Wednesday, April 25, 2012

In Defense of Marriage

I wrote this piece in October 2003, about three months after the Lawrence v. Texas ruling, which meant Texas, among other states, needed to strengthen, by state constitutional amendment, its protection against losing the definition of marriage, which Texas accomplished two years later. This was published, along with the footnotes you see here (which are actually longer than the piece itself), in online Meridian Magazine. It can be found here The date shown is not the date it appeared, but rather I think when it was re-archived. As you’d expect, more research has come out since this piece, but as far as I know nothing here is contradicted, but only strengthened by additional knowledge.

In Defense of Marriage
By Linda Nuttall[i]
October, 2003
It’s not often that all the world’s major religions—and science—agree. But they agree on this:  marriage between a man and a woman is good for society. And there is good reason, known intuitively for thousands of years, and now also known definitively to the social sciences:  marriage is an important social good. It provides a broad array of positive outcomes for children and adults.
Marriage improves relationships between spouses and between parents and children.[ii] Marriage increases wealth and helps prevent poverty, particularly for women and children, but also for men. Marriage increases educational, financial and social success of upcoming generations. Marriage increases health and longevity for men and women, and for the children their union produces. Crime and delinquent behavior are considerably lower in youth raised by their married parents. Even after controlling for race, socioeconomic and education level factors, marriage leads to better outcomes for children, women and men—and for the communities they live in.
Is marriage, then, beneficial enough to society that governmental, community and religious institutions should support it?  Clearly. That is why they traditionally have.
Should the benefits—and honor—of marriage be granted to relationships that don’t similarly contribute to society?  Of course not. If any other spousal/parenting set-up expects society to honor it, at the very least it should prove beneficial first.
How do people in single-parent or co-habiting households fare?  Children have dramatically worse outcomes. Such “family” situations lead to more delinquent behavior—twice as likely for teenage boys.[iii]  Co-habitation is three times more dangerous for women than marriage,[iv] up to 40 times more dangerous for children.[v]  And an overwhelming majority of children living in poverty are in single-parent households.[vi] Children of divorced and single parents have difficulty forming committed relationships well into adulthood, so the results perpetuate.[vii]
What about homosexual couples?  Admittedly there are benefits to the individuals—social comfort and sexual pleasure. But for society, their statistics are devastating. Do they produce offspring?  Never. When they raise offspring, at best they compare in many ways with single parents—far below levels of natural married families. In some significant ways, they are inferior to even single-parent households.[viii]
Do their relationships lead to healthy people?  No. Adult male homosexuals have a life expectancy twenty years shorter than the total male population; those with AIDS have even less time.[ix]  They are statistically more likely to suffer the entire gamut of mental illness than the rest of society—as much as 6 times higher.[x]
One in almost every two gay men suffers domestic abuse that results in hospitalization. For lesbians an astounding 55% suffer violent domestic abuse. When emotional abuse is included, 83% of males and 84% of females have experienced abuse.[xi]  FBI statistics for 1999 showed 1,317 incidents of violence motivated by the offender’s disapproval of homosexual behavior (hate crime). By comparison, there were 650,000 incidences of violence committed by male homosexual partners, plus a similar number for lesbian partners.[xii]
Studies show that 17% of young men in America are sexually abused before adulthood[xiii]; nearly all of these are abused by the 1.1-1.2% [xiv] of the population that is homosexual. While this by no means shows that all homosexuals are pedophiles, it does imply that the pedophiles among this demographic are particularly dangerous predators.[xv]  Consider the situation this puts the Boys Scouts in. If they don’t allow non-celibate gay leaders, they lose funding and are accused of bigotry. If they allow them, increased lawsuits for not preventing sexual abuse are inevitable. The group NAMBLA—formerly disavowed by the gay community, but now welcomed at gay pride activities—has actually published information instructing pedophiles on how to become Boy Scout leaders, and other ways to profile, lure, befriend, and rape a child, then avoid detection and prosecution.[xvi]
At the very least, in order to be honored with marriage, homosexuals should show that they intend to live faithfully committed to each other. But social science has yet to produce evidence that there is such a thing as an exclusively faithful gay couple. Monogamy among gays is a myth.
While I would not wish to impugn the reputation of a clergyman, even though he left his wife and daughters to go live with his lover, reason tells us that either Rev. Gene Robinson, recently elevated to Bishop in the Episcopal Church, is lying about being in a monogamous gay relationship, or he should get himself to a social scientist to document himself as the first such case.
For a decade studies tried—and failed—to document committed gay relationships. The studies are mainly intended to show that gay relationships are stable and therefore worthy of adopting children. Homosexual proponents, with an agenda, funded the studies. Yet they have failed to show evidence of a single long-term monogamous couple. Most studies are terminated after about ten months when none of the couples (who self-identified as committed couples) were still together. The longest study found one couple that reached five years before splitting. That was apparently an anomaly.[xvii]  Of course there are some who stay together longer, often much longer. But the studies tried to show monogamy, not simply sharing an address. Until it can be proven otherwise, it is safe to assume that no long-term gay relationship is sexually exclusive. The issue is avoided by claiming they are “emotionally faithful,” whatever that means.
A study showing number of sexual partners for gays found the average number at 308.[xviii]  The high in that study was 18,000. Some suggest that the promiscuity results from homophobia in society. But studies in The Netherlands, where there is gay marriage and an open acceptance of homosexuality, have found promiscuity to be the rule. Married gays have on average eight casual sexual partners a year.[xix]
In heterosexual relationships, serial infidelity is grounds for divorce; the gay community insists it is grounds for marriage.
Much of the sympathy for gays lies in the suggestion that homosexuality is not deviant; it is just another natural way to be, and gays have no choice. Thirty years ago, no one believed that. It is activists, repeating the untruth often enough and loud enough, that has changed minds, not scientific discovery.
While the direct causes of homosexuality are not known, there is much evidence that it is not genetic.[xx]  Identical twins are not identically likely to be gay, for example. While social science has not detected a singular cause, it has discovered common factors, life experiences that are shared by a high number of the demographic. For example, a homosexual male is most likely to have had his first sexual experience at age 12-14 with someone 11 years older. A high percentage have suffered sexual abuse. It is likely that sexual abuse is a causative factor.[xxi]
Homosexuality is not immutable.[xxii]  About 30% of those who enter treatment because they want to leave the lifestyle are successful in doing so.[xxiii]  For those who combine spiritual and psychological treatment, success is higher than for those employing only psychological treatment.[xxiv]
I would like to know if the information I’m including here, which can all be documented, will be provided in the “gay club” at Klein High School[xxv] (in northwest Houston area) and other schools, where they plan to “educate” people about being gay and “dispel the myths.”  Do they really mean educate, or do they mean propagandize and recruit?
Any way you look at it, participating in the gay lifestyle is neither good for the individual nor for society. That doesn’t mean we should hate them or scorn these individuals. They suffer enough from their own behavior; we should have no desire to add to their difficulties.
What we must do is tell the truth—and now. Already it is considered politically incorrect to give the facts I’ve given here (after all, why am I interested enough to learn these facts if I’m not obsessively prejudiced?)  In Canada, because of “vilification” laws (avoiding an act or statement that exposes to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons), it is essentially illegal to say what I’ve said, because gays might be offended by it.[xxvi]  It is making it difficult for opponents of gay marriage to present their arguments without being subject to prosecution. Vilification legislation has already been proposed in the US.[xxvii]
People bending over backward to avoid appearing homophobic (having an unreasonable fear of homosexuals, a psychological disorder apparently so widespread as to afflict a solid majority of the US population) mistakenly think it is safe to “tolerate” homosexuality. But tolerance isn’t what they want. What they want is for the public to acknowledge, condone and recognize as normal their behavior. They think if society approves, then they will be happy. But the only sexual relationship that has the potential to provide the satisfaction they lack is a faithful marriage between a man and a woman. Changing public opinion won’t change biological facts.
Thirty years ago the American Psychiatric Association dropped homosexuality from the list of deviant sexual behavior. Today homosexuality is believed by large numbers to be normal and acceptable, and we are on the verge of being forced to teach this to our children.[xxviii]  Right now the APA is discussing whether to remove pedophilia from its list of deviant behavior.[xxix]  What will we be forced to teach our children about that in the next generation?
What harm will it do to give in to same-sex marriage?  It will degrade marriage and deplete it of its meaning. It will equate the most beneficial relationship for society with a mere physical urge that has no way to reproduce nor provide for posterity and causes real harm to individuals and society. Real marriage, on the other hand, has the proven potential to sustain civilization. Quite a difference.

[i] The opinions in this piece are mine. But I must thank Richard Wilkins, Professor of Law at J. Reuben Clark Law School at Brigham Young University, Managing Director of the World Family Policy Center and founder of Defend Marriage, an organization for defending and preserving the family in the political arena, for providing me with data and sources, as well as his wisdom.

[ii] The assertions in this paragraph concerning the benefits of marriage can be found, along with additional details and references to specific studies, in “Why Marriage Matters: Twenty-One Conclusions from the Social Sciences,” 2002, Institute for American Values, available at .
[iii] Cynthia Harper and Sara McLanahan, 1998. “Father Absence and Youth Incarceration.”  (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association) (San Francisco) (August)
[iv] Linda J. Waite’s tabulations from the 1987-1988 waves of the National Survey of Families and Households. See Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, 2000. The Case for Marriage:  Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and Better-Off Financially (New York:  Doubleday): 155-156.
[v] Martin Daly and Margo Wilson, 1985. “Child Abuse and Other Risks of Not Living with Both Parents,” Ethology and Sociobiology 6: 197-210.
[vi] See, e.g., Mark R. Rank and Thomas A. Hirschi, 1999. “The Economic Risk of Childhood in America:  Estimating the Probability of Poverty Across the Formative Years,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 61(4):  1058ff. [81 percent of children living in non-married households will experience poverty during the course of their childhood, but only 22 percent of children living with married parents will experience poverty; 52 percent of children in non-married households will experience dire poverty (income 50 percent or less of the official poverty threshold), but only 10 percent of children in married households will experience dire poverty.]  Also, David Blankenhorn, “The Marriage Problem,” American Experiment Quarterly, Spring 2003, citing Suzanne M. Birch, Lekha Subaiya, and Joan R. Kahn, “The Gender Gap in the Economic Well-Being of Nonresident Fathers and Custodial Mothers,” Demography 35, no 2 (May 1999):195-203. “One of every three divorces in the US resulting in the physical separation of a father from his children plunges the mother and children into poverty. Father absence due to marital failure is a primary cause of poverty in the US.”
[vii] See “Why Marriage Matters,” page 8, and associated notes:  “Children whose parents divorce or fail to marry are more likely to become young unwed parents, to divorce themselves, and to have unhappy marriages and/or relationships. Daughters raised outside of intact marriages are approximately three times more likely to end up young, unwed mothers than are children whose parents married and stayed married. Parental divorce approximately doubles the odds that adult children will also divorce. Divorce is apparently most likely to be transmitted across the generations when parents in relatively low-conflict marriages divorced.
[viii] Studies comparing homosexual to heterosexual parenting never compare to heterosexual married biological parents; rather, they compare them with single or co-habiting heterosexual parents. And while it has long been claimed that there are “no differences” in behavioral outcomes for children raised by homosexual (as compared to heterosexual) parents, a recent re-analysis of prior studies challenges this conclusion. Two researchers sympathetic to the cause of homosexual households have now concluded that the “[e]vidence … does not support the “no differences’ claim.”  Judith Stacy & Timothy J. Biblarz, “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” American Sociological Review 159, 176 (April 20011). These researchers conclude that “[c]hildren with lesbigay parents appear less traditionally gender-typed and more likely to be open to homoerotic relationship. In addition, evidence suggests that parental gender and sexual identities interact to create distinctive family processes whose consequences for children have yet to be studied.”
[ix] Hogg, R. S., S. A. Strathdee, K. J. Craib, M. V O’Shaughnessy, J. S. Montaner, and M. T. Schechter, “Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,” International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 26, 657-662, 1997. “In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 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 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday.”
[x] Homosexual conduct has consequences for mental health. There is a well-documented correlation between homosexuality and suicide and mental illness. See, e.g., Theo B. M. Sandfort, De Graaqf, Bilj, and Schable, “Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders:  Findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study,” 85 (Archives of General Psychiatry 85 (January 2001) (“The findings support the assumption that people with same-sex behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders”); Richard Herrell, et al., “Sexual Orientation and Suicidality,” Archives of General Psychiatry 867 (October 1999) (“Same-gender sexual orientation is significantly associated with each of the suicidality measures” and “is unlikely to be due solely to substance abuse or other psychiatric co-morbidity”); David M. Fergusson, et al., “Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People?” Archives of General Psychiatry 876 (October 1999) (“Findings support recent evidence suggesting that gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people are at increased risk of mental health problems, with these associates being particularly evident for measures of suicidal behavior and multiple disorder.”)  While some may argue that these findings are “caused by society oppression” (J Michael Bailey, “Homosexuality and Mental Illness,” Archives of General Psychiatry 883 and 884 October 1999), this is not the only possible explanation. The survey of findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study found a significant greater risk for psychiatric disorders among homosexuals, even though “the Dutch social climate toward homosexuality has long been and remains considerably more tolerant” than most of the world. Sandfort, et al, above, at 89. Other possible explanations include hypotheses that “homosexuality represents a deviation from normal development and is associated with other such deviations that may lead to mental illness,” and that “increased psychopathology among homosexual people is a consequence of lifestyle differences associated with sexual orientation.”  J. Michael Bailey, above, at 884. Also, Sandfort et al., above, at 85-91.  (Youth are four times more likely to suffer major depression, also three times as likely to suffer generalized anxiety disorder, nearly four times as likely to experience conduct disorder, four times as likely to commit suicide, five times as likely to have nicotine dependence, six times as likely to suffer multiple disorders, and over six times as likely to have attempted suicide. Additionally, this research originates in the Netherlands where homosexuality is much more mainstream and accepted.)  Substance abuse is an additional health concern of those in the homosexual lifestyle:  Timothy J. Dailey, “The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality” and associated notes, Family Research Council “The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychologists reports that lesbian women consume alcohol more frequently, and I larger amounts, than heterosexual women. Lesbians were at significantly greater risk than heterosexual women for both binge drinking (19.4 percent compared to 11.7 percent), and for heavy drinking (7 percent compared to 2.7 percent)….Among men, by far the most important risk group consisted of homosexual and bisexual men, who were more than nine times as likely as heterosexual men to have a history of problem drinking.”
[xi] Susan C. Turnell, A Descriptive Analysis of Same-Sex Relationship Violence for a Diverse Sample,
13 Journal of Family Violence, 281 (2000) (finding that 44% of gay men report having experienced physical violence in their relationships, including 14% reporting sexual violence, with 83% reporting emotional abuse. Among lesbians:  55% acknowledge having experienced physical violence, 14% report sexual abuse and 84% report emotional abuse); See also, U.S. Department of Justice Study, Citizen Magazine, (January 2000) (reporting that the U.S. Justice 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. By contrast, the most recent numbers—1999--for “hate crimes” based on sexual orientation totaled a relatively low 1,558 victims). See also New York Times article “Alleged Murder Is Further Proof of Domestic Violence as Major Health Risk of Homosexuals, Traditional Values Group Says,” available at, quoting Diane Gramley, president of the American Family Association of Northwestern Pennsylvania: “The truth is that acts of outside aggression against individual involved in homosexual behavior, while always highly publicized, are rare. The far greater threat of violence to individuals involved in homosexual relationships—a staggering 50,000 percent higher risk, according to research by homosexual activists themselves—is the epidemic of domestic violence such individuals commit against each other.”  See also David Island and Patrick Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them, p. 14, “The probability of violence occurring in a gay couple is mathematically double the probability of that in a heterosexual couple…we believe as many as 650,000 gay men may be victims of domestic violence each year in the United States.”
[xiii] Holmes, William C., MD, MSCE; Gail B. Slap, MD, MS, “Sexual Abuse of Boys Definition, Prevalence, Correlates, Sequelae, and Management,” Journal of the American Medical Association, abrstract December 2, 1998. “We identified 166 studies representing 149 sexual abuse samples. Studies were methodologically limited and definitions of sexual abuse varied widely. Prevalence estimates varied widely (by definition used and population studies), ranging from 4% to 76%. . . . The AMA concluded that sexual abuse of boys appears to be common, underreported, underrecognized, and undertreated. Boys at highest risk were younger than 13 years, nonwhite, of low socioeconomic status, and not living with their fathers. Perpetrators tended to be known but unrelated males. Abuse frequently occurred outside the home, involved penetration, and occurred more than once. Sequelae included psychological distress, substance abuse, and sexually related problems.
[xiv] The best documented figures are 1 to 1.2%. However, there are several studies now suggesting the rate is 3%. No one is sure, and the research with higher numbers has the advocacy of gay activists behind it, so I opt for the more conservative estimate.
[xv] See Baldwin, Steve, “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement” and associated notes, available at . “Homosexuals account for between 25% and 40% of all child molestation. Sex researchers Freund, Heasman, Racansky, and Glancy, for example, in a 1984 Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy article, put the number at 36%. Erickson, Walbek, Sely, in a 1988 Archives of Sexual Behavior article, places it at 86% when the children being molested are male (citing W. D. Erickson et al, Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters, 17 Archives of Sexual Behavior 1, 83 (1988), supra note 1 at 83). …It should be noted that homosexuals account for only 2% of the population which statistically means that a child molester is ten to twenty times more likely to be homosexual than heterosexual.”  See also K. Jay et al, The Gay Report:  Lesbians and Gays Speak Out About Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles 275 (1979) (This study by homosexual activists and researchers revealed that 73% of homosexuals surveyed had sex with boys sixteen to nineteen years of age or younger); Eugene Abel et al., “Self-Reported Sex Crimes of Nonincarcerated Pedophiliacs, 2 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 3,5 (19877) “Child molestation, by comparison, was a relatively infrequent crime occurring from an average of 23.2 times by a pedophile (nonincest) with female targets to an average of 281.7 times by a pedophile (nonincest) whose targets were males”; R. Blanchard et al, “Fraternal Order and Sexual Orientation in Pedophiles,” 29 Archives Sexual Behav. 464 (2000); K. Freund & R I. Watson, “The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children:  An Exploratory Study,” 18 Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 34, 34-43 (1992).
[xvi] Jeffery Curley, age 10, was raped and murdered Oct. 1 1997. The perpetrators had in their possession NAMBLA materials, as well as a book, “Rape and Escape,” published by NAMBLA. They used an idea from the NAMBLA materials to lure the boy. The family is suing NAMBLA for its contribution to the murder of their son; the ACLU is defending NAMBLA pro bono, claiming NAMBLA has 1st amendment rights to free speech; ironically, the ACLU is requesting a gag order against the prosecution and is asking for witnesses who testified in the Curley case concerning the NAMBLA information to be disallowed.
[xvii] McWhirter, David P., and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple:  How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:  Prentice-Hall, 1984), pp. 252, 3. They reported that in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to 37 years, only 7 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. No “monogamous” relationship among men longer than the ones set out in this book have been documented.
[xviii] Meyer-Balburg et. al., “Sexual Risk Behavior, Sexual Functioning and HIV-Disease Progression in Gay Men,” 28 Journal of Sex Research, 1, 3-27 (1991).
[xix] See e.g., Xiridou, Maria, et al, “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” 1029-1038 AIDS, 17 (7) May 2, 2003. “Those with a steady partner and those without reported having an average of 8 and 22 casual partners per year, respectively.”
[xx] See, e.g. N.E. Whitehead, “The Importance of Twin Studies” available at For additional articles, see

[xxi] Nicolosi, Joseph, A. Dean Byrd, Richard W. Potts, “Retrospective Self-Reports of Changes in Homosexual Orientation:  A Consumer Survey of Conversion Therapy Clients,” 86 Psychological  Reports 1071, 1083 (June 2000).  Also Diane Shrier, M.D., Robert L. Johnson, M.D. “Sexual Victimization of Boys:  An Ongoing Study of an Adolescent Medicine Clinic Population.”  Journal of the National Medical Association, Vol. 80, No. 11, 1988, pp. 1189-1193. Robert L. Johnson, M.D., and Kiane K. Shrier, M. D. “Sexual Victimization of Boys, Experience at an Adolescent Medicine Clinic.”  Journal of Adolescent Health Care, Vol 6, No. 5, p. 372-376. (Homosexually-assaulted males identified themselves as subsequently homosexual seven times as often as the non-assaulted control group. In half the molestations, physical force was used. The mean age at which the molestation was reported was 18.2 with a range of 15-24. The age at the time of molestation was from 4 to 16 with a mean age of 10. Of this extension group, “… one half the victims currently identified themselves as homosexual and often linked their homosexuality to their sexual victimization experiences”). Also Richard C. Friedman and Jennifer I. Downey (1994). “Homosexuality,” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 331, No. 14, pp. 923-929. “Gay males are more likely than heterosexual males to become sexually active at a younger age (12.7 v. 15.7). And more recently, Marie E. Tomeo,, Donald L. Templer, Susan Anderson, and Debra Kotler “Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescence Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons,” Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 30, No. 5. pp 535-541, 2001. (In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. 46% of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. 22% of the lesbian women in contrast to 1% of the heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation.)  The sample was especially useful for research purposes because it did not focus on dissatisfied homosexuals in therapy; in fact, 97% of the men were participating in a gay pride celebration at the time they participated in the survey interview. 68% of the male study subjects and 38% of the females did not identify as homosexual until after the molestation.

[xxii] See, e.g., I. Bieber, Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuality 319 (Basic Books 1962); J. Clippinger, “Homosexuality Can Be Cured,” 21 Corrective and Social Psychiatry and Journal of Behavior Technology Methods and Therapy, 22 (1987); A. Ellis, “The Effectiveness of Psychotherapy with Individuals Who Have Severe Homosexual Problems,” 20 Journal of Consulting Psychology 194 (1956); R. Fine, Male and Female Homosexuality:  Psychological Approaches 85-86 (Hemisphere Publishing 1987); H. Kaye, et al., “Homosexuality in Women,” 17 Archives of General Psychiatry 634 (1967); H. MacIntosh, “Attitudes and Experiences of Psychoanalysts,” 42 Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association 1183 (1994); J. Nicolosi, “Belief and Practices of Therapists Who Practice Sexual Reorientation Psychotherapy,” 86 Psychological Reports 689-702 (2000); J. Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth  (Baker 1996); C. Tripp & L. Hatterer, Can Homosexuals Change with Psychotherapy?” 1 }scaps Sexual Behavior 24-29 (1971).
[xxiii] See, e.g., Joseph Nicolosi, A. Dean Byrd, Richard W. Potts, “Retrospective Self-Reports of Changes in Homosexual Orientation:  A Consumer Survey of Conversion Therapy Clients,” 86 Psychological Reports 1071, 1083 (June 2000). Study concludes that “20%-30% of the participants [in voluntary conversion therapy] said they shifted from a homosexual orientation to an exclusively or almost exclusively heterosexual orientation,” belying any assertion that homosexual orientation is “immutable.”

[xxiv] Fitzgibbons, Richard P., M.D.; Peter Rudegeair, M.A.; Eugene F. Diamond, M. D. “What Could Bring On Same-Sex Attraction in Boys: Catholic Psychiatrists Look at Roots of U.S. Scandals,” June 27, 2002 ( “There is no verifiable evidence that same-sex attraction is genetically determined….There are numerous studies documenting change in sexual attraction pattern (see “Homosexuality and Hope,” available at )”  “There has been a massive campaign to hide this information from the general public and from those who sincerely wish to be free from same-sex attraction. In 2000, Dr. Robert Spitzer of Columbia University, who had been instrumental in the removal from the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of homosexuality as a diagnosis in 1973, was challenged by men and women healed of their same-sex attractions that change is possible. Spitzer interviewed 200 men and women claiming to have achieved significant change and found that 60% of the males whom he studied identified themselves as heterosexual five years after their treatment ended. Most of those who were successful also participated in faith-based support programs. While there are numerous reports of substantial change through therapy alone, programs which rely on God or which are specifically Christian provide significant help in dealing with the compulsive behaviors, loneliness and lack of confidence that accompany same-sex attraction.”

[xxv] The school gave in to pressure from the ACLU to allow the club. Other high schools in Houston and around the country are succumbing to similar pressure. See “Focus: Tolerance/Stopping Hate/Group aims to help schools end gay bias” by Stephanie Weintraub, Houston Chronicle, 9/17/03, p. A-24, the 3 STAR edition.

[xxvi] See Canadian case indexed as: Owens v. Saskatchewan (Human Rights Comm.) Cited: (2002), CHRR Doc. 03-008, 2002 SKQB 506 Appeal from: (sub nom. Hellquist v. Owens) (2001), 40 C.H.R.R. D/197 (Sask. Bd.Inq.)  While the law clearly says that the definition will not be construed to abridge anyone’s freedom of speech, the judges in the case found the defendant guilty because his ad for a bumper sticker listed three Bible verses and had a symbol showing the international sign of a circle with a line through it meaning “behavior forbidden,” and also because the defendant read one of the Bible verses in a service at his church.
[xxvii] U.S. Senate Bill 966, 7/9/03, by Senator Kennedy; 42 democrats, 1 independent, and 7 republicans are cosponsors. The bill is designed to punish hate crimes, which means punishments greater for criminals having certain motivations than for criminals having less evil motivations (motivations that must be proven either by confession or by words they may have spoken during the crime or prior to it.)  Sexual orientation is placed on the same level as race, religion, and gender. It doesn’t at this time target the publishing of opinions that could be construed to encourage “hate crimes,” as current Canadian law, but it does essentially vilify certain opinions, such as those I have expressed in this article. If I were ever to commit a crime against a homosexual, this article could be used against me, even if the homosexuality of the victim was not indeed a motivator. This legislation, then, would make it riskier to express certain opinions, despite our guarantee of free speech rights.

[xxviii] In the U.S., teaching a pro-homosexual agenda is only mandatory in certain local districts. But the trend is to follow recommendations from international forums. For example, the recommendations contained in the “Report of the Youth Forum ICPD +5” calls for “instruction” before “the end of primary school” on “sexual and reproductive health and rights.”  Under the heading of “Sexual & Reproductive Health, Human Rights,” the Report states:  “Comprehensive sexual education in schools should be mandatory at all levels. This should cover sexual pleasure, confidence and freedom of sexual expression and orientation.”  It might be interesting to note that Alyson Publications, probably America’s largest provider of pro-gay materials to public schools, the publisher of Heather Has Two Mommies, is also the publisher of pro-pedophile books, such as Gay Sex:  A Manual for Men Who Love Men, detailing instructions for homosexuals on how to avoid discovery and arrest when having sex with boys.

[xxix] Homosexual psychological literature already touts the purported benefits of “intergenerational sexual intimacy.”  See, e.g., Edward Brongersman, JD, Boy-Lovers and Their Influence on Boys:  Distorted Resesarch and Anecdotal Observations, Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 20, Nos. ½ 1990, at 145, 160:  Rossman (1976) gives several examples of social workers achieving miracles with apparently incorrigible young delinquents—not by preaching to them but by sleeping with them. Affection demonstrated by sexual arousal upon contact with the boy’s body, by obvious pleasure taken in giving pleasure to the boy, did far more good than years in reformatories. (Referring to P. Rossman (1976) Sexual Experience between Men and Boys. New York:  Association Press.)  Baldwin, cited above, with associated notes, shows that homosexuals “target children both for their own sexual pleasure and to enlarge the homosexual movement.”

No comments:

Post a Comment