted gays [average age 34 years] said they had sexual contact with a total of 11,007 boys. An average of 85 different boys per homosexual. Source: Dr. Edward Brongersma as quoted by Tom O'Carroll in Pedophilia: The Radical Case, Boston: Alyson, 1982. If the (sexual) abuse was homosexual, the boy is likely to question his sexual orientation; if the abuser was a male and the child a girl, she may defensively turn to lesbianism. Source: Engel, B. (1982) The Right to Innocence, Los Angles, CA: Jeremy P. Tarcher, p.193. Several studies reveal that while no more than 2% of the male adults are homosexual, approximately 35% of pedophiles are homosexual. The first study done out of Toronto reviewed two sizeable studies and calculated that 34% and 32% of the offenders against children were homosexual. In the cases personally handled by the doctors, homosexuals accounted for 36% of their 457 pedophiles. In the other study, a review of scientific and professional literature in 1985, the study concluded that homosexual acts were involved in 25% to 40% of the cases of child molestation. Source: K. Frued et al.,, "Pedophilia and heterosexuality vs. homosexuality," Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 10 (Fall 1984) p. 193-200; also P. Cameron, "Homosexual molestation of children: Sexual interaction of teacher and pupil," Psychological Reports, Vol. 57 (1985): pp.1227-36. The Los Angeles Times surveyed 2,628 adults across the U.S. in 1985. 27% of the women and 16% of the men claimed to have been sexually molested. Since 7% of the molestations of girls and 93% of the molestations of boys were by adults of the same sex, about 4 in 10 molestations in this survey were homosexual. Source: Los Angeles Times, August 25 & 26, 1985. In 1983, a probability survey of sexual experiences of 4,340 adults in 5 U.S. cities found that about 3% of men and 7 percent of women reported sexual involvement with a man before the age of 13. By definition that means that 30% of these molestations were homosexual acts. Also, the survey reported on any sexual advances and any physical sexual contact by elementary and secondary teachers (4% of the teachers claimed to be bisexual or homosexual). 29% of the advances by elementary and 16% of the advances by secondary school teachers were homosexual. In addition, 25% reported actual sexual contact with an elementary school teacher were homosexual. In high school 8 (22%) of 37 contacts between teachers and pupil were homosexual. Of those reporting a homosexual teacher, 6% said that a teacher influenced them to try homosexuality and 13% of the men and 4% of the women said that the teacher made sexual advances toward them. Source: Cameron, P., et al "Child molestation and homosexuality," Psychological Reports, 1986, Vol. 58, pp.327-337. A report on male child molesters found that heterosexual men who molested girls outside their family averaged 20 victims each; those who were homosexual and molested boys averaged 150 victims each. Source: Abel, G. G., et al, "Self-reported sex crimes on no incarcerated paraphiliacs," Journal of Interpersonal Violence 1987: Vol. 2; pp. 3 -25. The number of boys victimized is estimated to be around 3.2 million. The number of victims is derived from the fact that 3.8% of 3,132 adult subjects in this study were males, who reported childhood sexual contact with an adult, 93% of those with an adult male. Based on this study, one would multiply the U.S. adult male population by 3.8% and then by 93%, and arrive at 3.2 million. Of the sexual abuse of children, 35% were homosexual assaults (Experts agree that this number is probably higher because large numbers of adult males repress, or do not report, the painful experience of molestation). Source: J. M. Siegel et al., "The prevalence of childhood sexual assault," American Journal of Epidemiology 126 (December 1987): pp. 1141-1153. North America Man/Boy Love Association's (NAMBLA) web page cites a German study of 8,000 reported victims of sex offenses, which, NAMBLA reports, concluded, "None of the boys experienced force or coercion, and no negative outcomes were observed for any of the boys." Source: "What Can Science Tell Us about Man/Boy Love?" www.nambla.org/benefit.htm (off-line now), referring to M.C. Baurmann, Sexuality, Violence, and Psychological After-Effects: A Longitudinal Study of Cases of Sexual Assault Which Were Reported to the Police (Wiebaden: Bundeskriminalamt, 1988). In a clinical study, Robert L. Johnson, M.D., found that "70% of those who had been molested (by a male or female) felt devastated immediately after the molestation incident had occurred." Johnson also notes: "Low self-esteem and depression are the most important long-term effects experienced by sexually abused boys, along with a tendency to feel helpless and vulnerable. Some of these boys are almost compulsively drawn into situations where they are repeatedly victimized. Adult types of sexual dysfunction appear to be as common among former sexual abuse victims as they are in adult rape victims." Source: Interview with Robert L. Johnson, M.D., conducted by Diane K. Shrier, M.D., Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality (September 1988): p. 35. In 1990, The Journal of Homosexuality produced a special double issue devoted to adult-child sex, which was entitled "Male Intergenerational Intimacy." On page 133, one article said many pedophiles believe they are "born that way and cannot change." Another writer said a man who counseled troubled teenage boys could achieve "miracles...not by preaching to them, but by sleeping with them." On page 162, the loving pedophile can offer a "companionship, security, and protection" which neither peers nor parents can provide. On page 164, parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son "not as a rival or competitor, not as a thief of their property, but as a partner in the boy's upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home..." On page 323, a British university professor writes: "Boys want sex with men, boys seduce adult men, the experience is very common and much enjoyed." And finally on page 325, a professor of social science at the State University of New York said he looks forward to the day when Americans will "get over their hysteria about child abuse" and child pornography. Source: "Male Intergenerational Intimacy: Historical, Socio-Psychological, and Legal Perspectives," The Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 20, Nos. 1&2, 1990. Investigation of those suffering severe chronic mental illness implicates child molestation as a primary cause (45% of Bigas et al's patients were homosexually abused). Source: Bigas, J., et al "Severe paternal sexual abuse in early childhood and systematic aggression against the family and the institution," Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 1991; vol.36, pp.527-529. Also see Oates K. R. and Tong L., "Sexual abuse of children: an area with room for professional reforms," Medical Journal of Australia, 1987; vol. 147, pp. 544-548. Of the approximately 100 child molesters in 1991 at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons, a third were heterosexual, a third bisexual, and a third homosexual in orientation. Source: An interview with Dr. Raymond A. Knight at his presentation, "Differential prevalence of personality disorders in rapists and child molesters," at Eastern Psychological Association Convention, New York; April 12, 1991. Pedophilia and its promotion is not limited to male homosexuals. Virginia Uribe, a lesbian teacher in Los Angeles, has been at the forefront of a movement to "affirm gay teenagers," through school-based pro-homosexual "counseling". Her own program, called Project 10 (named for the the myth that 10% of the US population is homosexual), included a book for young people called "One Teenager in Ten". This "resource" for troubled teens features lurid pornographic stories, including a graphic lesbian sex scene between a 12 year-old girl and her 23 year-old dance teacher. The apparent goal is to activate children's sexuality at increasingly younger ages. At a conference promoting Project 10 to public school teachers in Oregon, University of Washington sociologist Pepper Schwartz admits targeting pre-pubescent children for "affirmation," saying, "At this point, getting the majority to say 'gay' is good' at 9 or 10 years old is going to be difficult, but just because it is difficult doesn't mean it's not the right thing." Source: Virginia Uribe, "Homosexuality, the Classroom and your Children," 1992.
The article below is an eloquent demolition of the arguments for gay marriage, parenting and adoption rights. You fudge-packers and rug-munchers are going to need to come up with slightly better arguments than personal abuse and claims of “dubious statistics if you want to be credible to anyone but yourselves. “Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk” - Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D. A number of studies in recent years have purported to show that children raised in gay and lesbian households fare no worse than those reared in traditional families. Yet much of that research fails to meet acceptable standards for psychological research; it is compromised by methodological flaws and driven by political agendas instead of an objective search for truth. In addition, openly lesbian researchers sometimes conduct research with an interest in portraying homosexual parenting in a positive light. The deficiencies of studies on homosexual parenting include reliance upon an inadequate sample size, lack of random sampling, lack of anonymity of research participants, and self-presentation bias. The presence of methodological defects--a mark of substandard research--would be cause for rejection of research conducted in virtually any other subject area. The overlooking of such deficiencies in research papers on homosexual failures can be attributed to the "politically correct" determination within those in the social science professions to "prove" that homosexual households are no different than traditional families. However, no amount of scholarly legerdemain contained in an accumulation of flawed studies can obscure the well-established and growing body of evidence showing that both mothers and fathers provide unique and irreplaceable contributions to the raising of children. Children raised in traditional families by a mother and father are happier, healthier, and more successful than children raised in non-traditional environments. David Cramer, whose review of twenty studies on homosexual parenting appeared in the Journal of Counseling and Development, found the following: The generalizability of the studies is limited. Few studies employed control groups and most had small samples. Almost all parents were Anglo-American, middle class, and well educated. Measures for assessing gender roles in young children tend to focus on social behavior and generally are not accurate psychological instruments. Therefore it is impossible to make large scale generalizations . . . that would be applicable to all children.[1] Since these words were penned in 1986, the number of studies on the subject of homosexual parenting has steadily grown. The fact that these studies continue to be flawed by the methodological errors warned about by Cramer has not inhibited the proponents of homosexual parenting from their sanguine assessment of the outcomes of children raised in homosexual households. Silverstein and Auerbach, for example, see no essential difference between traditional mother-father families and homosexual-led families: "Other aspects of personal development and social relationships were also found to be within the normal range for children raised in lesbian and gay families." They suggest that "gay and lesbian parents can create a positive family context."[2] This conclusion is echoed in the official statement on homosexual parenting by the American Psychological Association's Public Interest Directorate, authored by openly lesbian activist Charlotte J. Patterson of the University of Virginia: In summary, there is no evidence that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect. . . . Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.[3] PROBLEMS WITH HOMOSEXUAL PARENTING RESEARCH In addition, Patterson acknowledges that "research in this area has presented a variety of methodological challenges," and that "questions have been raised with regard to sampling issues, statistical power, and other technical matters (e.g., Belcastro, Gramlich, Nicholson, Price, and Wilson, 1993)." She adds, revealingly: Research in this area has also been criticized for using poorly matched or no control groups in designs that call for such controls. . . . Other criticisms have been that most studies have involved relatively small samples [and] that there have been inadequacies in assessment procedures employed in some studies.[5] Though she admits to serious methodological and design errors that would call into question the findings of any study, Patterson makes the astonishing claim that "even with all the questions and/or limitations that may characterize research in the area, none of the published research suggests conclusions different from those that will be summarized below." But any such conclusions are only as reliable as the evidence upon which they are based. If the alleged evidence is flawed, then the conclusions must likewise be considered suspect. One suspects that the lack of studies with proper design and controls is due to the political agendas driving the acceptance of homosexual parenting, which favor inadequate and superficial research yielding the desired results. In a study published in the Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, P. Belcastro et al. reviewed fourteen studies on homosexual parenting according to accepted scientific standards. Their "most impressive finding" was that "all of the studies lacked external validity. The conclusion that there are no significant differences in children raised by lesbian mothers versus heterosexual mothers is not supported by the published research data base."[6] Similarly, in their study of lesbian couples in Family Relations, L. Keopke et al. remark, "Conducting research in the gay community is fraught with methodological problems."[7] A careful reading of studies used to lend support to homosexual parenting reveals more modest claims than are often attributed to them, as well as significant methodological limitations: Nearly all of the existing studies of homosexual parenting have major deficiencies in sampling: They use a small sample size; they fail to obtain a truly representative sample due to sources of sampling bias; they do not use a random sample; or they use a sample with characteristics that are inappropriate for the crucial development research question involved in the study.[8] Inadequate Sample Size. • After finding no significant difference between a group of nine children raised by lesbians and a similar group of children raised by heterosexual parents, S. L. Huggins admitted, "The meaning and implications of this finding are unclear, and the small sample size makes any interpretation of these data difficult."[9] • A report by J. M. Bailey et al. in Developmental Psychology, commenting on studies of the children of gay and lesbian parents, notes that "available studies [are] insufficiently large to generate much statistical power."[10] • S. Golombok and F. Tasker admit in their follow-up study of children reared by lesbians, "It is possible that the small sample size resulted in an underestimate of the significance of group difference as a result of low statistical power (Type II error)."[11] Elsewhere they caution that negative effects of children reared by lesbians "could have remained undetected because of the relatively small sample size. Therefore, although discernible trends were identified, caution is required in interpreting these results."[12] • In his study published in Child Psychiatry and Human Development comparing the children of homosexual and heterosexual mothers, G. A. Javaid frankly admits that "the numbers are too small in this study to draw any conclusions."[13] • J. J. Bigner and R. B. Jacobson state in the Journal of Homosexuality: Those who do study gay fathers may be frustrated by the difficulties of obtaining valid and adequate sample sizes. Most often, researchers must deal with many methodological problems in locating and testing gay fathers in numbers sufficiently large to make acceptable statistical analyses of data. For this reason, what is known currently about gay fathers is weakened by these methodological problems. It is practically impossible to obtain a representative sample of gay fathers, and those studies published to date frequently utilize groups of white, urban, well-educated males for study because of convenience sampling.[14] • In her study of lesbian families, Patterson admits to sampling bias: Some concerns relevant to sampling issues should also be acknowledged. Most of the families who took part in the Bay Area Families Study were headed by lesbian mothers who were White, well educated, relatively affluent, and living in the greater San Francisco Bay Area. For these reasons, no claims about representativeness of the present sample can be made.[15] • Similarly, N. L. Wyers, in his study of male and female homosexual parents that appeared in Social Work, acknowledges that his study "cannot be considered representative" and that "therefore, the findings cannot be generalized beyond the sample itself."[16] • By contrast, R. Green et al. writing in Archives of Sexual Behavior, found that the few experimental studies that included even modestly larger samples (13-30) of boys or girls reared by homosexual parents: [Found] developmentally important statistically significant differences between children reared by homosexual parents compared to heterosexual parents. For example, children raised by homosexuals were found to have greater parental encouragement for cross-gender behavior [and] greater amounts of cross-dressing and cross-gender play/role behavior.[17] Lack of Random Sampling. • L. Lott-Whitehead and C. T. Tully admit the inherent weaknesses in their study of lesbian mothers: This study was descriptive and, therefore, had inherent in its design methodological flaws consistent with other similar studies. Perhaps the most serious concerns representativeness. . . . Probability random sampling . . . was impossible. This study does not purport to contain a representative sample, and thus generalizability cannot be assumed.[18] • N. L. Wyers acknowledges that he did not use random sampling procedures in his study of lesbian and gay spouses, rendering his study "vulnerable to all the problems associated with self-selected research participants."[19] • Golombok et al. write of their study: A further objection to the findings lies in the nature of the samples studied. Both groups were volunteers obtained through gay and single-parent magazines and associations. Obviously these do not constitute random samples, and it is not possible to know what biases are involved in the method of sample selection.[20] Lack of Anonymity of Research Participants. • M. B. Harris and P. H. Turner point out in the Journal of Homosexuality: Most gay/lesbian parents who participate in such research are concerned about their parenting and their children, and most have established a public gay identity. 'Closet' gay parents are difficult to identify, and their problems may be quite different from those of more openly gay parents.[21] • Harris and Turner employed superior research techniques to ensure the complete anonymity of their research subjects. As a result, in contrast to other studies, they reported problems associated with being a homosexual parent that had gone unreported by earlier studies: "Perhaps the anonymity of the present sampling procedure made subjects more willing to acknowledge those problems than those in earlier studies."[22] Self-presentation Bias. • In their National Lesbian Family Study, N. Gartrell et al. found that eighteen of nineteen studies of homosexual parents used a research procedure that was contaminated by self-presentation bias. Gartrell mentions the methodological problems of one longitudinal study of lesbian families: Some may have volunteered for this project because they were motivated to demonstrate that lesbians were capable of producing healthy, happy children. To the extent that these subjects might wish to present themselves and their families in the best possible light, the study findings may be shaped by self-justification and self-presentation bias.[23] • Harris and Turner admit, with regard to their study: There is no way of knowing how representative the sample is. . . . The high proportion of gay subjects who indicated a willingness to be interviewed suggests that they were perhaps unusually interested in the issues raised in the questionnaire and thus willing to divulge their homosexuality to the researchers. Moreover, even though the questionnaire was anonymous, the gay parents may have been particularly biased toward emphasizing the positive aspects of their relationships with their children, feeling that the results might have implications for custody decisions in the future. Thus, all generaliza-tions must be viewed with caution. . . . Because all uncorroborated self-report data are subject to biases, and because parents may deliberately or unconsciously minimize the extent of conflicts with their children, these findings cannot be accepted at face value.[24] Evidence from Marmoset Monkeys? The twenty-six species of marmosets live in family groups of up to thirty monkeys. Only the dominant female of the group gives birth, usually to twins. What Silverstein and Auerbach find so impressive about these tiny primates is that, after birth, the males as well as females of the group help carry the baby marmosets, passing them back to the mother for nursing. It is difficult to grasp the significance Silverstein and Auerbach attach to what they readily admit is an "extreme example" of the supposed "limited parenting involvement by mothers."[26] The authors contend, "Male marmosets behave like full-time mothers." It seems there are specific chores that the male marmosets cannot perform. As the authors themselves admit, marmoset mothers perform the essential function of nursing their young, without which the baby marmosets--who must depend upon their mother's milk for the first three months of life--could not survive. In turn, the males of the group fill the vital role of watching the baby marmosets, protecting them from predators, while the nursing mother forages to replenish herself. In short, one could just as well argue, contrary to Silverstein and Auerbach, that the behavior of marmoset monkeys demonstrates that both male and female fulfill separate and important functions in the raising of young. Psychologist David Blankenhorn, head of the Institute for American Values and author of Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem, criticized such attempts to rely upon behavioral studies of non-human primates to draw conclusions about the character of human families: "I always appreciate critical articles, because they can focus your argument and point out weaknesses. But [Silverstein and Auerbach's] article was unusually silly. Not one thing they said was what I would call a serious insight."[27] In their thorough review of homosexual parenting studies, Robert Lerner and Althea K. Nagai found little evidence to support the oft-repeated mantra that homosexual households are "just like" traditional families: "We conclude that the methods used in these studies are so flawed that these studies prove nothing. Therefore, they should not be used in legal cases to make any argument about 'homosexual vs. heterosexual' parenting. Their claims have no basis."[28] HARMFUL ASPECTS OF THE HOMOSEXUAL LIFESTYLE Homosexual Promiscuity. • A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with five hundred or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.[29] • In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners.[30] • A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than 100 sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than 1,000 sexual partners.[31] • In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."[32] Promiscuity among Homosexual Couples. • In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison report that in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years: Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.[33] Most understood sexual relations outside the relationship to be the norm, and viewed adopting monogamous standards as an act of oppression. • In Male and Female Homosexuality, M. Saghir and E. Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[34] • In their Journal of Sex Research study of the sexual practices of older homosexual men, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that only 2.7 percent of older homosexuals had only one sexual partner in their lifetime.[35] Comparison of Homosexual 'Couples' and Heterosexual Spouses. • In Sex in America, called by the New York Times "the most important study of American sexual behavior since the Kinsey reports," Robert T. Michael et al. report that 90 percent of wives and 75 percent of husbands claim never to have had extramarital sex.[36] • A nationally representative survey of 884 men and 1,288 women published in Journal of Sex Research found that 77 percent of married men and 88 percent of married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows.[37] • In The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States, E. O. Laumann et al. conducted a national survey that found that 75 percent of husbands and 85 percent of wives never had sexual relations outside of marriage.[38] • A telephone survey conducted for Parade magazine of 1,049 adults selected to represent the demographic characteristics of the United States found that 81 percent of married men and 85 percent of married women reported that they had never violated their marriage vows.[39] While the rate of fidelity within marriage cited by these studies remains far from ideal, there is a magnum order of difference between the negligible lifetime fidelity rate cited for homosexuals and the 75 to 90 percent cited for married couples. This indicates that even "committed" homosexual relationships display a fundamental incapacity for the faithfulness and commitment that is axiomatic to the institution of marriage. Unhealthy Aspects of 'Monogamous' Homosexual Relationships. • The journal AIDS reported that men involved in relationships engaged in anal intercourse and oral-anal intercourse with greater frequency than did those without a steady partner.[40] Anal intercourse has been linked with a host of bacterial and parasitical sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS. • The exclusivity of the relationship did not diminish the incidence of unhealthy sexual acts, which are commonplace among homosexuals. An English study published in the same issue of AIDS concurred, finding that most "unsafe" sex acts among homosexuals occur in steady relationships.[41] Of paramount concern are the effects of such a lifestyle upon children. Brad Hayton writes: Homosexuals . . . model a poor view of marriage to children. They are taught by example and belief that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature. Sexual relationships are primarily for pleasure rather than procreation. And they are taught that monogamy in a marriage is not the norm [and] should be discouraged if one wants a good 'marital' relationship.[42] Violence in Lesbian and Homosexual Relationships • In a survey of 1,099 lesbians, the Journal of Social Service Research found that "slightly more than half of the [lesbians] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner. The most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse."[44] • In their book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence,D. Island and P. Letellier postulate that "the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population."[45] Rate of Intimate Partner Violence within Marriage. A little-reported fact is that homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households: • The Bureau of Justice Statistics (U.S. Department of Justice) reports that married women in traditional families experience the lowest rate of violence compared with women in other types of relationships.[46] • A report by the Medical Institute for Sexual Health concurred: It should be noted that most studies of family violence do not differentiate between married and unmarried partner status. Studies that do make these distinctions have found that marriage relationships tend to have the least intimate partner violence when compared to cohabiting or dating relationships.[47] High Incidence of Mental Health Problems among Homosexuals and Lesbians. Among the sample as a whole, there was a distressingly high prevalence of life events and behaviors related to mental health problems. Thirty-seven percent had been physically abused and 32 percent had been raped or sexually attacked. Nineteen percent had been involved in incestuous relationships while growing up. Almost one-third used tobacco on a daily basis and about 30 percent drank alcohol more than once a week; 6 percent drank daily. One in five smoked marijuana more than once a month. Twenty-one percent of the sample had thoughts about suicide sometimes or often and 18 percent had actually tried to kill themselves. . . . More than half had felt too nervous to accomplish ordinary activities at some time during the past year and over one-third had been depressed.[48] Substance Abuse among Lesbians. Like most problem drinkers, 32 (91 percent) of the participants had abused other drugs as well as alcohol, and many reported compulsive difficulties with food (34 percent), codependency (29 percent), sex (11 percent), and money (6 percent). Forty-six percent had been heavy drinkers with frequent drunkenness.[49] Greater Risk for Suicide • Another study published simultaneously in Archives of General Psychiatry followed 1007 individuals from birth. Those classified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual were significantly more likely to have had mental health problems. Significantly, in his comments in the same issue of the journal, D. Bailey cautioned against various speculative explanations of the results, such as the view that "widespread prejudice against homosexual people causes them to be unhappy or worse, mentally ill."[51] Reduced Life Span. In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age twenty for gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.[52] Concern about children placed in homosexual households who are orphaned because of the destructive homosexual lifestyle is well founded. In 1990, Wayne Tardiff and his partner, Allan Yoder, were the first homosexuals permitted to become adoptive parents in the state of New Jersey. Tardiff died in 1992 at age forty-four; Yoder died a few months later, leaving an orphaned five-year-old.[53] Sexual Identity Confusion. • Studies indicate that 0.3 percent of adult females report having practiced homosexual behavior in the past year, 0.4 percent have practiced homosexual behavior in the last five years, and 3 percent have ever practiced homosexual behavior in their lifetime.[54] A study in Developmental Psychology found that 12 percent of the children of lesbians became active lesbians themselves, a rate which is at least four times the base rate of lesbianism in the adult female population.[55] • Numerous studies indicate that while nearly 5 percent of males report having had a homosexual experience sometime in their lives, the number of exclusive homosexuals is considerably less: Between 1 and 2 percent of males report exclusive homosexual behavior over a several-year period.[56] However, J. M. Bailey et al. found that 9 percent of the adult sons of homosexual fathers were homosexual in their adult sexual behavior: "The rate of homosexuality in the sons (9 percent) is several times higher than that suggested by the population-based surveys and is consistent with a degree of father-to-son transmission."[57] • Even though they attempted to argue otherwise, Golombok and Tasker's study revealed in its results section a clear connection between being raised in a lesbian family and homosexuality: "With respect to actual involvement in same-gender sexual relationships, there was a significant difference between groups. . . . None of the children from heterosexual families had experienced a lesbian or gay relationship." By contrast, five (29 percent) of the seventeen daughters and one (13 percent) of the eight sons in homosexual families reported having at least one same-sex relationship.[58] • These findings have most recently been confirmed in a study appearing in the American Sociological Review. Authors Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz alluded to the "political incorrectness" of their finding of higher rates of homosexuality among children raised in homosexual households: "We recognize the political dangers of pointing out that recent studies indicate that a higher proportion of children of lesbigay parents are themselves apt to engage in homosexual activity." • Stacy and Biblarz also reported "some fascinating findings on the number of sexual partners children report," that: The adolescent and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to have been more sexually adventurous and less chaste. . . . In other words, once again, children (especially girls) raised by lesbians appear to depart from traditional gender-based norms, while children raised by heterosexual mothers appear to conform to them.[59] Incest in Homosexual Parent Families. A study in Adolescence found: A disproportionate percentage--29 percent--of the adult children of homosexual parents had been specifically subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents having repor Posted by: Reuben at December 8, 2003 05:05 AMHomosexual posters on this blog have directed an extraordinary outpouring of vituperation and ad hominem attack towards anyone questioning received gay activist dogma. Having internalized a particular set of shared assumptions regarding the “normality” of their behaviour, they display a strong emotional resistance to having it questioned. They are unprepared to accept the massive weight of statistical evidence regarding homosexual promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rampant STD infections amongst queers and psychological adjustment disorders. Anyone seeking to wave away these findings is surely required to come up with an equal or greater weight of countervailing statistical evidence. Our gay friends have conspicuously failed to do this, taking refuge instead in accusations of “bigotry,” “homophobia,” “right-wing Christian fundamentalism,” and insinuations that opponents are unhealthily fixated on gay sexual behaviour because they are themselves closet cases. Isn't it funny, that probably the only monogamous homosexuals in Great Britain, who have never been promiscuous, never sodomised, rimmed or fisted anybody or had these things done to them, never had sex with an underage partner, never suffered from a raft of STDs, who only ever hold hands and cuddle, and who are otherwise mentally well-adjusted, just happen to be posting on this site? Quite coincidental, I'm sure. Some statistics below. Put up or shut up. GAY PROMISCUITY "Gay" monogamous relationships are rarely faithful. "Monogamous" seems to imply some primary emotional commitment, while causal sex continues on the side. Source: Con nell, RW. Crawford, J., Dowsett, GW., Kippax, S., Sinnott, V., Rodden, P., Berg, R., Baxter, D., Waston, L., " Danger and context: unsafe anal sexual practice among homosexual and bisexual men in the AIDS crisis," Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology (1990 ) 26: pp.187-208. The national gay and lesbian publication, The Advocate, reported " of 600 gay and bisexual male Milwaukeeans, 73% said they've had sex in the past six months with someone they never saw again." Source: The Advocate, June 14, 1994, p.16. A story in US gay newspaper, The Advocate reported that although 71% of homosexual men claimed that they prefer long-term "monogamous" relationships, only 33% live with a partner, only 11% have a "primary male partner, only 8% are dating one particular person, with 87% involved in multiple dating. Source: Lever, Janet. " The 1994 Advocate Survey of Sexuality and Relationships: The Men," The Advocate, August 23, 1994. Dr. Martin Dannecker, a homosexual German Sexologist, studied 900 homosexuals in 1991 living in "steady relationships". 83% of males had numerous sexual encounters outside their partnerships over a one-year period. Dr. Dannecker observed "clear differences in the manner of sexual gratification" between single and non-single gay men that were the reverse of what he expected. Of the homosexual men in steady relationships, he wrote, " the average number of homosexual contacts per person was 115 in the past year." In contrast, single gay men had only 45 sexual contacts. Source: Wittmeier, Carmen, " Now they know the other half," Alberta Report, 1999 06 07, p.27. NORMAL, NATURAL SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR? Ingestion of human waste is a major route for contracting hepatitis A and the enteric parasites collectively known as Gay Bowel Syndrome. An according to The New England Journal of Medicine homosexual men consumption of feces has also been implicated in the transmission of typhoid fever. Source: Dritz & Braff, " Sexually transmitted typhoid fever," The New England Journal of Medicine, 1977; vol.296: pp. 1359-1360. Two colleagues of Alfred Kinsey ( the modern day father of 'sexology') reported on their research in the 1940's on the lifetime experiences of male homosexual behaviors for sexual pleasure. The results are as follows: 83% engaged in oral-penis sex, 68% in anal intercourse, 59% in rimming (insert the tongue in or around the anus), 10% in urine sex or "golden showers" ( drinking or being splashed with urine), 22% in sadomasochistic sex ( torture or painful sex ), 61% engaged in public or orgy sex, and 31% had sexual relationship with minors. Source: Gebhard & Johnson, The Kinsey Data, New York: Saunders, 1979. In the largest survey of lifetime experiences of "gay" men ever conducted, 99% engaged in oral penis sex. 91% had anal intercourse. 83% engaged in "rimming". 22% enjoyed "fisting". 23% admitted to "golden showers". Overall 76% admitted to public or group sex with 41% saying they had sex in public restrooms, 60% reported sex in gay bath houses. There were positive testimonials with no apparent shame from those having sex with (animals) Labrador retrievers, cows and horses: " My first sexual experience...was...with a cow - not bad but boys are better." Most homosexuals have had some experience with oral-anal sex, sadomasochism, group orgies, bondage, or transvestism. 22% to 37% of homosexual men indulge in painful or violent sex and 4% would eat the feces of the sexual partner for gratification. 23% had sex with boys. Contemporary gay writers have even suggested that there is something revolutionary about both promiscuity and public sex. 40% of homosexual men reported a past history of Gonorrhea and 69% of gay men report a history of Pubic Lice or "Crabs". Scabies is reported by 22% of homosexual men. Scabies are mites that cause itching lesions, nodules and encrustations on parts of the body where skin meets skin. Also 40% of male homosexuals and 39% of female homosexuals had either seriously contemplated or attempted suicide (p.728 ). Source: Jay, K., and Young, A., The Gay Report, ( NY: Summit ), 1979. Homosexuals men have oral sex in almost all of their sexual contacts and ingest semen from about half of these. Also in this study of the average 110 sexual encounters, 68 were rectal per year. 70% of the gay men engaged in fecal activity as a result the annual rate of Hepatitis A in homosexual men was 22% whereas no heterosexual men acquired the virus. Source: Corey, L. and Holmes, K.K. "Sexual transmission of Hepatitis A in homosexual men," New England Journal of Medicine 1980: Vol. 302, pp. 435-38. 90% of homosexually active men demonstrate chronic or recurrent viral infections with herpes virus, CMV, and Hepatitis B. Homosexuals also have a group of rare bowel disease, usually thought to be limited to the topics. These are generally lumped together under the designation " gay bowel syndrome." Because many male homosexuals ingest fecal matter, it is estimated that up to 50% have contracted parasitic amebiasis, a disease of the colon caused by parasites. One public official found 40% of homosexual men attending sexually transmitted disease clinics had the problem. Source: David Ostrow et al., eds., Sexually Transmitted Disease in Homosexual Men ( New York: Plenum Medical Book Co., 1982 ), p. 204. Some studies show between 50 to 75% of homosexual men have or have had Hepatitis B. Source: J. Kassler, Gay Men's Health ( New York: Harper and Row, 1983 ), p. 38. In 1983 The New England Journal of Medicine reported, " at least 80% of homosexual men presenting to our sexually transmitted disease clinic with anorectial or intestinal symptoms were infected with one or more sexually transmissible anorectial or Enteric pathogens. Such infections were also found in 39% of homosexual men presenting to the clinic without intestinal symptoms." Over the last month the researchers recorded that 90% of gay men had engaged in oral penis sex and 69% had anal intercourse. Source: Quinn TC, Stamm We, Goodell SE, Mkrtichian E, Benedetti J, Corey L, Shuffler Md, Homes KK, " The Polymicro Origin of Intestinal Infections in Homosexual Men," The New England Journal of Medicine, 1983; Vol. 309, pp. 576-82. A U.S. study in 1983 found the proportion of homosexual men with intestinal parasites was 25%. Their sexual behavior over the past year was noted as follows: 99% practiced oral penis sex, 95% engaged in anal intercourse, 63% had done "rimming" and 34% practiced "fisting". Source: Jaffee, H., et al " National case-control study of Kaposi's sarcoma, " Annals of Internal Medicine, 1983; Vol. 99, pp. 145-51. In another study from Canada, a survey was done of lifetime sexual behaviors of homosexual men and any changes due to the AIDS crisis. Here are the results of that study: 99% engaged in oral penis sex, 98% had anal intercourse, 92% enjoyed "rimming" and 47% had done "fisting". Source: Schechter et al, "changes in sexual behavior and fears of AIDS," Lancet, 1984; vol.1: p. 1293. Hepatitis A (HAV) is present in approximately 40% of homosexual men, of which 5-7% will acquire the disease annually - at least 3 times the rate of the general population. At least 65% of homosexual men carry the disease Hepatitis B (HBV) or have a history of it, and at least 16% contract HBV annually. Source: E. B. Keeffe, " Clinical Approach to Viral Hepatitis in Homosexual Men," The Medical Clinics of North America 70, No.3 ( 1986 ); pp. 567-582. In 1987 another study dealing with anal cancer in homosexual men, " Our study lends strong support to the hypothesis that homosexual behavior in men increases the risk of anal cancer: 21 of the 57 men with anal center (37%) reported that they were homosexual or bisexual, in contrast to only 1 of 64 controls." Source: Daling JR, Weiss NS, Hislop G, Maden C, Coates RJ, Sherman KJ, Ashley RL, Beagrie M, Ryan JA, Corey L, " Sexual Practices, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and the Incidence of Anal Cancer," New England Journal of Medicine, 1987; Vol.317 no.16, pp. 937-973. Another study found that amoebiasis, a parasitic disease, afflicts around 32% of homosexual men. Giardiasis, also a parasitic disease, afflicts 14% of homosexuals ( no heterosexuals in the study were found to have either parasites ). Gonorrhea afflicts 14% of homosexuals and 11% of homosexuals had anal warts. Source: L. Christopherson, T. Menne, A. Friis-Miller, J. Nielsen, B Hansted and J. Ohlenschloeger, " Sexually transmitted diseases in heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual males in Copenhagan," Danish Medical Bulletin (DYN), 1988, June; Vol. 35(3), pp. 285-288. One of the most common diseases is amebiasis, which causes inflammation of the rectum and colon, resulting in severe diarrhea and cramps. It affects 25-40% of homosexual men. Amebasis is linked primarily to oral-anal contact. Also, Giardiasis, which affects 10-30% of homosexual men, is also linked to oral-anal contact. It affects the small intestine and produces diarrhea, bloating, cramps and nausea. Source: D.I Abrams, " The Relationship Between Kaposi's Sarcoma and the Intestinal Parasites among Homosexual Males in the United States," Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome 3, supplement 1 ( 1990 ); p. 545, table 1, 615 &622. Dr. Steven Wexner of the Cleveland Clinic in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, chronicle the diseases in 1990, " Up to 55% of homosexual men with anal-rectal complaints have gonorrhea; 80% of the patients with syphilis are homosexuals. Chlamydia is found in 15% of a symptomatic homosexual men, and up to 1/3 of homosexuals have active anorectal herpes simplex virus. " a host of parasites, bacterial, viral, and protozoan are all rampant in the homosexual population." Source: Wexner, SD, " Sexually Transmitted Disease of the colon Rectum and Anus," Disease of the Colon and Rectum, 1990; Vol. 33, pp. 1048-62. A study of 260 homosexual men seen by proctologists, 134 ( 51.5% ) had anal warts, the Human Papillomavirus. " Esophageal and gastrointestinal infection with CMV is an exceeding common finding among homosexual men with AIDS and in one autopsy series of AIDS patients was identified in 90% of cases." Source: Quinn, TC, & Stamm, WE, ( 1990 ), " Proctitis, proctoolitis, enteritis, and esophagitis in homosexual men. In KK Holmes, PA Mardh, PF Sparling, & PJ Wiesner ( eds ), Sexually Transmitted Diseases ( 2nd ed ), p. 674-675. In his book, "AIDS, The Unnecessary Epidemic", author Dr. Stanley Monteith describes the sexual practices of homosexual men as follows: 100% engaged in oral sex, that is mouth to penis. 93% had anal intercourse and the rectum is simply not made for that. 92% do something called "rimming"; this is sticking one's tongue in or around the anus which can not be done without digesting some form of feces. 29% either swallow or bath in urine called "golden showers". 47% do "fisting", which is sticking one's arm up the rectum for sexual pleasure and this tears the inner lining of the rectum. 8% actually play or eat feces. 11% take enemas for sexual pleasure. 37% are into painful sex or Sadomasochism (S&M). 88% seek public sex or participate in group sex (orgies). 24% prefer sex with boys rather than men. Does this sound like a healthy lifestyle to you? Source: Stanley Monteith, MD., " Aids, The Unnecessary Epidemic," 1991. The British Co-operative Clinical Group noted that homosexual men acquired syphilis at a rate 10 times that of heterosexuals. Source: Hutchinson CM, Rompalo AM, Reichart MT, Hook EW, " Characteristics of Patients with Syphilis Attending Baltimore STD Clinics," Archives of Internal Medicine, 1991; Vol. 151, pp. 511-16. Another Canadian study done over a three month period of time discovered the following sexual practices of homosexual men. 76% engaged in oral penis sex, 62% had anal intercourse and 34% enjoyed "rimming". Source: Myers Et al, AIDS: Knowledge, attitudes, behaviors in Toronto, AIDS Committee of Toronto, 1991. 59% of homosexual men have intestinal parasites like worms, flukes and ameba. Source: Biggar, R.J., " Low T-lymphocyte ratios in homosexual men," Journal of American Medicine Association, 1984; Vol. 251, pp. 1441-46. Wall Street Journal, 7/18/91, BI. Condylomata, or anal warts, is caused by the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) which are transmitted by anal intercourse and skin to skin contact. They affect 30-40% of homosexual men with the virus present in as many as 65%. Furthermore, a history of genital warts is strongly linked to anal cancer, the incidence of which is rapidly increasing among homosexual men. Source: C.L. H Law et al., " Factors Associated with Clinical and Sub-clinical Anal HPV Infection in Homosexual Men," Genitourinary Medicine 67 ( 1991 ), p.94. J. Darling et al.," Sexual Practices, STDs and Incidence of Anal cancer," New England Journal of Medicine 317 ( 1987 ); pp. 973-77. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), homosexual men are a thousand times more likely to contract AIDS than the general heterosexual population. Source: " The HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report," U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Division of HIV/AIDS, January, 1992, p. 9. In the largest random survey of gays, 29% reported urine-sex. 66% reported having sex in public restrooms and 67% had sex in gay bath houses.0 Over that same time period of a month of sexual history, it was reported that 67% of gay men had oral penis sex, 100% engaged in anal intercourse, 89% enjoyed "rimming" and 63% practiced "fisting". Source: Beral, V., et al " Risk of Kaposi's sarcoma and sexual practices associated with fecal contact in homosexual or bisexual men with AIDS," Lancet, 1992; Vol. 339, pp. 632-635. The rectum is subject to rupture and tearing under the physical force of penile thrusting or the practice of "fisting" which involves the insertion of the hand or arm into the rectum. Ongoing anal intercourse often leads to the breakdown of normal rectal functions due to trauma to the anal sphincter muscle. Source: Miles, A.J., et al., " Effect of anal-receptive intercourse on the anal-rectal function," Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 86:3 ( March 1993 ), pp. 144-147. According to the British Journal of Sexual Medicine, 50% of homosexuals have gonorrhea, more than 50 % have nonspecific urethritis and one in five have genital herpes. Although homosexuals make up a small percentage of the nation's population, they carry one-half of the country's syphilis and are 14 times more likely to have had the disease than heterosexual. Source: David T. Moore, " Five Lies of the Century," What Can I say to a Gay Friend? (1995), p. 222. The rectum was not designed for to accommodate the fist and those who do so can find themselves consigned to "leakage" for life and as result hepatitis C is 10 times more prevalent in homosexual men. Source: Ndimbi et al, " Hepatitis C virus infection in a male homosexual cojort; risk factor analysis," Genitourin Medical, 1996; vol.72, pp. 213-16. More than 2,750 homosexual/bisexual male clients of an HIV testing clinic in Mexico City participated in a survey. For this population, more than one-third reported rectal bleeding, including 8 % who said they bleed in at last one of every 2 encounters. Rectal bleeding was associated lots of anal intercourse and the practice of "fisting". Those men who bled during the majority of their sexual contacts had an 80% higher risk of HIV infection. Men who had anal warts and bled during intercourse were 3.5 times more likely to be HIV infected. Source: Coplan, PM, Gortmaker,S., Hernandez-Avila, M., Spiegelman D., Uribe-Zuniga P., Mueller, NE, (1996), HIV infection in Mexico City; Rectal bleeding and anal warts as risk factors among men reporting sex with men. American Journal of Epidemiology 144 (9), pp. 817-827. One 1982 study found that the anal cancer rate for homosexual men is 25 to 50 normal; a 1992 study found it may be a high as 84 times the norm. Source: Council on Scientific Affairs, "Health care needs of gay men and lesbian in the United States," Journal of American Medical Association; May 1, 1996, p. 1355. Homosexual men average somewhere between 10 and 110 different oral sex partners per year. Surveys indicate that about 90% of gays have engaged in rectal intercourse, and about two-thirds do it regularly. Source: Hays et al "Actual versus perceived HIV status," AIDS, 1997; Vol. 11, pp. 1495-1502. Corey & Holmes, " Sexual transmission of Hepatitis A in homosexual men," New England Journal of Medicine, 1980, Vol. 302, pp. 435-438. GAY PEDOPHILES A 1948 sex survey revealed that 28% of homosexual men and 1% of lesbians admitted to sexual relations with children under 16 while they themselves were adults. Source: Gebhard, P.H. and Johnson, A.B., " The Kinsey Data: Marginal Tabulations of the 1938-1963 Interviews Conducted by the Institute for Sex Research," NY: Saunders, 1979. Judge J.T. Rees concluded that "the male homosexual naturally seeks the company of the male adolescent, or of the young male adult, in preference to the fully-grown man. [In 1947] 986 persons were convicted of homosexual and unnatural offences. Of those, 257 were indictable offences involving 402 male victims...The great majority [whom]... were under the age of 16, only 11% ...were over 21. The problem of male homosexuality is in essence the problem of the corruption of youth by itself [i.e. by other boys] and by its elders [And thereby]... the creation...of new addicts ready to corrupt a still further generation of young men and boys in the future." Source: Ress, J. T., and Usill, H. V., "They Stand Apart," 1956 NY: Macmillian, pp. 28-29. In a random survey of British 15-to-19 year olds, 35% of the boys and 9% of the girls claimed to have been approached for sex by adult homosexuals and 2% of the boys and 1% of the girls admitted to succumbing. Source: Schofield, M., The Sexual Behavior of Young People, Boston, Little, Brown: 1965. Dr. C. H. McGaghy estimated that "homosexual offenders [1-3 percent of the population] probably constitute about 50% of molesters who work with children." Source: "Child molesting," Sexual Behavior 1971; Vol.1: pp.16-24. In 1970 the Kinsey Institute interviewed 565 white gays in San Francisco: 25% of them admitted to having had sex with boys aged 16 or younger while they themselves were at least 21. Source: Bell, A.P., and Weinberg, M,S, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1978. The Gay Report stated that 23% of male homosexuals and 6% of lesbians had sex with children. Source: Jay, K., and Young, The Gay Report, NY: Summit, 1979. In France, 129 convicted gays [average age 34 years] said they had sexual contact with a total of 11,007 boys. An average of 85 different boys per homosexual. Source: Dr. Edward Brongersma as quoted by Tom O'Carroll in Pedophilia: The Radical Case, Boston: Alyson, 1982. If the (sexual) abuse was homosexual, the boy is likely to question his sexual orientation; if the abuser was a male and the child a girl, she may defensively turn to lesbianism. Source: Engel, B. (1982) The Right to Innocence, Los Angles, CA: Jeremy P. Tarcher, p.193. Several studies reveal that while no more than 2% of the male adults are homosexual, approximately 35% of pedophiles are homosexual. The first study done out of Toronto reviewed two sizeable studies and calculated that 34% and 32% of the offenders against children were homosexual. In the cases personally handled by the doctors, homosexuals accounted for 36% of their 457 pedophiles. In the other study, a review of scientific and professional literature in 1985, the study concluded that homosexual acts were involved in 25% to 40% of the cases of child molestation. Source: K. Frued et al.,, "Pedophilia and heterosexuality vs. homosexuality," Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 10 (Fall 1984) p. 193-200; also P. Cameron, "Homosexual molestation of children: Sexual interaction of teacher and pupil," Psychological Reports, Vol. 57 (1985): pp.1227-36. The Los Angeles Times surveyed 2,628 adults across the U.S. in 1985. 27% of the women and 16% of the men claimed to have been sexually molested. Since 7% of the molestations of girls and 93% of the molestations of boys were by adults of the same sex, about 4 in 10 molestations in this survey were homosexual. Source: Los Angeles Times, August 25 & 26, 1985. In 1983, a probability survey of sexual experiences of 4,340 adults in 5 U.S. cities found that about 3% of men and 7 percent of women reported sexual involvement with a man before the age of 13. By definition that means that 30% of these molestations were homosexual acts. Also, the survey reported on any sexual advances and any physical sexual contact by elementary and secondary teachers (4% of the teachers claimed to be bisexual or homosexual). 29% of the advances by elementary and 16% of the advances by secondary school teachers were homosexual. In addition, 25% reported actual sexual contact with an elementary school teacher were homosexual. In high school 8 (22%) of 37 contacts between teachers and pupil were homosexual. Of those reporting a homosexual teacher, 6% said that a teacher influenced them to try homosexuality and 13% of the men and 4% of the women said that the teacher made sexual advances toward them. Source: Cameron, P., et al "Child molestation and homosexuality," Psychological Reports, 1986, Vol. 58, pp.327-337. A report on male child molesters found that heterosexual men who molested girls outside their family averaged 20 victims each; those who were homosexual and molested boys averaged 150 victims each. Source: Abel, G. G., et al, "Self-reported sex crimes on no incarcerated paraphiliacs," Journal of Interpersonal Violence 1987: Vol. 2; pp. 3 -25. The number of boys victimized is estimated to be around 3.2 million. The number of victims is derived from the fact that 3.8% of 3,132 adult subjects in this study were males, who reported childhood sexual contact with an adult, 93% of those with an adult male. Based on this study, one would multiply the U.S. adult male population by 3.8% and then by 93%, and arrive at 3.2 million. Of the sexual abuse of children, 35% were homosexual assaults (Experts agree that this number is probably higher because large numbers of adult males repress, or do not report, the painful experience of molestation). Source: J. M. Siegel et al., "The prevalence of childhood sexual assault," American Journal of Epidemiology 126 (December 1987): pp. 1141-1153. North America Man/Boy Love Association's (NAMBLA) web page cites a German study of 8,000 reported victims of sex offenses, which, NAMBLA reports, concluded, "None of the boys experienced force or coercion, and no negative outcomes were observed for any of the boys." Source: "What Can Science Tell Us about Man/Boy Love?" www.nambla.org/benefit.htm (off-line now), referring to M.C. Baurmann, Sexuality, Violence, and Psychological After-Effects: A Longitudinal Study of Cases of Sexual Assault Which Were Reported to the Police (Wiebaden: Bundeskriminalamt, 1988). In a clinical study, Robert L. Johnson, M.D., found that "70% of those who had been molested (by a male or female) felt devastated immediately after the molestation incident had occurred." Johnson also notes: "Low self-esteem and depression are the most important long-term effects experienced by sexually abused boys, along with a tendency to feel helpless and vulnerable. Some of these boys are almost compulsively drawn into situations where they are repeatedly victimized. Adult types of sexual dysfunction appear to be as common among former sexual abuse victims as they are in adult rape victims." Source: Interview with Robert L. Johnson, M.D., conducted by Diane K. Shrier, M.D., Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality (September 1988): p. 35. In 1990, The Journal of Homosexuality produced a special double issue devoted to adult-child sex, which was entitled "Male Intergenerational Intimacy." On page 133, one article said many pedophiles believe they are "born that way and cannot change." Another writer said a man who counseled troubled teenage boys could achieve "miracles...not by preaching to them, but by sleeping with them." On page 162, the loving pedophile can offer a "companionship, security, and protection" which neither peers nor parents can provide. On page 164, parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son "not as a rival or competitor, not as a thief of their property, but as a partner in the boy's upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home..." On page 323, a British university professor writes: "Boys want sex with men, boys seduce adult men, the experience is very common and much enjoyed." And finally on page 325, a professor of social science at the State University of New York said he looks forward to the day when Americans will "get over their hysteria about child abuse" and child pornography. Source: "Male Intergenerational Intimacy: Historical, Socio-Psychological, and Legal Perspectives," The Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 20, Nos. 1&2, 1990. Investigation of those suffering severe chronic mental illness implicates child molestation as a primary cause (45% of Bigas et al's patients were homosexually abused). Source: Bigas, J., et al "Severe paternal sexual abuse in early childhood and systematic aggression against the family and the institution," Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 1991; vol.36, pp.527-529. Also see Oates K. R. and Tong L., "Sexual abuse of children: an area with room for professional reforms," Medical Journal of Australia, 1987; vol. 147, pp. 544-548. Of the approximately 100 child molesters in 1991 at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons, a third were heterosexual, a third bisexual, and a third homosexual in orientation. Source: An interview with Dr. Raymond A. Knight at his presentation, "Differential prevalence of personality disorders in rapists and child molesters," at Eastern Psychological Association Convention, New York; April 12, 1991. Pedophilia and its promotion is not limited to male homosexuals. Virginia Uribe, a lesbian teacher in Los Angeles, has been at the forefront of a movement to "affirm gay teenagers," through school-based pro-homosexual "counseling". Her own program, called Project 10 (named for the the myth that 10% of the US population is homosexual), included a book for young people called "One Teenager in Ten". This "resource" for troubled teens features lurid pornographic stories, including a graphic lesbian sex scene between a 12 year-old girl and her 23 year-old dance teacher. The apparent goal is to activate children's sexuality at increasingly younger ages. At a conference promoting Project 10 to public school teachers in Oregon, University of Washington sociologist Pepper Schwartz admits targeting pre-pubescent children for "affirmation," saying, "At this point, getting the majority to say 'gay' is good' at 9 or 10 years old is going to be difficult, but just because it is difficult doesn't mean it's not the right thing." Source: Virginia Uribe, "Homosexuality, the Classroom and your Children," 1992. Gay advocates state that most child molesters are heterosexuals males. But this is a misleading statement. In proportion to their numbers (about 1 out of 36 men), homosexual males are more likely to engage in sex with minors: in fact, they appear to be 3 times more likely than straight men to engage in adult-child sexual relations. The average homosexual pedophile victimizes between 20 to 150 boys before being arrested. This is far more children than the average heterosexual pedophile. Source: K. Freud and R.I. Watson, "The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: An Exploratory Study," Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18 (Spring 1992): pp. 34-43. Author George Grant writes that if one visits just about any major city with an active homosexual community, "gay' bookstores will carry numerous titles which endorse man/boy sex. Source: Grant. George and Horne, Mark, "Legislating Immorality," Chicago, Moody press, 1993, P. 10. Another apologist for pederasty is Larry Kramer, founder of ACT-UP. In Report from the Holocaust: The Making of an AIDS Activist (1993), Kramer had this to say about adult/child sex: "In those instances where children do have sex with their homosexual elders, be they teachers or anyone else, I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it." In 1980 the largest Dutch gay organization (the COC) "adopted the position that the liberation of pedophilia must be viewed as a gay issue...[and that] ages of consent should therefore be abolished...by acknowledging the affinity between homosexuality and pedophilia, the COC has quite possibly made it easier for homosexual adults to become more sensitive to erotic desires of younger members of their sex, thereby broadening gay identity." In 1990 COC achieved a significant victory: lowering of the age of consent for homosexual sex in Holland to 12 [ unless the parents object, in which case it goes up to 15]. Source: Verified by telephone with the Dutch Embassy, August 5, 1993. "The often stated claim by militant gays that they are statistically no more likely to engage in pederasty than heterosexuals has no empirical basis. A 1985 study of arrests in 12 U.S. jurisdictions showed, on average, about 40% of arrests for pederasty homosexuals. Another recent study, touted by gays as evidence to support their claim of being no more likely than heteros to engage in such behavior, actually proved the exact opposite. The study was done by a team of researchers from the University of Colorado who, according to the leader, Dr. Carole Jenny, set out to prove that homosexuals were not more likely to molest children...In any case, the researchers looked at 269 cases at a child-molestation clinic and found that 50 cases, or 18.5%, were male-on-male molestation. Since homosexuals make up probably less than 5% of the population (more like 2%), this would seem to indicate a disproportionate molestation rate. So the investigators engaged in what is known in the scientific community as 'data torture.' Without interviewing the molesters, the interviewers decided that most of those offenders who engaged in homosexual sex weren't really homosexuals. Only one (1) of the 50 actually qualified as gay...The study was then touted as evidence that gays don't molest children." The beneficiaries of "sexual freedom" for children and teens are often predatory adult homosexuals. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force is on record that "gay teens should be supported in coming out," but writer Paul Mulshine notes that "the guidance, and the sex, tends to come from adult gays who bring the teens out... A study published in the Journal of Pediatrics showed that of a sample of gay teenagers who had steady sexual partners, the mean age of the partners was 25 years." Mulshine also cites a "1985 study of arrest in 12 U.S. jurisdictions [for child sex abuse, which] showed... on average, about 40% of arrests for pederastic homosexuals." Source: Paul Mulshine, "Man-Boy Love" Heterodoxy, September 1994, p. 11. In a 10-state study, 33% of the male and 22% of the female teachers caught molesting students did so performing homosexual sex acts ( keep in mind that approximately 2-3% of men are practicing homosexuals and 1% of women are practicing lesbians). Source: Cameron & Cameron," Do homosexual teachers pose a risk to pupils?" Journal of Psychology; vol.130: pp. 603-613. It is impossible to determine the total number of male homosexual pedophiles, but they may constitute at least 10% of the adult male homosexual population. This is taken from the total number of victims and divide it by the mean number of victims per homosexual pedophile (150), which is 21,333. But this is not an accurate number, because it is based only on pedophiles who have been caught. The majority are probably never caught - perhaps in part because they molest fewer boys. If we lower the victimization rate to, say, 25 boys per pedophile, we arrive at the very disturbing number of 128,000, which is over 10% of the practicing male homosexual population. It is estimated that approximately 80% of pedophilic victims are boys who have been molested by adult males. Source: Thomas B. Schmidt, "The Price of Love," Straight & Narrow? 1995; pp. 115 &205. " Childhood sexual seductions are an obvious cause of homosexuality. When these seductions give pleasure and comfort, the same-sex sex can become addictive, especially when it overtakes someone caught up in a traumatic family situation. The sex - so quick and easy - can help relieve a person's anxiety. Thus it becomes a kind of habit. Like any habit, smoking for instance, it is a habit that can be hard to kick. That's the way it is with addictions that give great pleasure." Source: Charles Socarides, M.D., "Homosexually, A Freedom Too Far," 1995, p. 19. Alyson Publications, the leading publisher of "gay" titles, markets books aimed at pre-schoolers, such as "Daddy's Roommate," "Heather Has Two Mommies," along with "Gay Sex: A Manual for Men Who Love Men." The latter contains detailed instructions for pedophiles and pederasts on successfully avoiding discovery and arrest. "Avoid situations," advises author Jack Hart in 1996, "were a number of men having sex with the same boy, or group of boys, over a period of time." In 1996, Psychiatrist Jeffery Satinover commented on the Journal of Homosexuality's "Male Intergenerational Intimacy" article back in 1990. "This special issue reflects the substantial, influential, and growing segment of the homosexual community that neither hides nor condemns pedophilia. Rather they argue that pedophilia is an acceptable aspect of sexuality, especially of homosexuality. Indeed, the San Francisco Sentinel, a Bay Area gay-activist newspaper, published a piece arguing that pedophilia is central to male homosexual life." Source: Satinover, Jeffrey (1996), Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, p. 63. "I have always been open with my daughter about my lesbianism...I am proud to be the lesbian mother of a lesbian daughter! ...at age 12 she developed a crush towards one of my friends...As teens, some lesbians had their own loving sexual encounters with adult women...To me the ones being controlling and manipulative are those who tell the teens they must not have sex with adult women. Now that is control! " Source: Monica, Oklahoma City, OK, Lesbian Connection, November-December 1997. In December 2, 1998 issue of the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) released a cumulative report on male child sexual abuse. The article stated that it was estimated that 1 out of 4 girls are sexually molested in America today. This report makes the conservative claim that 1 in 5 boys are also sexually assaulted. The article reviewed 176 scientific research studies over the past 12 years dealing with male child sexual abuse. The staggering results are as follows: As high as 94% of all perpetrators abusing boys were men. Sexually abused boys described three or more sexual acts. These included but not limited to forced anal penetration, oral or genital contact. Abuse involving anal penetration covered in the report was up to two-third's of the cases. Male sexual abuse victims are 4 times more likely to suffer major depression, 3 times greater to have bulimia; and twice as likely to have developed behavioral problems. Suicide rates range from 1.5 to 14 times higher than the average teenage boy. Substance abuse rates are 12 to 44 times higher than normal. Boy victims were up to 7 times more likely to identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual. Source: William C. Holmes, Md, MSCE, Gail B. Slap, MD, MS, " Sexual Abuse of Boys," Journal of American Medical Association, December 2, 1998 - Vol. 280, No. 21, pp.1855-1862. The empirical evidence is continuously mounting and becomes clearer and more concise. There are three categories of child molesters: A. The heterosexual pedophile - who molests between 10 to 20 little girls before being caught. B. The homosexual pedophile - who averages molesting between 80 to 120 boys before being caught. C. The Serial pedophile - who will molest anybody; girls, boys, toddlers, and even babies. These very sick individuals can molest up to 1000 children before being caught. According to the "gay" community's own standards, two of the above categories involve either homosexual or bisexual molestations; regardless of the self sexual identity of the perpetrator. Even Alfred Kinsey acknowledged that any same-sex act is homosexual by definition. That means, there is a high percentage of child molestations involving individuals who have engaged in homosexual activity (anywhere from 20% to 80% as indicated in the above sources). The homosexual activists and mainstream media are lying to us. There is a strong connection between pedophilia and homosexuality, especially in the male homosexual culture. Gays need to ask themselves why their elected sexual preference is predicated upon youth, physical beauty, fleeting sexual encounters and always looking around for the next bit of fresh meat. End of story, really. The article below is an eloquent demolition of the arguments for gay marriage, parenting and adoption rights. You fudge-packers and rug-munchers are going to need to come up with slightly better arguments than personal abuse and claims of “dubious statistics if you want to be credible to anyone but yourselves. “Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk” - Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D. A number of studies in recent years have purported to show that children raised in gay and lesbian households fare no worse than those reared in traditional families. Yet much of that research fails to meet acceptable standards for psychological research; it is compromised by methodological flaws and driven by political agendas instead of an objective search for truth. In addition, openly lesbian researchers sometimes conduct research with an interest in portraying homosexual parenting in a positive light. The deficiencies of studies on homosexual parenting include reliance upon an inadequate sample size, lack of random sampling, lack of anonymity of research participants, and self-presentation bias. The presence of methodological defects--a mark of substandard research--would be cause for rejection of research conducted in virtually any other subject area. The overlooking of such deficiencies in research papers on homosexual failures can be attributed to the "politically correct" determination within those in the social science professions to "prove" that homosexual households are no different than traditional families. However, no amount of scholarly legerdemain contained in an accumulation of flawed studies can obscure the well-established and growing body of evidence showing that both mothers and fathers provide unique and irreplaceable contributions to the raising of children. Children raised in traditional families by a mother and father are happier, healthier, and more successful than children raised in non-traditional environments. David Cramer, whose review of twenty studies on homosexual parenting appeared in the Journal of Counseling and Development, found the following: The generalizability of the studies is limited. Few studies employed control groups and most had small samples. Almost all parents were Anglo-American, middle class, and well educated. Measures for assessing gender roles in young children tend to focus on social behavior and generally are not accurate psychological instruments. Therefore it is impossible to make large scale generalizations . . . that would be applicable to all children.[1] Since these words were penned in 1986, the number of studies on the subject of homosexual parenting has steadily grown. The fact that these studies continue to be flawed by the methodological errors warned about by Cramer has not inhibited the proponents of homosexual parenting from their sanguine assessment of the outcomes of children raised in homosexual households. Silverstein and Auerbach, for example, see no essential difference between traditional mother-father families and homosexual-led families: "Other aspects of personal development and social relationships were also found to be within the normal range for children raised in lesbian and gay families." They suggest that "gay and lesbian parents can create a positive family context."[2] This conclusion is echoed in the official statement on homosexual parenting by the American Psychological Association's Public Interest Directorate, authored by openly lesbian activist Charlotte J. Patterson of the University of Virginia: In summary, there is no evidence that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect. . . . Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.[3] PROBLEMS WITH HOMOSEXUAL PARENTING RESEARCH In addition, Patterson acknowledges that "research in this area has presented a variety of methodological challenges," and that "questions have been raised with regard to sampling issues, statistical power, and other technical matters (e.g., Belcastro, Gramlich, Nicholson, Price, and Wilson, 1993)." She adds, revealingly: Research in this area has also been criticized for using poorly matched or no control groups in designs that call for such controls. . . . Other criticisms have been that most studies have involved relatively small samples [and] that there have been inadequacies in assessment procedures employed in some studies.[5] Though she admits to serious methodological and design errors that would call into question the findings of any study, Patterson makes the astonishing claim that "even with all the questions and/or limitations that may characterize research in the area, none of the published research suggests conclusions different from those that will be summarized below." But any such conclusions are only as reliable as the evidence upon which they are based. If the alleged evidence is flawed, then the conclusions must likewise be considered suspect. One suspects that the lack of studies with proper design and controls is due to the political agendas driving the acceptance of homosexual parenting, which favor inadequate and superficial research yielding the desired results. In a study published in the Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, P. Belcastro et al. reviewed fourteen studies on homosexual parenting according to accepted scientific standards. Their "most impressive finding" was that "all of the studies lacked external validity. The conclusion that there are no significant differences in children raised by lesbian mothers versus heterosexual mothers is not supported by the published research data base."[6] Similarly, in their study of lesbian couples in Family Relations, L. Keopke et al. remark, "Conducting research in the gay community is fraught with methodological problems."[7] A careful reading of studies used to lend support to homosexual parenting reveals more modest claims than are often attributed to them, as well as significant methodological limitations: Nearly all of the existing studies of homosexual parenting have major deficiencies in sampling: They use a small sample size; they fail to obtain a truly representative sample due to sources of sampling bias; they do not use a random sample; or they use a sample with characteristics that are inappropriate for the crucial development research question involved in the study.[8] Inadequate Sample Size. • After finding no significant difference between a group of nine children raised by lesbians and a similar group of children raised by heterosexual parents, S. L. Huggins admitted, "The meaning and implications of this finding are unclear, and the small sample size makes any interpretation of these data difficult."[9] • A report by J. M. Bailey et al. in Developmental Psychology, commenting on studies of the children of gay and lesbian parents, notes that "available studies [are] insufficiently large to generate much statistical power."[10] • S. Golombok and F. Tasker admit in their follow-up study of children reared by lesbians, "It is possible that the small sample size resulted in an underestimate of the significance of group difference as a result of low statistical power (Type II error)."[11] Elsewhere they caution that negative effects of children reared by lesbians "could have remained undetected because of the relatively small sample size. Therefore, although discernible trends were identified, caution is required in interpreting these results."[12] • In his study published in Child Psychiatry and Human Development comparing the children of homosexual and heterosexual mothers, G. A. Javaid frankly admits that "the numbers are too small in this study to draw any conclusions."[13] • J. J. Bigner and R. B. Jacobson state in the Journal of Homosexuality: Those who do study gay fathers may be frustrated by the difficulties of obtaining valid and adequate sample sizes. Most often, researchers must deal with many methodological problems in locating and testing gay fathers in numbers sufficiently large to make acceptable statistical analyses of data. For this reason, what is known currently about gay fathers is weakened by these methodological problems. It is practically impossible to obtain a representative sample of gay fathers, and those studies published to date frequently utilize groups of white, urban, well-educated males for study because of convenience sampling.[14] • In her study of lesbian families, Patterson admits to sampling bias: Some concerns relevant to sampling issues should also be acknowledged. Most of the families who took part in the Bay Area Families Study were headed by lesbian mothers who were White, well educated, relatively affluent, and living in the greater San Francisco Bay Area. For these reasons, no claims about representativeness of the present sample can be made.[15] • Similarly, N. L. Wyers, in his study of male and female homosexual parents that appeared in Social Work, acknowledges that his study "cannot be considered representative" and that "therefore, the findings cannot be generalized beyond the sample itself."[16] • By contrast, R. Green et al. writing in Archives of Sexual Behavior, found that the few experimental studies that included even modestly larger samples (13-30) of boys or girls reared by homosexual parents: [Found] developmentally important statistically significant differences between children reared by homosexual parents compared to heterosexual parents. For example, children raised by homosexuals were found to have greater parental encouragement for cross-gender behavior [and] greater amounts of cross-dressing and cross-gender play/role behavior.[17] Lack of Random Sampling. • L. Lott-Whitehead and C. T. Tully admit the inherent weaknesses in their study of lesbian mothers: This study was descriptive and, therefore, had inherent in its design methodological flaws consistent with other similar studies. Perhaps the most serious concerns representativeness. . . . Probability random sampling . . . was impossible. This study does not purport to contain a representative sample, and thus generalizability cannot be assumed.[18] • N. L. Wyers acknowledges that he did not use random sampling procedures in his study of lesbian and gay spouses, rendering his study "vulnerable to all the problems associated with self-selected research participants."[19] • Golombok et al. write of their study: A further objection to the findings lies in the nature of the samples studied. Both groups were volunteers obtained through gay and single-parent magazines and associations. Obviously these do not constitute random samples, and it is not possible to know what biases are involved in the method of sample selection.[20] Lack of Anonymity of Research Participants. • M. B. Harris and P. H. Turner point out in the Journal of Homosexuality: Most gay/lesbian parents who participate in such research are concerned about their parenting and their children, and most have established a public gay identity. 'Closet' gay parents are difficult to identify, and their problems may be quite different from those of more openly gay parents.[21] • Harris and Turner employed superior research techniques to ensure the complete anonymity of their research subjects. As a result, in contrast to other studies, they reported problems associated with being a homosexual parent that had gone unreported by earlier studies: "Perhaps the anonymity of the present sampling procedure made subjects more willing to acknowledge those problems than those in earlier studies."[22] Self-presentation Bias. • In their National Lesbian Family Study, N. Gartrell et al. found that eighteen of nineteen studies of homosexual parents used a research procedure that was contaminated by self-presentation bias. Gartrell mentions the methodological problems of one longitudinal study of lesbian families: Some may have volunteered for this project because they were motivated to demonstrate that lesbians were capable of producing healthy, happy children. To the extent that these subjects might wish to present themselves and their families in the best possible light, the study findings may be shaped by self-justification and self-presentation bias.[23] • Harris and Turner admit, with regard to their study: There is no way of knowing how representative the sample is. . . . The high proportion of gay subjects who indicated a willingness to be interviewed suggests that they were perhaps unusually interested in the issues raised in the questionnaire and thus willing to divulge their homosexuality to the researchers. Moreover, even though the questionnaire was anonymous, the gay parents may have been particularly biased toward emphasizing the positive aspects of their relationships with their children, feeling that the results might have implications for custody decisions in the future. Thus, all generaliza-tions must be viewed with caution. . . . Because all uncorroborated self-report data are subject to biases, and because parents may deliberately or unconsciously minimize the extent of conflicts with their children, these findings cannot be accepted at face value.[24] Evidence from Marmoset Monkeys? The twenty-six species of marmosets live in family groups of up to thirty monkeys. Only the dominant female of the group gives birth, usually to twins. What Silverstein and Auerbach find so impressive about these tiny primates is that, after birth, the males as well as females of the group help carry the baby marmosets, passing them back to the mother for nursing. It is difficult to grasp the significance Silverstein and Auerbach attach to what they readily admit is an "extreme example" of the supposed "limited parenting involvement by mothers."[26] The authors contend, "Male marmosets behave like full-time mothers." It seems there are specific chores that the male marmosets cannot perform. As the authors themselves admit, marmoset mothers perform the essential function of nursing their young, without which the baby marmosets--who must depend upon their mother's milk for the first three months of life--could not survive. In turn, the males of the group fill the vital role of watching the baby marmosets, protecting them from predators, while the nursing mother forages to replenish herself. In short, one could just as well argue, contrary to Silverstein and Auerbach, that the behavior of marmoset monkeys demonstrates that both male and female fulfill separate and important functions in the raising of young. Psychologist David Blankenhorn, head of the Institute for American Values and author of Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem, criticized such attempts to rely upon behavioral studies of non-human primates to draw conclusions about the character of human families: "I always appreciate critical articles, because they can focus your argument and point out weaknesses. But [Silverstein and Auerbach's] article was unusually silly. Not one thing they said was what I would call a serious insight."[27] In their thorough review of homosexual parenting studies, Robert Lerner and Althea K. Nagai found little evidence to support the oft-repeated mantra that homosexual households are "just like" traditional families: "We conclude that the methods used in these studies are so flawed that these studies prove nothing. Therefore, they should not be used in legal cases to make any argument about 'homosexual vs. heterosexual' parenting. Their claims have no basis."[28] HARMFUL ASPECTS OF THE HOMOSEXUAL LIFESTYLE Homosexual Promiscuity. • A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with five hundred or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.[29] • In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners.[30] • A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than 100 sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than 1,000 sexual partners.[31] • In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."[32] Promiscuity among Homosexual Couples. • In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison report that in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years: Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.[33] Most understood sexual relations outside the relationship to be the norm, and viewed adopting monogamous standards as an act of oppression. • In Male and Female Homosexuality, M. Saghir and E. Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[34] • In their Journal of Sex Research study of the sexual practices of older homosexual men, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that only 2.7 percent of older homosexuals had only one sexual partner in their lifetime.[35] Comparison of Homosexual 'Couples' and Heterosexual Spouses. • In Sex in America, called by the New York Times "the most important study of American sexual behavior since the Kinsey reports," Robert T. Michael et al. report that 90 percent of wives and 75 percent of husbands claim never to have had extramarital sex.[36] • A nationally representative survey of 884 men and 1,288 women published in Journal of Sex Research found that 77 percent of married men and 88 percent of married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows.[37] • In The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States, E. O. Laumann et al. conducted a national survey that found that 75 percent of husbands and 85 percent of wives never had sexual relations outside of marriage.[38] • A telephone survey conducted for Parade magazine of 1,049 adults selected to represent the demographic characteristics of the United States found that 81 percent of married men and 85 percent of married women reported that they had never violated their marriage vows.[39] While the rate of fidelity within marriage cited by these studies remains far from ideal, there is a magnum order of difference between the negligible lifetime fidelity rate cited for homosexuals and the 75 to 90 percent cited for married couples. This indicates that even "committed" homosexual relationships display a fundamental incapacity for the faithfulness and commitment that is axiomatic to the institution of marriage. Unhealthy Aspects of 'Monogamous' Homosexual Relationships. "Johnny and David Rather than respond to your childish name calling..." I apologised for that - didn't you see it?? Was that not good enough? There are some seriously sick and obsessed people posting here - and it ain't the homosexuals, from what I can see... Reuben, "Homosexual posters on this blog have directed an extraordinary outpouring of vituperation and ad hominem attack towards anyone questioning received gay activist dogma". What an exageration. Let's look at who is doing the name-calling: "You fudge-packers and rug-munchers are going to need to come up with slightly better arguments than personal abuse and claims of “dubious statistics if you want to be credible to anyone but yourselves". Gosh! Why, it's Reuben in his last post (similar examples in his penultimate post too)... This is the kind of language that you let slip out now and again revealing that you are not an objective dealer in facts. We gays will never be credible to people like you (fortunately a tiny minority of people in our democratic societies). What kind of language is 'fudge-packers' by the way? It's rather abusive and it is intended to tar all gays with the same brush (do you assume all lesbians are fudge-packers too? what about fudge-packees? what about those who don't pack fudge at all but are still gay? What about retired 'fudge-packers' who now live happily with their partners and some pets - oh, no, according to your 'research', domestic dogs and cats are in danger of being 'fudge-packed' too). 'Rug-munchers' is a new one - I guess it's popular 'down-under' you should know! That aside, down to the substance of the REAL arguments in hand. There are two key issues that Melanie focused on in her article (both of which you seem incapable of addressing as you appear to assume that your 'facts' speak for themselves): 1) the possible effects upon heterosexual marriage of the introduction of gay marriage or same-sex partnership rights; 2) the introduction of gay marriage / same-sex partnership rights per se - is there any merit or justice for so doing? Now, Melanie clearly believes that 1) the introduction of such rights for gay people will affect the institution of traditional marriage and 2) the introduction of such rights per se is not justified. I judge that she exagerates the likely effect of gay marriage/ same-sex partnership right on traditional marriage. Why? Because it is heterosexual behaviour that determines the workings and mores of modern marriage and not homosexual behaviour. As she herself points out, it is feckless behaviour by heterosexuals that most damages heterosexual marriage. I guess she might have had in mind the 'slippery slope' school of thought: ie: by allowing some new and rather different entrants to a cherished institution you undermine that cherished institution. However, I believe, once again, that she stretches credibility on this point: homosexuals are not entering the same institution as heterosexuals and therefore the two worlds of marriage would be independent of each other rather than inter-dependent. Indeed, her article collapsed under the weight of trying to prove too many causal relationships between things that are not causally related and due to her mis- characterisation of those in support of gay marriage as being hellbent on destroying traditional marriage. (You may have noticed on this web site alone that several heterosexuals have supported gay marriage). As for the arguments over the introduction of gay marriage / same-sex partnerships per se: I believe that their introduction is justified on the grounds of natural justice. I believe that to deny two people who are in a relationship together the ability to protect their relationship and each other through access to certain property, pension and next-of-kin rights is unjust and offends natural justice. For example, current English law gives no next-of-kin rights to same-sex partners. Now, in the unlikely event that I were in hospital on a life-support machine, I would wish that my partner, -whom I trust completely and love more than anyone else - would be able to take the ultimate decision about whether or not to turn off the life-support machine. But, under current English law, he cannot do this - only a member of my family could. This is unjust because it offends against my express wishes as an individual. The same is true of the other rights that would be granted to gay couples in the UK Government's Bill on same-sex partnership rights. In the absence of such legal provision, my partner and I both carry written requests that the other should be given access to one another in the event of one being hospitalised. We hope that our wishes would be complied with - but, under existing law, hope is all we can do as there is no legal guarantee. So, there you have it: those are my views in relation to the subjects under discussion in Melanie's article. These, I believe, relate to natural justice and do not need to be justified by the use of research or statistics as they relate to the rights of individuals to make choices that affect them and their relationships with other consenting adults and nobody else. It really is as simple as that. Your large number of comments and citations of research aimed at 'pathologising' ALL gay people as mentally unbalanced, diseased, child-abusing, highly promiscuous, degenerates therefore have no place in this debate. Not knowing you or your motives, I can only guess as to why you keep promoting them on this thread. However, I reject totally the assertion that individuals should be denied rights because of the behaviour of other members of their minority group. I have no intention of ploughing through your research references and countering them. I justify my life, the decisions I make (and the morality thereof) in my every day life and am not going to try to argue vicariously (ie through justifying or rejecting the moral and behavioural choices of other people). I presume similarly that you would not feel compelled to justify your own life decisions based on the actions of other heterosexuals. A few quick comments on the research and statistics you cite. 1) nearly all of the studies you cite are 'snapshots' of sexual practices based on surveys at a particular time (most that you cite are at least 20 years old and one dates back to the 1940s). They therefore need to be viewed as such rather than as universal. 2) Self-appraisal surveys are notoriously inaccurate whether for measuring voting intentions or sexual practices. This can be for a variety of reasons: level of education, people sometimes do not like to admit to certain behavioural practices, certain questions being 'leading' (ie encouraging particular answers); 3)nearly all of these studies were conducted in the USA and are not therefore directly relevant to the situation in Europe as sexual practices vary between countries for a variety of reasons: religious, cultural, rate of marriage, rate of economic development etc. 4) surveys of sexual practices within the USA also vary according to the sampling techniques used - for example, a study based on the views of gays in San Francisco (CA) might show quite different results from one conducted in Cleveland (Ohio) or from one conducted in rural of small-town America; 5) Finally and most importantly: it is notoriously difficult to make generalisations about homosexuals in the general population based upon the responses of surveys of samples of homosexuals. This is because nobody knows absolutely reliably how many homosexuals are present in a given population. Finally, I do not judge people's relationships purely on the sexual practices of the people in the relationships or in terms of whether they involve some extra-marital sexual activity. I judge them rather on the extent to w |