Category Archives: Homosexual Agenda
More Proof that People Can Overcome Same-Sex Attraction
Homosexual activists and politically-motivated psychiatrists falsely claim that no one can come out of homosexuality. California’s radical left-wing-dominated assembly is about to pass a law making it a crime for therapists to counsel teens struggling with same-sex attraction.
The truth is that thousands have overcome same-sex attraction. Here is one woman’s story.
Radicals Attack CAP: Let’s Clear a Few Things Up
By Cathi Herod, President
Center for Arizona Policy
What a week. I don’t know if I’ve ever witnessed such baseless and false attacks on CAP-supported bills as I saw this week. While I understand that it may be more entertaining for some to blatantly lie about legislation, the people deserve to know the truth.
So I’m going to clear a few things up about CAP-supported bills and other issues that have been misconstrued in the press and liberal blogs this week.
HB 2625 - This simple bill protects the religious freedom of faith-based groups and other employers. No employer should be forced by the government to pay for contraception and abortifacients in their insurance plans when doing so would violate their First Amendment protected religious beliefs. The media has falsely picked up the opponents’ outrageous claims that the bill would force women to tell employers why they are taking birth control pills. Read the bill. That claim is not in the bill.
Center for Arizona Policy does not take a position on family planning or birth control. We do, however take a very strong position that faith-based institutions and employers who hold a religious belief regarding contraception should not be compelled to violate those beliefs and pay for the medication.
The bill’s sponsor, Representative Debbie Lesko has done an incredible job in numerous media interviews explaining this point, like this interview with Greta Van Sustren. Take a moment to thank Rep. Lesko by emailing her at: dlesko@azleg.gov?subject=Thank%20You!
SB 1359 - Sponsored by Sen. Nancy Barto, this legislation is based on common sense and decency. It prohibits “wrongful life” and “wrongful birth” lawsuits. These lawsuits arise when a child is born with a disability, and the parents sue the doctor claiming that had they known their child had a disability, they would have had an abortion.
These lawsuits endorse the viewpoint that the life of a disabled child is worth less than the life of a child without a disability. Imagine what the children of the parents who file these lawsuits must feel when they get older and find out that their parents sued because they wish they would have had an abortion.
The attacks on this bill have truly been far-fetched. Some blogs claimed that this bill would allow doctors to knowingly withhold information from parents. Untrue. This bill does nothing to protect doctors that cause harm to preborn children, withhold information, or are grossly negligent.
Bullying, Part Two. Perhaps you’ve seen the attacks on me and CAP this week regarding the anti-bullying legislation I wrote about last week. I’ve been called a “legislative terrorist” and I’m sure a few other names by the time you read this.
While most of the attacks do not warrant a response, I do want to address one false statement made by State Senator David Schapira. He has claimed multiple times that I said SB 1462 is a “back door gay bill, no pun intended.” I would never say something so crass. Sen. Schapira — disagree with me if you want. But stop telling lies about what I supposedly said.
Click here to see a Channel 12 news clip attacking us for our position then click here to read the statement I issued to the press in response.
Pornographers coming to Arizona? – Several of you have written me recently about the California pornography industry threatening to come to Arizona because of new regulations in Los Angeles.
What wasn’t mentioned is the huge roadblock in their way: filming pornography in Arizona violates our prostitution laws.
Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery sent a clear message to pornographers this week when he released a statement explaining how virtually all of those involved in pornography could be subject to felony charges:
Under Arizona law, anyone paid to appear in a pornographic movie may be guilty of the crime of prostitution, which carries mandatory jail time as well as the possibility of other penalties. Furthermore, anyone involved in other aspects of producing pornographic movies, including soliciting individuals to appear, collecting a fee from the monies received by individuals solicited to appear by virtue of an agent relationship, transporting individuals from California to Arizona for the purpose of appearing in a pornographic movie, and/or establishing a venue for the filming and/or production of pornographic movies may be guilty of committing one or several felonies in the state of Arizona. Accordingly, Arizona law precludes the establishment of a “pornography industry” to any degree such as that present in California.
You can read his full statement here. After you read it, take a moment to thank Mr. Montgomery for standing up to the pornography industry.
The Truth about Homosexual Parents
Studies: Children Raised by Lesbians Not Problem-Free
by Karla Dial
CitizenLink
Over the last few years, a few published studies have claimed that children raised by same-sex couples compare favorably to — and sometimes even better than — children raised by moms and dads on measures of self-esteem and academics.
Those studies, in turn, have served as fodder for a media campaign that two loving parents are all children really need.
But a closer look at the research, says Glenn T. Stanton, Focus on the Family’s director of family formation studies, shows there are quite a few problems associated with those studies — both in the way they were conducted and in what they reveal.
According to a study published late last year in the Archive of Sexual Behavior, girls raised by lesbian mothers are seven times more likely to consider a same-sex encounter, and twice as likely to identify as lesbian or bisexual than those raised by heterosexual parents. They are also seven times more likely to use “the “morning after” pill.
“We already know that girls who grow up without fathers are more likely to be sexually adventurous, and it has a lot to do with being fatherless,” Stanton explained. “Two lesbians can be the most loving moms in the world, but they can’t give a girl the kind of positive attention and other-gendered affirmation she needs from a dad.”
While girls raised by lesbians tend to be much more sexually experimental than their peers, boys tend to be more sexually reticent.
“Boys without male role models tend to be either overly super-macho, trying to see how many girls they can get, or wallflowers,” Stanton said. “They’re not necessarily more sexually virtuous than boys raised by heterosexual parents, but they haven’t developed emotionally and psychologically in the same ways. It’s not that they don’t want to go in the water — they’re not inclined to go anywhere near the water.”
Overall, the research shows that 64 percent of children raised in lesbian households consider having homosexual relationships, compared to 17 percent raised by heterosexual parents.
The data was drawn from the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study — the longest, largest study of same-sex families conducted so far. Though articles based on it have been published in several academic journals, Stanton said the methodology used wouldn’t be accepted for a less politically charged issue.
The 84 lesbian families — a statistically insignificant sample size — were recruited exclusively from San Francisco, Boston and Washington, D.C. All were seeking pregnancy (or were already pregnant) through artificial insemination, and learned about the study from announcements at lesbian-oriented events, newspapers and bookstores; 38 percent belonged to gay activist organizations and 80 percent said if given a choice, they’d want to be lesbians
“These women know they’re participating in something that’s really important for their movement,” Stanton said, pointing out the study’s 97 percent retention rate — extremely rare in scientific circles. “Joe Sixpack could discern the problems with this study, but good journalists tend to put their critical thinking skills to bed on this issue because they don’t want the backlash that will come down on them if they ask critical questions.”
FOR MORE INFORMATION Read the FocusFamilyInsight on “Adolescents of the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Sexual Orientation, Sexual Behavior, and Sexual Risk Exposure,” published in the Archive of Sexual Behavior.
Read more about the flaws in the methodology employed by the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study.
Pro-Family Activist Says Babeu Should Not Run for Congress as a ‘Conservative’
Chad Groening writes today on OneNewsNow.com of the controversy surrounding Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu …
A pro-family activist who works to expose the truth about homosexuality is concerned that Pinal County (Arizona) Sheriff Paul Babeu may become a poster boy for the radical homosexual agenda now that the lawmaker has confirmed he’s homosexual.
Babeu is a first-term sheriff who has risen to national prominence because of his tough opposition to illegal immigration. That reputation earned him a speaker’s spot at the recently concluded Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC 2012) hosted by The American Conservative Union.
But Babeu, who is running as a Republican candidate for Congress in a newly drawn district in his state, was forced to admit over the weekend he is homosexual. A Phoenix-based alternative magazine known as The New Times reported that a Mexican national and former campaign volunteer claims Babeu threatened to deport him if their past relationship was made public.
Peter LaBarbera, founder and president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, says conservatism does not mix with open homosexuality.
“Homosexuality is a sin. It’s nothing to be proud of. It’s a problem,” he tells OneNewsNow. “I would hope that he would not try to run as an openly [so-called] conservative … homosexual Republican.”
And LaBarbera says if there is one thing the liberal media loves to promote it is “[homosexual]” Republicans.
“And they will promote [homosexual] Republicans because they want to undermine the Republican Party platform which has for years, if not decades, stood against the homosexual activist movement,” he observes. “And so the media loves [homosexual]Republicans — and if they can say that he is one, they will promote him.”
Christie Wrong about Homosexuality & Genetics
Fact Checking Alert!
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie claimed recently that homosexuality is genetic. Buying into ignorance, he said homosexuals are born that way. A Catholic, Gov. Christie also said homosexuals are not sinners.
But there is no evidence supporting claims of genetic causes, and it’s a sign of intellectual dishonesty to claim otherwise. And according to the divinely-inspired, inerrant Word of God, all men and women are sinners. And that’s because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. In today’s politically correct, topsy-turvy, upside-down world, even homosexuals are sinners — like heterosexuals.
To clear the air, here’s the truth about the lack of evidence for genetic homosexuality:
Masters and Johnson reported that homosexuality is entirely a learned phenomenon without any physiological basis. They propose that persons are born with no particular predisposition toward either homosexuality or heterosexuality but simply with an undirected sexual potential, which then becomes channeled by various learning experiences in either a homosexual or a heterosexual direction.
William Masters and Virginia Johnson, “Homosexuality in Perspective,” (Little, Brown and Co.: Boston, 1979); Cited by: A. P. Bell, M. S. Weinberg, and S. K. Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).
The Human Genome Project identified all the genes in human DNA and found no homosexual gene. Evan Balaban, a neurobiologist at the Neurosciences Institute in San Diego, noted that the search for the biological underpinnings of complex human traits has a sorry history. In recent years, researchers and the media have proclaimed the “discovery” of genes linked to alcoholism and mental illness as well as to homosexuality. None of the claims has been confirmed (as quoted in Horgan, 1995). It is not scientifically accurate to refer to a “gay gene” as the causative agent in homosexuality.
Dr. Brad Harrub, Dr. Bert Thompson and Dr. Dave Miller, “A Scientific Examination of Homosexuality and the ‘Gay Gene,’” The True Origin Archive, (2003).
There is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory. Critical review shows biological theory to be lacking.
W. Byne and B.Parsons, “Human Sexual Orientation: The Biological Theories Reappraised,” Archives of General Psychiatry 50 (3): 228-239. Cited by: Jeffrey Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Grand Rapids: Baker Books,1996), p. 114.
Dr. Simon LeVay’s research (1991) centered on finding the difference between homosexual and heterosexual brains. The brains studied were from 41 cadavers; 26 of these men who had died from AIDS related diseases (19 homosexual men, six heterosexual men and one bisexual man). LeVay acknowledged that his results could be considered speculative and that sexual orientation may not be related to the difference in the size of the anterior hypothalamus of the cadavers. Simon LeVay, “A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men,” Science 253 (1991): 1,034-1036. LeVay said: “My study doesn’t actually even address whether one is ’born that way.’ I didn’t look at these people’s brains before they were born.” He also admitted that he co-founded the Gay and Lesbian Education organization in order to bring about change. Karen Oslund interview with Simon LeVay, “Of Brain Structures and Sexual Politics,” Harvard Gay and Lesbian Review, (1997, Winter), p. 21.
Dr. Bill Byne, a neuroanatomist and psychiatrist on the faculty at Mt. Sinai School of Medicine in New York, was unable to verify LeVay’s research. LeVay said he was disappointed at the lack of a resounding confirmation of a “gay gene.”
Keay Davidson, “No Easy Link Between Genes, Behavior DNA Studies Dash Quest for Easy Answers Genome’s link to behavior hard to prove,” San Francisco Chronicle, (2001, 13 February).
Dr. Simon LeVay said: “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.” Furthermore, Dr. Dean Hamer said, “Homosexuality is not purely genetic … environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay.”
Dean Byrd, Shirley Cox and Jeffrey Robinson, “Homosexuality: The Innate-Immutability Argument Finds No Basis in Science,” The Salt LakeTribune, (2001, 27 May). Dr. Brad Harrub, Dr. Bert Thompson and Dr. Dave Miller, A Scientific Examination of Homosexuality and the “Gay Gene,” The True Origin Archive, (2003).
No single gene determines a particular behavior.
Joseph McInerney and Mark Rothstein, “What is Behavioral Genetics?”, Human Genome Project Information.
Established researchers Byne and Parsons and Friedman and Downey reviewed the studies linking biology and homosexual attraction. They concluded that there was no evidence to support an innate, biological theory. They claimed, rather, that homosexuality is best explained by a model where “tempera¬mental and personality traits interact with the familial and social milieu as the individual’s sexuali¬ty emerges.
James V. Heidinger II, “Thinking Clearly About Homosexuality,” Good News.
The homosexual advocacy group PFLAG (“Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays”) acknowledges that there is not a “gay gene”: “To date, no researcher has claimed that genes can determine sexual orientation. At best, researchers believe that there may be a genetic component. No human behavior, let alone sexual behavior, has been connected to genetic markers to date…sexuality, like every other behavior, is undoubtedly influenced by both biological and societal factors.”
Why Ask Why,” Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), 1995 Pamphlet addressing research on Homosexuality and Biology. Cited by: Dr. Nadia El-Awady. (2003). Homosexuality in a Changing World: Are We Being Misinformed? IslamOnline
When the claims of a “gay gene” were refuted scientifically, large publications buried the story. The New York Times ran the story on page 19: “Underscoring the difficulty scientists face in finding genes that underlie complex human behaviors, a team of researchers are reporting Friday that they have been unable to confirm a widely publicized study linking male homosexuality to a small region of one chromosome.”
Ericka Goode, “Study Questions Gene Influence on Male Homosexuality,” The New York Times (1999, 23 April).
Virtually none of the research projects dealing with a genetic basis for sexual orientation are without serious design or methodological deficits. Simon LeVay’s research does not establish whether possible brain differences are the result of genetically induced differences or behavior induced biological changes.
Dr. Donald Gabard, “Homosexuality and the Human Genome Project: Private and Public Choices,” Journal of Homosexuality 37 (1), (1999): 28, 29.
The Truth about Homosexuality
Dawn Stefanowicz, daughter of a father who engaged in homosexual behavior and died of AIDS
Approximately one in five (19 percent) men who have sex with men (MSM) in a study of 21 major U.S. cities is infected with HIV, and nearly half (44 percent) of those men are unaware of their infection, according to a new analysis from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In the study, young MSM and MSM of color were least likely to know their HIV status. The findings were published in CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
“1 in 5 men who have sex with men in 21 U.S. cities has HIV; nearly half unaware,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Press Release, Sept. 23, 2010.
Genetics & Homosexuality
Masters and Johnson reported that homosexuality is entirely a learned phenomenon without any physiological basis. They propose that persons are born with no particular predisposition toward either homosexuality or heterosexuality but simply with an undirected sexual potential, which then becomes channeled by various learning experiences in either a homosexual or a heterosexual direction.
William Masters and Virginia Johnson, “Homosexuality in Perspective,” (Little, Brown and Co.: Boston, 1979); Cited by: A. P. Bell, M. S. Weinberg, and S. K. Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).
The Human Genome Project identified all the genes in human DNA and found no homosexual gene. Evan Balaban, a neurobiologist at the Neurosciences Institute in San Diego, noted that the search for the biological underpinnings of complex human traits has a sorry history. In recent years, researchers and the media have proclaimed the “discovery” of genes linked to alcoholism and mental illness as well as to homosexuality. None of the claims has been confirmed (as quoted in Horgan, 1995). It is not scientifically accurate to refer to a “gay gene” as the causative agent in homosexuality.
Dr. Brad Harrub, Dr. Bert Thompson and Dr. Dave Miller, “A Scientific Examination of Homosexuality and the ‘Gay Gene,’” The True Origin Archive, (2003).
Dr. Simon LeVay’s research (1991) centered on finding the difference between homosexual and heterosexual brains. The brains studied were from 41 cadavers; 26 of these men who had died from AIDS related diseases (19 homosexual men, six heterosexual men and one bisexual man). LeVay acknowledged that his results could be considered speculative and that sexual orientation may not be related to the difference in the size of the anterior hypothalamus of the cadavers. Simon LeVay, “A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men,” Science 253 (1991): 1,034-1036. LeVay said: “My study doesn’t actually even address whether one is ’born that way.’ I didn’t look at these people’s brains before they were born.” He also admitted that he co-founded the Gay and Lesbian Education organization in order to bring about change. Karen Oslund interview with Simon LeVay, “Of Brain Structures and Sexual Politics,”Harvard Gay and Lesbian Review, (1997, Winter), p. 21.
Dr. Bill Byne, a neuroanatomist and psychiatrist on the faculty at Mt. Sinai School of Medicine in New York, was unable to verify LeVay’s research. LeVay said he was disappointed at the lack of a resounding confirmation of a “gay gene.”
Keay Davidson, “No Easy Link Between Genes, Behavior DNA Studies Dash Quest for Easy Answers Genome’s link to behavior hard to prove,” San Francisco Chronicle, (2001, 13 February).
Dr. Simon LeVay said: “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.” Furthermore, Hamer said, “Homosexuality is not purely genetic … environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay.”
Dean Byrd, Shirley Cox and Jeffrey Robinson, “Homosexuality: The Innate-Immutability Argument Finds No Basis in Science,” The Salt LakeTribune, (2001, 27 May). Dr. Brad Harrub, Dr. Bert Thompson and Dr. Dave Miller, A Scientific Examination of Homosexuality and the “Gay Gene,” The True Origin Archive, (2003).
No single gene determines a particular behavior.
Joseph McInerney and Mark Rothstein, “What is Behavioral Genetics?”, Human Genome Project Information.
Ruth Tiffany Barnhouse said: “The frequent claim by ‘gay’ activists that it is impossible for homosexuals to change their orientation is categorically untrue.” The sad reality is that such claims only diminish the desire of persons to seek help in leaving homosexual behavior. Scientific data simply does not support the innate immutability claim.”
James V. Heidinger II, “Thinking Clearly About Homosexuality,” Good News.
In 1993, Dr. Dean Hamer reported, “We have now produced evidence that one form of male homosexuality is preferentially transmitted through the maternal side and is genetically linked to chromosomal region Xq28. “…it appears that Xq28 contains a gene that contributes to homosexual orientation in males,” Hamer concluded from his study. He said his results were highly significant statistically.
Dean H. Hamer et al., “A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation,” Science 261 (1993): 325. George Rice and his colleagues from Canada examined Hamer’s “gene Xq28″ and observed in the journal Science: “These results do not support an X-linked gene underlying male homosexuality.” Other researchers refuted Hamer as well. Wickelgren, Ingrid (1999), “Discovery of ‘Gay Gene’ Questioned,” Science, 284:571, April 23. Rice, George, Carol Anderson, Neil Risch, and George Ebers (1999), “Male Homosexuality: Absence of Linkage to Microsatellite Markers at Xq28,” Science, 284:665-667, April 23. Byrd, A. Dean, Shirley E. Cox, and Jeffrey W. Robinson (2001), “Homosexuality: The Innate-Immutability Argument Finds No Basis in Science,” The Salt Lake Tribune, (2001, 27 May).
Homosexuality is probably caused by multiple factors. Genetic and pre-natal hormonal influences may predispose or place people at greater risk for developing homosexual attractions. However, current research indicates that post-natal environmental influences must also be present in order for the homosexual attractions to be manifested. Some environmental and psychological factors that may play a causal role in the development of homosexuality include: (1) cross-gender, effeminate behavior in childhood, (2) gender-identity deficits, (3) hostile, detached, or absent fathers (which leads to “defensive detachment” from the father and other males), and (4) overly close, controlling or dominating mothers.
P. Scott Richards, “The Treatment of Homosexuality: Some Historical, Contemporary, and Personal Perspectives,” AMCAP Journal 19, 1 (1993): 36.
“The removal of homosexuality from the DSM 2 (American Psychiatric Association) was all the more remarkable when one considers that it involved the out-of-hand and peremptory disregard and dismissal not only of hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports but also of a number of other serious studies by groups of psychologists, psychiatrists, and educators over the past 70 years. It was a disheartening attack upon psychiatric research and a blow to many homosexuals who looked to psychiatry for more help, not less.”
P. Scott Richards, “The Treatment of Homosexuality: Some Historical, Contemporary, and Personal Perspectives,” Association of Mormon Counselors And Pyschotherapists Journal 19, 1 (1993).
When the claims of a “gay gene” were refuted scientifically, mainstream publications buried the story. The New York Times ran the story on page 19: “Underscoring the difficulty scientists face in finding genes that underlie complex human behaviors, a team of researchers are reporting Friday that they have been unable to confirm a widely publicized study linking male homosexuality to a small region of one chromosome.”
Ericka Goode, “Study Questions Gene Influence on Male Homosexuality,” The New York Times (1999, 23 April).
Immediately after Dean Hamer’s research was published, however, a media explosion ensued. USA Today’s Kim Painter was the first to report on the newly published data, in 1993: “A predisposition for homosexuality appears to be written into the very genes of some men. And they get the key genes from their mothers. … The possibility of obtaining our findings by chance is extremely unlikely’ — below 1 percent, says lead author Dean Hamer.” The article never mentions the problems Hamer raised about the study. Other newspapers followed suit and, it seems, the conclusions made on just this one experiment were regarded as scientific fact. An article in Time magazine soon followed, reporting that the studies of family trees and DNA make the case for genetics as the cause of male homosexuality.
W.A.Henry, “The Gay Gene: Assertions, Retractions, and Controversy,” TIME, (1993).
Homosexual Behavior
A U.S. Justice Department study found an epidemic of violence between homosexuals: an annual average of 13,740 male victims of violence by homosexual partners and 16,900 victims by lesbian partners. Callie Maire Rennison, “Intimate Partner violence and Age of Victim, 1993-99,” Bureau of Justice Statistics: Special Report, (2001, October). By contrast, the 2005 statistics for hate crimes based on sexual orientation totaled 1,213 victims.
“Hate Crime Statistics 2005, Incidents, Offenses, Victims, and Known Offenders by Bias Motivation,” Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Lesbian relationships were significantly more violent than male homosexual relationships. Lie and Gentlewarrior (1991) surveyed 1,099 lesbians and found that 52 percent said they had used violence against their female partner and 30 percent said they had used violence against a nonviolent female partner. Lie, Schilit, Bush, Montague and Reyes (1991) documented rates of verbal, physical, and sexual abuse that were significantly higher in their prior lesbian relationships than in their prior heterosexual relationships: 56.8 percent had been sexually victimized by a female, 45 percent had experienced physical aggression and 64.5 percent experienced physical/emotional aggression. Reports of violence victimization by men were all lower than reports of violence victimization in prior relationships with women (41.9 percent).
Donald G. Dutton, “Patriarchy and Wife Assault: The Ecological Fallacy,” Violence and Victims 9(2) (1994): 174.
During the heyday of the 1970s, 15,000 men visited the baths every weekend in San Francisco, and probably more frequently in New York. The men in these core groups could easily have had sex with several partners per visit, making it possible to have had more than a thousand sex partners in a year. It was among this core that AIDS first appeared.
G. Rotello, “Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men,” (New York: Dutton, 1997); 62.
Studies on the size of homosexual populations vary, but the numbers are generally low, as low as 1 to 3 percent of populations around the world.
Milton Diamond, “Homosexuality and Bisexuality in Different Populations,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 22 (1993): 300. J. Gordon Muir, “Homosexuals and the Ten percent Fallacy,” Wall Street Journal, (1994, 31 March), A14.
A coalition of 31 leading pro-homosexual activist groups submitted a friend of the court brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in the Lawrence v. Texas case in 2003, claiming that 2.8 percent of men and 1.4 percent of women are homosexual.
“Homosexual Groups Back Off From “10 Percent” Myth, but Still Exaggerate Numbers,” Culture Facts, (2003, 4 April).
In a sample of 350 lesbians, 78.2 percent had been in a prior relationship with a man.
Donald G. Dutton, “Patriarchy and Wife Assault: The Ecological Fallacy,” Violence and Victims 9, 2 (1994): 174.
A national survey of lesbians published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology found that 75 percent of the nearly 2,000 respondents had pursued psychological counseling of some kind—many for treatment of long-term depression or sadness.
Dr. Tim Dailey, “Dark Obsession: The Tragedy and Threat of the Homosexual Lifestyle,” (Broadman & Holman: Nashville, Tennessee): 92.
According to a study in the Netherlands where homosexuality has been accepted and mainstreamed for years, homosexual men scored significantly lower on five out of eight dimensions, indicating a lower level quality of life. Compared to heterosexual men, homosexual men evaluated their general level of health and their mental health as less positive, reported that emotional problems more often interfered with work or other daily activities, that physical health or emotional problems interfered with normal social activities, and felt less energetic.
Theo G.M. Sandforte et al., “Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders: Findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence,” Archives of General Psychiatry 58(10 (2001): 85-91.
Psychological health problems including multiple drug use, partner violence, history of childhood sexual abuse, and depression interface to sharply increase high-risk sexual behavior and HIV infection rates among homosexualand bisexual men in the U.S.
L. Linley, R. Stall, and G. Mansergh, “New CDC Studies Shed Light on Facts Underlying High HIV Infection Rates Among Gay and Bisexual Men,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (2002, 9 July).
Homosexuals & Hate Crimes
The 2000 FBI Hate Crimes Report lists 8,063 “bias motivated” incidents. Of these, 1,299 were crimes based on sexual orientation. Most of these offenses were low-level – about a third of these incidents fell into the nondescript category of “intimidation.” In 2005, there were 7,163 “bias motivated hate crimes” and 1,017 (13.8 percent) were attributed to sexual orientation (28 percent qualified as “intimidation”; 30 percent occurred in the victims’ homes).
“Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crimes Statistics 2000, Hate Crimes Statistics 2005,” Federal Bureau of Investigation.
In 2004, one murder in the United States resulted from a bias against homosexuals – out of an estimated 16,692 murders.
“Hate Crime Statistics – 2004, Section I”, Department of Justice: Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Health Risks
Centers for Disease Control epidemiologist Laurie Linley and colleagues found the rate of new HIV infections for male homosexuals to be nine times higher than for women and heterosexual men.
L. Linley, R. Stall, and G. Mansergh, “New CDC Studies Shed Light on Facts Underlying High HIV Infection Rates Among Gay and Bisexual Men,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (2002, 9 July).
Homosexual sex is associated with deadly diseases such as HIV, AIDS, anal cancer, other sexually transmitted diseases, increased mental illness and a reduced life span of eight to 20 years.
“Do Domestic Partner Benefits Make Good Business Sense?” Corporate Resource Council, (2002).
Epidemiologists estimate that 30 percent of all homosexual males will be HIV-positive or dead of AIDS by the time they are 30. The likelihood of a heterosexual man or woman being infected with AIDS is 7 in 10,000. The incidence of AIDS among 20-30-year-old men is roughly 430 times greater than among the heterosexual population at large.
Jeffery Satinover, “Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth,” (Grand Rapids: Baker Books,1996): 57.
HIV/AIDS is rampant in the homosexual community. Epidemiologists estimate that 30 percent of homosexually-active men will be HIV positive or dead of AIDS by the time they are 30.
E. Goldman, “Psychological Factors Generate HIV Resurgence in Young Gay Men,” Clinical Psychiatry News, (1994, October). Cited by: Joseph Nicolosi, Am I Gay, or Am I Straight? The Massachusetts News.
A report from the Centers for Disease Control showed that more than three-quarters of the homosexual men studied were unaware they were carrying HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Ninety percent of homosexual black men who have the virus did not know they had the virus until researchers told them. Through its National HIV Behavioral Surveillance system, CDC found that 25 percent of the MSM surveyed were infected with HIV and 48 percent of those infected were unaware of their infections.
HIV/AIDS among Men Who Have Sex with Men, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, July 2006.
During fiscal year 2000, the United States spent $10.8 billion on HIV/AIDS patient care. That’s $1,359 per month per HIV/AIDS patient.
“Summary Fact Sheet on HIV/AIDS; The HIV/AIDS Epidemic: 20 years in the U.S.,” The White House.
The median age of death for those who regularly engage in homosexual behavior leaned in the direction of less than 50. The data suggest a 20- to 30-year decrease in lifespan among homosexuals.
Paul Cameron, Kirk Cameron, and William L. Playfair, “Does Homosexual Activity Shorten Life?” Psychological Reports 83 (1998): 847-866.
Dr. Joel Palefsky, a leading expert on anal cancer, reports the incidence of anal cancer among homosexuals is 35 times greater than that of the general population. This rate doubles for those who are HIV positive.
Dr. Tim Dailey, “Dark Obsession: The Tragedy and Threat of the Homosexual Lifestyle,” (Broadman & Holman: Nashville, Tennessee): 88.
Risky Behavior
Clinicians estimated an incidence rate of substance abuse among homosexuals to range from 28-35 percent. This estimate contrasts with an incidence of 10-12 percent in the general population.
J. H. Lowinson et al., “Substance Abuse: A Comprehensive Textbook,” (Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, 1997).
Research confirms that homosexuals molest children at rates vastly higher than heterosexuals.
W. Erickson et al., “Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 17 (1988): 83
Pedophilia and homosexuality tend to occur in the same men because these individuals are generally less resistant to factors that divert psychosexual development from the species-typical outcome of sexual interest in receptive, physically mature females.
R. Blanchard et al., “Fraternal Order and Sexual Orientation in Pedophiles,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 29 (2000): 464. K. Freund and R. Watson, “The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study,” 18 Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 34 (1992): 34-43.
A study of 229 convicted child molesters found that “86 percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.”
W. Erickson, “Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 17 (1988): 83.
A study found that 46 percent of homosexual men and 22 percent of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender. This contrasts to only seven percent of heterosexual men and one percent of heterosexual women reporting having been molested by a person of the same gender.”
Marie, E. Tomeo et al., “Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescence Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 30 (2001): 539.
“Individuals from 1 percent to 3 percent of the population that are sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.”
Timothy Dailey, “Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse,” Family Research Council.
Homosexual Parenting & Homosexual Adoption
The largest comprehensive comparative study was based upon teacher-reports as well as interviews with the students and their parents. 58 elementary school children being raised by homosexual couples were closely matched (by age, sex, grade in school, and social class) with 58 children of cohabiting heterosexual parents, and 58 children of married parents. Children with married parents did best at math and language skills, second-best in social studies, were most active in sports, experienced the highest levels of parental involvement at school and at home (their parents also most closely monitored them at home), and had parents with the highest expectations for them. Children of cohabiting heterosexuals were in-between, while children of homosexuals scored somewhat higher in social studies, lowest in math and language skills, were least popular (often socially isolated), most restrained and formal, experienced the lowest levels of parental involvement both at school and at home, did more household tasks, and were more frequently tutored. Their parents less frequently expressed high educational and career aspirations for them. In fact, teachers said children of homosexuals were ‘more confused’ about their gender.
S.Sarantakos, “Children in three contexts: family, education and social development,” Children Australia 21 (1996): 23-31.
Children mentioned one or more problems/concerns in 48 (92 percent) of 52 families. Of the 213 scored problems, 201 (94 percent) were attributed to homosexual parent(s). Older daughters in at least 8 (27 percent) of 30 families and older sons in at least 2 (20 percent) of 10 families described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. These findings are inconsistent with propositions that children of homosexuals do not differ appreciably from those who live with married parents or that children of homosexuals are not more apt to engage in homosexuality.
Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron, “Children of Homosexual Parents Report Childhood Difficulties,” Psychological Reports 90, 1 (2002): 71-82.
Compared with children from traditional families, children from nontraditional families showed more psychological problems as rated by their parents and more internalizing behavior as rated by their teachers. Boys from nontraditional families were especially at a disadvantage; they showed lower self-concept, more externalizing, poorer classroom behavior, and lower grade-point averages. Girls from such families were less popular with peers.
Phyllis Bronstein, JoAnn Clauson, Miriam Frankel Stoll and Craig Adams, “Parenting Behavior and Children’s Social, Psychological and Academic Adjustment in Diverse Family Structure,” Family Relations 42 (1993): 273.
“Twenty-nine 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 a homosexual parent(s) appears to increase the risk of incest with a parent by a factor of about 50.”
Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron, “Homosexual Parents,” Adolescence 31 (1996): 771-772.
The video “Other Families” indicated that the reactions of the young adults who were raised by lesbians ranged from blasé acceptance to anger at being burdened by their mothers’ choices.
Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron, “Homosexual Parents,” Adolescence 31 (1996): 772.
A survey taken in 1999 showed that 86 percent of people worldwide agreed that “All things being equal, it is better for children to be raised in a household that has a married mother and father.”
Wirthlin Worldwide poll for The Howard Center, World Family Policy Council, and World Congress of Families II, November, (1999).
Homosexual relationships are characteristically unstable and fundamentally incapable of providing children the security they need.
Timothy Dailey, “Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk,” Family Research Council.
“Homosexuals … model a poor view of marriage to children by teaching that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature, sexual relationships are primarily for pleasure rather than procreation, and monogamy in marriage is not the norm [and] should be discouraged if one wants a good ’marital’ relationship.”
Bradley Hayton, “To Marry or Not: The Legalization of Marriage and Adoption of Homosexual Couples,” (Newport Beach: The Pacific Policy Institute, 1993): 9. Cited in: C. Gwendolyn Landolt, “Same-Sex Unions Are Not Marriages,” CBC News Viewpoint, REAL Women of Canada, (2004, 18-28 May). Cited in: Mark Regan, “The Case Against Counterfeiting Marriage,” Families First Foundation.
Twelve percent of the children of lesbians became active lesbians themselves, a rate that is at least four times the base rate of lesbianism in the adult female population. Fiona Tasker and Susan Golombok, “Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 65(2) (1995): 213. Sixty-four percent of young adults raised by lesbian mothers reported considering having same-sex relationships. Only 17 percent of young adults in heterosexual families reported the same thing.
Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” American Sociological Review 66 (2001): 170.
There are no homosexual parenting studies that a) take a nationally representative sample of babies born to or adopted by gay parents and married mothers and fathers and b) follow them longitudinally while c) controlling for standard demographic variables (race, education, etc.) and d) include a broad range of outcome variables. The studies that currently exist simply compare lesbian single moms to heterosexual single moms. Social science research has already shown the negative outcomes visited upon children who do not live with two married parents.
Maggie Gallagher, Marriagedebate.com, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.
Marriage
An Arizona Appeals Court ruled that the State of Arizona’s ban on same-sex “marriage” is constitutional and that the concept of marriage remains between a man and a woman. “Recognizing a right to marry someone of the same sex would not expand the established right to marry, but would redefine the legal meaning of ’marriage,’” stated the court.
Judy Nichols, “Court Upholds Ban on Gay Marriage,” Arizona Republic, (2003, 9 October).
A pattern of “high fidelity” was documented among married Americans. “The vast majority reported having only one sexual partner during the previous 30 days (98.8 percent), 12 months (96.3 percent) and five years (93.6 percent). Consequently, “most people were not placing themselves or their partners at high risk for exposure” to AIDS.
Barbara Leigh, “The Sexual Behavior of U.S. Adults: Results from a National Survey,” American Journal of Public Health 83 (1993): 1,400-1,406.
Because of “the therapeutic benefit of marriage,” rates for alcoholism, suicide, schizophrenia and other psychiatric problems run lower among married men and women than among their unmarried peers. Married people enjoyed “continuous companionship with a spouse who provides interpersonal closeness, emotional gratification and support in dealing with daily stress.”
Robert Coombs, “Marital Status and Personal Well-Being: A Literature Review,” Family Relations 40 (1991): 97-102.
A review of more than 130 empirical studies from the 1930s to 1990 indicated that married people generally lived longer, were more emotionally and physically healthy, happier and more likely to recover from cancer than unmarried people.
Robert Coombs, “Marital Status and Personal Well-Being: A Literature Review,” Family Relations 40 (1991): 97-102.
A wide body of social science literature characterized marriage as a powerful protector of public health. Children raised by their own two married parents lived longer, had fewer illnesses and accidents and enjoyed better health than children raised outside of intact marriages. Both men and women who stay married enjoyed powerful health advantages: longer lives, better health, better-managed chronic illness, less likely to require extensive (and expensive) hospitalization and nursing home care and became disabled less often than single or divorced people.
Maggie Gallagher. “The Case for Marriage,” Institute for American Values, (2001, March).
Married fathers can exercise an abiding, important and positive influence on their children and are especially likely to do so in a happy marriage.
Paul Amato, “More Than Money? Men’s Contributions to Their Children’s Lives,” In Alan Booth and A.C. Crouter (eds.), “Men in Families: When Do They Get Involved? What Difference Does it Make?” (Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1998).
Homosexual Activism
Homosexual acts are unhealthy. There are numerous reasons to oppose sexual orientation codes in schools. Sexual orientation codes: A) lead to escalating homosexual activism in schools; B) are used to discriminate and propagandize against students and groups that oppose homosexuality; C) may open schools up to lawsuits from parents whose children are misled into dangerous behavior; D) draw more homosexual teachers to the school and encourage homosexual teachers to be activists in the classroom; E) can lead to the adoption of pro-homosexual curricula; F) are used to justify the pro-homosexual indoctrination of young children; G) encourage school children to embrace homosexual, bisexual and transgender identities and then proudly share them with other students.
Peter J. LaBarbera, “Good Reasons to Oppose Sexual Orientation/Homosexuality Codes in Schools,” Culture and Family Institute, Concerned Women for America, (2002, 19 June).
Leif Mitchell, community educator/trainer for Planned Parenthood of Connecticut and a GLSEN national board member, said in his presentation to Massachusetts teachers and students, “Strategies for Combating the ’Religious Wrong’ in your community”: “Focus on Violence Prevention. Always go back to the issues of safety to explain why Gay/Straight Alliances need to be formed. Violence helps us! It is very important to tie the Religious Right to hatred.”
GLSEN Teach Out! Conference at Tufts University, Boston, (2000, April).
In March 1995, GLSEN’s Executive Director Kevin Jennings, in his speech, “Winning the Culture War,” spoke about how he was able to delude the Massachusetts legislature into adopting the pro-homosexual agenda for the schools in their state. “In Massachusetts the effective reframing of this issue was the key to the success of the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. We immediately seized upon the opponent’s calling card – safety – and explained how homophobia represents a threat to students’ safety by creating a climate where violence, name-calling, health problems, and suicide are common. Titling our report ’Making Schools Safe for Gay and Lesbian Youth,’ we automatically threw our opponents onto the defensive and stole their best line of attack. This framing short-circuited their arguments and left them back-pedaling from day one.”
Kevin Jennings, “Governor’s Commission for Gay Youth Retreats to ’Safety’ and ’Suicide,’” The Massachusetts News, (2000, December).
The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Educational Network (GLSEN) presents itself as a civil rights organization seeking “tolerance” and “understanding” for a victim group. But it is, in fact, a radical organization that has clearly embraced the queer-theory worldview. It seeks to transform the culture and instruction of every public school, so that children will learn to equate “heterosexism” — the favoring of heterosexuality as normal — with other evils like racism and sexism and will grow up pondering their sexual orientation and the fluidity of their sexual identity. One of the major goals of GLSEN and similar groups is “to reform public school curricula and teaching so that Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender—or LGBT—themes are always central and always presented in the approved light.” The GLSEN teachers’ manual that says that middle-schoolers “should have the freedom to explore [their] sexual orientation and find [their] own unique expression of lesbian, bisexual, gay, straight, or any combination of these.”
Marjorie King, “Queering the Schools,” City Journal 13(2) (2003, Spring).
In the year 2005, the FBI Uniform Crime Report listed a total of 123 incidents of hate crimes based on sexual orientation within U.S. schools and colleges. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that 70 million students were enrolled in schools and colleges. The incidence rate of 123 crimes relative to 70 million students is 0.0000017 percent. Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Federal Bureau of Investigation. School “Enrollment, 2005 American Community Survey,” United States Census Bureau.
The North American Man-Boy Love Association’s goal is “to end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships by: building understanding and support for such relationships; educating the general public on the benevolent nature of man/boy love; cooperating with lesbian, gay, feminist, and other liberation movements; supporting the liberation of persons of all ages from sexual prejudice and oppression.”… “We support the rights of youth as well as adults to choose the partners with whom they wish to share and enjoy their bodies.” … “NAMBLA is strongly opposed to age-of-consent laws and all other restrictions which deny men and boys the full enjoyment of their bodies and control over their own lives.” … “We call for fundamental reform of the laws regarding relations between youths and adults.”
“Who We Are,” North American Man-Boy Love Association.
In 1953, W. Cleon Skousen wrote “The Naked Communist,” a book which revealed the 45 goals of communism. Goal No. 26 is to “Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as ‘normal, natural, healthy.’” Goal No. 39 is to “Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.” Goal No. 40 is to “Discredit the family as an institution.”
“Lest We Forget,” The Schwarz Report, (2003, September).
In an interview, Dr. Charles Socarides spoke of the impact on removing homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual: “In some ways, the gay community in this country are like a bunch of confused kids. They knew they had these mysterious sexual compulsions. They knew they weren’t happy. And then the nation’s psychiatrists said, in effect, ‘Hey, you’re okay. Go out and have fun. … The APA decision led to a number of decisions by policymakers all over the country. They decriminalized sodomy in half of the country. That led to the rise gay bathhouse culture. And that fueled the century’s most horrific plague, the plague of AIDS.”
Herb Kutchins and Stuart Kirk, “Making Us Crazy,” (New York: The Free Press, 1997): 77.
Dr. Charles Socarides explained how those sympathetic to homosexuals acquired power in the American Psychiatric Association: “At the national level a group of politically active psychiatrists—some of them gay—was forming. They called themselves the Committee for a Concerned Psychiatry (CFCP). Over the next few years their lobbying and their electioneering led to a seizure of the presidency and the chairs of the APA. They gave strong support to Alfred Freedman in his election as president of the APA, and it really made a difference: in an election where more than 10,000 voted, Dr. Freedman won by two votes. Then the CFCP helped to set up John Spiegel and Judd Marmor in the chairs, ready to move up into the presidency—which with the support of the CFCP, they did. Then each of them—Freedman, Spiegel and Marmor—later delivered what the CFCP wanted; they each played important roles in the move to delete homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.”
Herb Kutchins and Stuart Kirk, “Making Us Crazy,” (New York: The Free Press, 1997): 74.
In a four-year period from 1970-73, homosexual activists protested at the annual conventions of the American Psychiatric Association. The disturbances began with angry homosexual activists denouncing presenters and threatening violent disruptions. These confrontations were directed by militant outside consumer groups with no stake in maintaining the stature of organized psychiatry. Demonstrators confronted Irving Bieber and other psychiatrists, hurling accusations and profanities at them. Agitators took over a meeting and denounced aversive treatment techniques. Homosexuals seized a microphone and demanded to be heard, greatly enraging psychiatrists. Despite psychiatrist Kent Robinson’s ability to persuade the APA to include homosexual speakers, the 1971 national conference in Washington was again disrupted by well-organized activists. The intruders intimidated an exhibitor into withdrawing from the site. The pandemonium created in these years led some psychiatrists to seek airfare refunds.
Herb Kutchins and Stuart Kirk, “Making Us Crazy,” (New York: The Free Press, 1997): 66.
The 1972 APA convention in Dallas was indicative of the change forced by hostile activists. There were no presentations that were antithetical to the views of homosexual activists, but there was a session arranged to present the homosexual activists’ point of view. A cloaked, hooded speaker identified as “Dr. Anonymous” claimed that he and 200 fellow psychiatrists were homosexual and that some of them were members of a Gay Psychiatric Association, which met secretly during APA meetings. Homosexual demonstrators also began a routine of maintaining their own booth in the exhibit area. When it was revealed that some prominent psychiatrists were homosexuals, it became much harder to argue that homosexuality was a disability and that being homosexual was dysfunctional.
Herb Kutchins and Stuart Kirk, “Making Us Crazy,” (New York: The Free Press, 1997): 66.
The angry demonstrations of the early 1970s gave way to presentations by homosexuals and their supporters which were designed to serve as alternatives to psychoanalysts speaking about curing homosexuality. A subsequent convention included a carefully moderated session featuring a debate by homosexual professionals and psychoanalysts. Pro-homosexual psychiatrists soon became more influential in the APA than those believing homosexuality was a pathological condition.
Herb Kutchins and Stuart Kirk, “Making Us Crazy,” (New York: The Free Press, 1997): 66.
On December 15, 1973, the board of trustees of the American Psychiatric Association capitulated to the demands of homosexual demonstrators. The homosexuals labeled unyielding psychiatrists as “war criminals.” Under the duress of harassment, trustees declared that homosexuality was no longer an “illness.” A resulting referendum on the issue, demanded by outraged members of the association, was conducted by mail and was partially controlled by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. The homosexual advocates won the vote and the new official definition of homosexuality as a disorder was changed to include only those who were “unhappy with their sexual orientation.” Historian Enrique Rueda wrote that the vote “was not the result of scientific analysis after years of painstaking research. Neither was it a purely objective choice following the accumulation of incontrovertible data. The very fact that the vote was taken reveals the nature of the process involved, since the existence of an orthodoxy in itself contradicts the essence of science.”
Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams, The Pink Swastika, 313.
“There is no question that one of the top priorities of the homosexual movement is to force a ‘redefinition’ of the American family away from the traditional husband-wife-children model to a more ‘functional’ definition based on the notion of economic unit or any other basis that does not require heterosexuality as its foundation. The notion that a family must involve persons of both sexes is profoundly inimical to the homosexual movement … As early as 1970, elements within the homosexual movement had identified the family as inimical to its interests. At a convention in Philadelphia, the ‘Male Homosexual’ workshop included the following as one of its demands: ‘The abolition of the nuclear family because it perpetuates the false categories of homosexuality and heterosexuality.’”
Enrique T. Rueda, “The Homosexual Network: Private Lives and Public Policy,” (Old Greenwich, Connecticut: Devin Adair Company, 1982): 221. David A. Noebel and Chuck Edwards, “Communism Is With Us, Party Is Not,” The Schwarz Report 45(2) (2005, February).
Communist Party leader Henry Hay, founder of the Mattachine Society in 1950, became known as the “Father of the Modern Gay Movement.” The Mattachine Society’s purpose was to undermine the Judeo-Christian moral consensus in respect to homosexual relations. Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams, The Pink Swastika, 301. Hay is regarded as the man who first organized homosexuals as a political minority. He was an advocate of pedophile rights and the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). Hay advocated homosexual separatism, and he strongly opposed those who preferred to deny NAMBLA permission to participate in homosexual pride parades. When Hay died in 2002, mainstream media obituaries ignored his ties to NAMBLA.
Peter LaBarbera, “Harry Hay, Communism and Homosexuality,” The Schwarz Report, (2003, January).
The Stonewall riot of 1969 by homosexuals who counter-attacked a police raid in a New York City bar became the new symbol of the “gay rights” movement. In its wake, Gay Liberation Fronts sprang up across the United States, using methods of intimidation and coercion to achieve political gains. They targeted the medical community, whose increasing effectiveness in treating homosexual disorders threatened the logical premise of the movement. Gay Liberation Fronts stormed San Francisco, Los Angeles and Chicago conventions of psychiatry, medicine and behavior modification, shouting down speakers and terrorizing audience members.
Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams, The Pink Swastika, 313.
The American Civil Liberties Union Lesbian & Gay Rights Project states: “The groups represented here are parts of a large civil rights orchestra. We play different instruments – lobbying, electoral politics, impact litigation, grassroots organizing, public education, media advocacy and more – and we are dedicated to playing them well. While our organizations vary in focus and strategies, we share a number of common priorities that will help shape and unite our work in the months and years to come.”
“Civil Rights. Community Movement,” The American Civil Liberties Union Lesbian & Gay Rights Project, (2005, 13 January).
“The first homosexual rights organization in the United States was an American chapter of the German-based Society for Human Rights (SHR). The German SHR was founded in 1919 by Hans Kahnert and was a militant organization led by ‘Butch’ homosexuals. Many of the early Nazis were also SHR members. The American SHR was started December 10, 1924 in Chicago, by a German-American named Henry Gerber.”
Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams, The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, 276.
The ACLU has offered material support to those who openly preach pedophilia and arguably encourage kidnapping, rape and murder.
Deroy Murdock, ” No Boy Scouts: The ACLU defends NAMBLA,” National Review Online, (2004, 27 February).
A NAMBLA publication, “The Survival Manual: The Man’s Guide to Staying Alive in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships,” is also referred to as “The Rape and Escape Manual.” Its chapters explain how to build relationships with children, how to gain the confidence of children’s parents, where to go to have sex with children and not getting caught. The manual provides advice for those who get caught, on when to leave America and how to rip off credit card companies to get cash to finance their flights.
Deroy Murdock, February 27, 2004, No Boy Scouts: The ACLU defends NAMBLA. National Review Online.
According to homosexual writer and activist Michelangelo Signorile, the goal of homosexuals is: “[You need] 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.”
Michelangelo Signorile, “Bridal Wave,” Out, (1994, December). Cited in: “Another Twist in the Battle For Marriage…,” Alliance Defense Fund, (2004, 4 February).
In 1987, homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen wrote a manifesto called, “The Overhauling of Straight America” that described how the homosexual movement was to swing public perception. They outlined the following steps: capture the media and desensitize the public to homosexuality, portray the opposition as evil and homosexuals as victims, silence the opposition through name calling. They furthered the idea that if homosexuals can be cast as victims in need of protection then straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector.
Rob Tong, “Real Gay History: Find Out In 15 Minutes or Less,” (2004, 24 June).
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.”
Paula Ettelbrick, “Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?” Cited in: William Rubenstein, (ed.), Lesbians, Gay Men and the Law (New York: The New Press, 1993): 401-405
Homosexuals are one of the most affluent groups in America. Their average household income is $55,430 compared to the national average of $32,286. Nearly 60 percent are college graduates compared to the national average of 18 percent. Forty-nine percent are in professional and management positions comparedto the national average of 16 percent. Almost 66 percent go on vacations overseas compared to the national average of 14 percent. Joe Di Sabato, president of Rivendell Marketing Company, said, “you’re talking about two people with good jobs, lots of money and no dependents. This is a dream market.” MasterCard and the Dallas Gay Alliance Credit Union began offering homosexual-oriented credit cards, and many businesses began advertising in homosexual publications in the 1990s.
Joan Rigdon, “Overcoming a Deep-Rooted Reluctance, More Firms Advertise to Gay Community,” Wall Street Journal, (1991, 18 July): B1, B2.
Eric Pollard founded the homosexual activist organization ACT-UP’s Washington, D.C, chapter. In an interview in the Washington Blade, he said that he and other group members learned to apply “subversive tactics, drawn largely from the voluminous Mein Kampf, which some of us studied as a working model.”
Eric Pollard, “Time to Give up Fascist Tactics,” Washington Blade, (1992, 31 January): 39. Cited in: Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1996): 38.
Civil & Legal Rights Claims
When the issue of homosexuals routinely being denied the right to visit their partners in hospitals was raised during debate over the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, the Family Research Council did an informal survey of nine hospitals in four states and the District of Columbia. None of the administrators surveyed could recall a single case in which a visitor was barred because of their homosexuality, and they were incredulous that this would even be considered an issue.
Peter Sprigg, “What’s Wrong with Letting Same-Sex Couples Marry?” Family Research Council, In Focus: Issue No. 256.
The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force cut in half its coverage of health insurance premiums for domestic partners of its employees, calling the premiums “prohibitively expensive.”
Marc Morano, “Homosexual Group Cuts Back Domestic Partner Benefits,” CNSnews.com.
Homosexuals Committed 4 Times as Many Sexual Assaults: Pentagon Report
Have you heard about or read the Secretary of Defense’s 536-page annual report on sexual assault in the military for 2009? The chances you have are practically nil because the report was conveniently ignored by the ultra-left media because the results are not favorable to the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
Here’s the real skinny on homosexuals in the military:
• The prevalence of homosexual assault is four times that of heterosexuals: homosexuals make up about 2 percent of the population, yet commit 8.2 percent of the sexual assaults;
• 11 percent of the sexual assault victims were men, and in only one verifiable complaint was a woman the attacker;
• Drugs and alcohol were frequently involved;
• A chart on assaults begins on page 216 of the report;
• Though the gender of all the perpetrators was known by the victims, the report claimed that in some cases the gender could not be identified by the military. Subtract the “unknowns” from the report, and the incidents of homosexual assaults are even higher;
• The Army and Air Force kept less rigorous records and reported lower incident rates, meaning the Marines and Navy rates were higher to bring the overall figure to 8.2 percent;
• The report states that “Sexual assault subverts strategic goodwill.” Goodwill is going to take a nosedive with the increase in sexual assaults;
• The report can be downloaded at http://www.sapr.mil/media/pdf/reports/fy09_annual_report.pdf
• Several cases can be found in court records, i.e. “United States of America v. Hartman, NMCCA 200900389, 2009 CCA Lexis 462 (United States Navy-Marine Corp Court of Criminal Appeals, December 29, 2009)”;
• The report includes much on attention to sexual assault prevention. However, that is now farcical in light of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the strong likelihood that sexual assaults will only increase in the future. In fact, the U.S. military of the future may become “party central” for homosexuals. Especially with President Obama unlikely to engage in warfare after withdrawal from Afghanistan;
• Numerous cases were practically whitewashed with minimal punishment. In some of the homosexual sexual assault cases, punishment was as little as 15 days confinement, 45 days of “extra duty”!;
Another Marriage Victory, More Hatred from the Homosexual Agenda Crowd
Every time the advocates of the extremely radical homosexual agenda lose another election, their blatant hate and anger flare up to alarming new levels. The pretense of their so-called “tolerance” has actually been over for quite some time.
These angry, hateful folks went ballistic again after voters in Maine this week defeated their latest effort to keep same-sex “marriage” legal. The legislature had passed a legalization bill earlier this year, and the governor signed it into law.
Prop 1 gave the people the opportunity to weigh in on the importance of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. And they did: informing the out-of-step lawmakers and governor that marriage should not be tampered with.
Rather than accept the will of the people as settled matter, the radicals vented hatred on the Internet, evidenced by the following disgraceful and inappropriate remarks:
“Today’s heartbreaking defeat unfortunately shows that lies and fear can still win at the ballot box,” said Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
In a defiant speech to several hundred lingering supporters, No on 1 campaign manager Jesse Connolly pledged that his side “will not quit until we know where every single one of these votes lives.”
A Mainer blogged: “What I find most interesting, based on comments at news stories and on social network sites is that yesterday, when the polls showed a narrow ‘No on 1′ win, I lived in an independent-minded, moderate state. Now it seems we’ve been transformed into a group of backwards, bigoted haters. Funny how that works. The gay marriage law was rejected not just by the state’s dwindling GOP voter, but by independents and Democrats.”
Bloggers on the Democratic Underground wrote: Drop a bomb on Kennebunkport; and
Kennebunk voted No! with at least 60% so drop your bombs somewhere else. Maybe Aroostook.
These comments are disturbing and filled with hatred and vitriol.
Yet, these are the same people who cheered and applauded when Congress recently passed a new “hate” crimes law. And now they’re violating that law, poisoning the climate toward honest citizens, and casting a chill wind on the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech as well as the democratic process.
Homosexual Pressure Group Turns up Heat on Mesa for Domestic Partner Benefits
Equality Arizona continues to push its radical agenda onto the citizens of Mesa, one of the nation’s more conservative communities.
Earlier this summer, Equality Arizona encouraged homosexuals to move to Mesa, and now it is campaigning for domestic partner benefits with city officials there. This is nothing more than an effort to undermine marriage and family.
What’s more, this group is asking its members call or email members of the Mesa City Council, Mayor Scott Smith and the Human Relations Advisory Board “to let them know you support a process to explore relationship recognition that that will provide opportunities for unmarried people to take care of each other.”
Equality Arizona is attempting to drag public municipalities into people’s bedrooms in order to gain taxpayer-funded benefits.
Only one percent of Arizona’s population is homosexual, and the homosexual agenda is vastly out of step with the state’s mainstream. Mesa and the East Valley are strongholds of marriage and family.
The extension of spousal benefits to domestic partners erodes the status of marriage, reduces the well-being of children and increases taxpayer costs while reducing worker productivity and economic progress.
Whether heterosexual or homosexual, cohabitation is a huge drainer of taxpayer-funded social services. A plethora of social science studies reveals a whole host of horrors related to households headed by unmarried adults:
- U.S. and Canadian women in cohabiting relationships were nine times more likely to be killed by their partner than women in marital relationships.
- The Family Violence Research Program at the University of New Hampshire found that cohabiters were much more violent than married couples, that the overall rates of violence among cohabiting couples was double that of married couples and “severe” violence was five times as high for cohabiters.
- Three times as many cohabiters admitted “hitting, shoving, and throwing things at their partners in the past year,” compared to married couples. Cohabiters are also more likely to exhibit depression and drunkenness than married couples.
- Aggression was at least twice as common among cohabiters as it is among married partners. During a one-year period, 35 out of every 100 cohabiting couples experienced physical aggression, compared to 15 out of every 100 married couples.
- Half of all cohabiting couples either broke up or married within two years, and after five years, only 10-percent of cohabiting couples stayed together. In contrast, 55-percent of first marriages lasted a lifetime.
- U.S. couples that cohabited before marriage had a 46-percent greater risk of divorce than couples that did not live together before marriage.
- Children in cohabiting households demonstrated more emotional and behavioral problems, such as not getting along with peers, experiencing difficulty in concentration and feeling sad or depressed. Among adolescents ages 12-17, the percentage of those exhibiting emotional and behavioral problems was six times greater in cohabiting stepfamilies than in married biological-parent families. Negative school engagement was also more common among children in cohabiting families.
- Unmarried parents were five times more likely to break up than married parents.
- Cohabiters had a “significantly higher” risk of suicide than married people.
- Cohabitants tolerated behavior in their partners that husbands and wives would discourage – particularly smoking, alcohol and substance abuse.
The logical question is why the City of Mesa would even entertain the thought of promoting and celebrating aberrant behavior.
In the mid-1990s, Phoenix was named the world’s best-run city. Since offering benefits for cohabiting employees, it has not approached that lofty status.
Typically, less than one percent of the work force benefits from domestic partner benefits, so why go there, Mesa? Why go there, Mayor Smith and city council members?
Cohabitating adults are already able to take care of each other, and this pressure by Equality Arizona is merely a ploy to undermine families and gain municipal and taxpayer endorsement for alternative lifestyles. It is also out of step with the strong family values evident throughout the history of Mesa.
By far, the best way for Mesa and other Arizona cities to promote social well-being is to encourage strong and vital marriages, rather than forcing taxpayers to pick up the costs related to cohabitation. Councilman Alex Finter has already vowed not to support domestic partner benefits.
Radical Homosexual Agenda Urging Supporters to Move to East Valley
The extreme radical pressure group Equality Arizona is encouraging people who are homosexual or “confused” about their gender to move to the East Valley suburbs of Maricopa County.
If homosexuals did not make up less than 1 percent of the state’s population, this effort would be viewed strictly as political. This effort has two visible reasons behind it.
It is largely an attempt to undermine the strong family values of the East Valley with its strong conservative and Mormon populations. There is no mathematical possibility of challenging the East Valley’s conservative representation in the Arizona Legislature and Congress.
The political threat is this: even in conservative communities – like Gilbert, for example – city human rights commissions are radical in ideological makeup and out of step with community values. A small movement of homosexuals to the East Valley could result in homosexuals gaining a majority of human rights commission seats and attempting to force city councils to enact radical leftist laws. This happened last year in Scottsdale, where the weak-kneed city council buckled to the pressure of the city human rights commission and passed a law allowing men to use female restrooms in public places.
Specifically, Equality Arizona is urging its members “to see how wonderful the East Valley is and to see that there are great values in investing in homes in the East Valley at this time. Ollie the Trolley will take interested persons around Mesa to look at homes. Mesa, Gilbert, Scottsdale, Chandler and Apache Junction are vital parts of the Phoenix Metro Area.”
The pressure group is also encouraging its people to meet with supporters from the East Valley, including Mesa councilman Dennis Kavannaugh, Mesa Human Relations Advisory Board chair Terry Bennelli, director of diversity/neighborhood outreach Mary Berumen and a representative of the Mesa Police Department. All of these individuals “will be present to express their support and welcome to Mesa to the LGBTQ community.”
***
Homosexuals held a “pride weekend” in Bisbee last month. The debauchery commenced with a “Pub Crawl” and included a grotesque leather and lace street fair, pool party, barbecue, a film fest (no shortage of pornography), a psychic fair, showing of the Vagina Monologues and speed dating (anonymous bath house sex?).
Are you watching, East Valley? This kind of sleaze may be headed your way.
