This page contains information and observations from external sources:

INTRODUCTION: Changing Orientation, A Change in Thinking, & Sexuality Hard-Wired Before Birth?
I. Being Civil About Civil Unions
II. Homosexual Myth (+ Attached Forward from PFOX)
III. Born Gay??
IV. Media A Major Advocate of Homosexuality
V. Humorous Brainwashing via TV
VI. Gay Parenthood??
VII. Redefining the 'Safe' School
VIII. 'Straight Pride' Shirt Banned, Restored
IX. Homosexuals Push for Control of Schools
X. Activist Targets Children and Teens
XI. Family Advocate Group's Statement on Marriage & CUs
XII. Medical Consequences of Homosexual Behavior
XIII. Ex-Gay Ministries Targeted
XIV. New Creations

Changing Orientation

One year after Dr. Robert Spitzer's report on sexual orientation change [see Psychology-Medicine page on this website] which challenged the gay agenda's mythology of "innate" orientation, Dr. Warren Throckmorton has substantiated such change in this research paper.

Gay-To-Straight Research Published In APA Journal

The American Psychological Association's prestigious journal Professional Psychology: Research and Practice has just published a comprehensive research paper on sexual-orientation change. Clients have the right to pursue change, the author says, because "sexual orientation, once thought to be an unchanging trait, is actually quite flexible for some people."

An article by Dr. Warren Throckmorton, "Initial Empirical and Clinical Findings Concerning the Change Process for Ex-Gays," has been published in the June 2002 issue of the American Psychological Association's publication Professional Psychology: Research and Practice.

"I'm pleased that this research summary will reach an audience of psychologists and mental health professionals that may not be aware of ex-gay issues," says Throckmorton, the director of college counseling at Grove City College.

"My literature review contradicts the policies of major mental health organizations because it suggests that sexual orientation, once thought to be an unchanging sexual trait, is actually quite flexible for many people, changing as a result of therapy for some, ministry for others and spontaneously for still others."

In professional circles, the debate over the development of sexual orientation centers around two viewpoints. The more prevalent of these, known as the essentialist view, argues that sexual orientation is innate, "in-born," and therefore not subject to change. The APA has supported this view, and therefore has influenced the approach many mental-health practitioners currently take.

The second, and less accepted viewpoint, known as the contructionist perspective, posits that sexual orientation is a socially-constructed product of a client's life experiences and can therefore be modified; people who modify orientation through counseling are known as "ex-gays." Throckmorton's research presents data consistent with this latter view.

"The APA's professionalism in handling this research is commendable and I think it demonstrates the APA's willingness to explore all sides of this important matter," Throckmorton said.

His analysis gathers previous studies of individuals who sought to change their sexual orientation. A majority of those responding to surveys of former gays indicate their experiences were positive and helpful.

This finding is in contrast to claims from some mental health professionals that efforts to change are always harmful.

Frequently religion played a major role in motivating a client to seek reorientation, Throckmorton notes, a fact that leads him to caution mental health professionals against assuming that the profession fully understands the potential and limitation for human change. "For years, public and professional opinion of ex-gay ministries have been influenced by anecdotes from persons not helped by these ministries," he said. "Basing opinions on the experience of only those who have not been helped gives an incomplete and therefore inaccurate picture of the potential for alteration of human sexual identity."

Throckmorton's article summarizes the experiences of thousands of individuals who believe their sexuality has changed as a result of reorientation ministries and counseling.

Throckmorton's article is a continuation of a paper presented at the American Psychological Association conference, Washington, DC, in August 2000 in a standing-room-only symposium, entitled "Gays, Ex-Gays and Ex-Ex Gays--Examining Key Religious Ethical and Diversity Issues." The article adds additional current research and adds recommendations for mental health professionals.

The final recommendation in Throckmorton's list states, "Practitioners should not refuse service to clients who pursue an ex-gay course, but rather, should respect the diversity of choice and consider a referral to an ex-gay ministry or practitioner."

In addition to serving as Grove City College's director of college counseling, Dr. Throckmorton is an associate professor of psychology at the college. A past president of the American Mental Health Counselor's Association, he also holds membership on the Magellan Behavioral Healthcare's National Provider Advisory Board representing licensed professional counselors. In 1998, he received the George E. Hill Distinguished Alumni Award from the faculty of Ohio University's Counselor Education Program. He earned a B.A. from Cedarville College, an M.A. from Central Michigan University and Ph.D. from Ohio University.

Right, Left or Free to Choose?
by Dr. Warren Throckmorton

During the past two weeks I have been contacted or received feedback from over 300 people concerning the recent columns I have written concerning homosexuality and biological causes ("Homosexuality and Genes: Déjà vu All Over Again" and "Of Mice and Gay Men"). The vast majority of people have been quite supportive of the columns exposing the apparent agenda of the popular media to find an exclusively genetic basis for homosexuality. A few have written to say they are looking at the research in a new light. However some have assailed me for daring to question the notion that aspects of identifying as gay probably involve environmental factors. For staying close to the research, I have been "credited" with causing the deaths of "gay children," accused of inciting hatred and called a couple of things I won't repeat.

Obviously, this issue is sensitive for many people. I certainly have no intention of hurting anyone and feel that bringing up the truth is in the best interest of us all. With these thoughts in mind, I want to address a recurring theme in the negative comments I've had over the last two weeks concerning the issue of causation and homosexuality.

The Question: Aren't the people who question the genetic theory of homosexuality all really homophobic, Christian right wing, conservatives?

No, not true. Most scholars who take the social constructionist view of sexuality question the genetic determinism implied by the born gay view. And many of those scholars are gay. For quotes and background information from this point of view, consult the website www.queerbychoice.com. This gay affirming site takes great exception with the view that biology exclusively shapes destiny.

One of the more prominent gay activist figures in Great Britain is Peter Tatchell. He scorns the born gay view on his website, www.petertatchell.com. He notes that many gays may have developed feelings early enough in life that they seem innate but he is quite skeptical that same sex attractions arise from genetic factors. He acknowledges (as do I) that sexual feelings are not always consciously chosen but one's sexual identity is.

Last, many of the scientists conducting the research linking homosexuality with biological factors discount the idea that sexual orientation is completely hard-wired and thus immutable. Simon LeVay, who authored the study concerning brain structure differences between gay and straight men had this to say about immutability:

There are probably very few people who have not felt, at some time or another, some sexual attraction to both men and women. . . . A person's sexual orientation is not necessarily a fixed, life-long attribute. Sexual orientation can change: for example a woman may be predominantly attracted to men for many years, and perhaps have a happy marriage and children during that time, and then become increasingly aware of same-sex attraction in her thirties, forties, or later. This does not mean that she was concealing or repressing her homosexuality during that early period. To argue that she was really homosexual all the time would be to change the definition of sexual orientation into something murky and inaccessible. Simon LeVay and Elisabeth Nonas, City of Friends: A Portrait of the Gay and Lesbian Community in America, 1995, p. 5.

That is a pretty remarkable statement coming from one of the most prominent researchers of biological factors in homosexuality. However, what makes his statement consistent with his science is one little factor that many people miss. The existence of biological factors in causation of human traits, even genetically mediated ones, doesn't mean the trait is unchangeable or inevitable. I think the reason so many people of all ideological stripes react strongly to the media distortion of sexuality research is the resulting implication that people can't or shouldn't choose their sexual identity in life. There are numerous former homosexuals who experience life now as straight. And on the other side of the spectrum, LeVay's description above is also accurate about former heterosexuals who now live as gays and lesbians.

While this could never be the last word on this contentious subject, I hope it is clear that the division over this issue is not best viewed as right-wing versus left-wing or even nature versus nurture. Rather the issue is about whether people have choices to deliberate and determine their own sexuality.

A Change In Thinking
townhall.com Linda Bowles

Many Americans believe homosexuals are born that way and can't do anything about it. For most of his professional life as a practicing psychiatrist, Dr. Robert Spitzer helped promote that belief. He has changed his mind.

He now believes that some practicing homosexuals can change their sexual orientation and become practicing heterosexuals. He believes they can fall in love with a person of the opposite sex, have children, and successfully reorient their sexual mindsets and transform their lives.

Spitzer is not a right-wing nut or a religious fundamentalist. He describes himself as an "atheistic Jew." In 1973, he led the politically correct fight that resulted in the removal of homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) diagnostic manual of mental disorders.

On May 9, 2001, at the annual meeting of the APA, Spitzer, who is currently chief of biometrics research and professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, released his study of 200 former homosexuals who have experienced a significant transformation from homosexual to heterosexual behavior and maintained it for at least five years. They attributed their success to prayer, therapy and a strong desire to escape a lifestyle they abhorred.

"Like most psychiatrists," Spitzer said, "I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted, but sexual orientation could not be changed. I now believe that's untrue –some people can and do change."

For years, homosexual activists and the popular media have aggressively promoted the idea that the homosexual is unchangeably what he is from the moment of conception. This message implants in the minds of fair-minded Americans this thought: If you are born a certain way, how can you be judged for being that way?

But if it is not true that homosexuals are hapless pawns of their biology, the consequences could be enormous. The belief that they are "what God made them" immunizes them from criticism, "normalizes" their behavior, and serves to shield them from the horrible onus of sexual practices that spread AIDS and numerous other heinous diseases.

A widespread understanding that environmental factors such as early childhood experiences, parental relationships and cultural conditioning contribute to the development of homosexuality -- or work to prevent its development -- would cause a significant social revolution in America. Parents might feel at first threatened, then outraged by the flagrant promotion of homosexuality in the classroom, on television and in the movies. Some Americans would rethink their inclination to believe the Boy Scouts of America are a hate group because they do not want practicing homosexuals to serve as scoutmaster role models to young boys.

Liberated from the myth that homosexuality is "genetic and unchangeable," there would be a immediate rejection of the homosexual agenda, which includes: the right to marry, the right to adopt and raise children, repeal of sodomy laws, hate-crime laws making crime against them more significant than crime against heterosexuals, affirmative-action status that gives them a legal weapon with which to intimidate others, the right to serve openly in the military and a lowered age for legal consent of sexual behavior.

So what is the truth? The truth is this: There is no "gay" gene. The scientific search for a biological basis for homosexuality has been a complete failure. Highly touted studies, including the study of the brains of 35 male cadavers by Simon LeVay (1991) and the heralded study of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers by Dean Hamer (1993), have not stood up to rigorous scientific scrutiny.

The widely respected Dr. Joel Gelernter of Yale University in an article in Science made this observation about various studies trying to link genes with complex human behavior: "All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."

Studies of identical twins are especially revealing. Identical twins, unlike fraternal twins, have precisely the same genetic make-up. If same-sex orientation were genetically determined, one could expect identical twins to always have the same sexual orientation. Dozens of studies prove they do not. Almost all scientists who have studied human development agree that environmental influences and life experiences play a significant role in essentially all complex human behaviors, including sexual mindsets.

The bottom line is this: No child is born to be a homosexual. Homosexuals are made, and they can be unmade. This is the truth that more psychiatrists and psychologists need to acknowledge. This is the truth that the American people need to know, parents of young children need to heed and politicians need to understand.

Sexuality 'hard-wired' before birth?
Discovery of 54 genes suggests being 'gay' or bisexual not choice
Posted: October 20, 2003
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

Findings by a team of University of California, Los Angeles researchers suggest homosexuality isn't a choice.

The UCLA scientists discovered 54 genes in mice they say indicate sexual identity is hard-wired into the brain before birth and the development of the sex organs.

According to the research published in the latest edition of the journal Molecular Brain Research, the genes are produced in different amounts in male and female brains before being influenced by hormones. Specifically, 18 of the genes are produced at higher levels in male brains and 36 are produced at higher levels in female brains.

Historically, the hormones estrogen and testosterone were thought by scientists to call the sexuality shots.

"Our findings may explain why we feel male or female, regardless of our actual anatomy," lead UCLA researcher, Eric Vilain, a professor of human genetics, urology and pediatrics at UCLA, said in a statement.

While stressing the study was "not about finding the gay gene," Vilain said some of the 54 genes might explain homosexual behavior. Additionally, he said the research brings better understanding to transexuals and offers a tool for gender assignment of babies born with ambiguous genitalia.

"These discoveries lend credence to the idea that being transgender – feeling that one has been born into the body of the wrong sex – is a state of mind," he said.

WorldNetDaily columnist Judith Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education and author of "Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences," told WorldNetDaily she smells a political agenda behind the UCLA study, as there was with three earlier ones promoted as scientific breakthroughs "proving" homosexuals are born, not made. Reisman calls the genetic studies "an outrageous farce" and said each had been repudiated after grabbing big headlines. She said one of the studies' researchers was even exposed as having also written promotional articles for pedophile publications.

Indeed, in an interview with the Edmonton Journal, Vilain gave the UCLA research a pro-homosexual spin, putting it in the context of the contentious debate over "gay" marriage and other "rights" sought by the homosexual community.

"If it's not a choice, you can't have the typical conservative argument that says you choose this lifestyle so you have to bear the consequences," Vilain told the Canadian paper. "If you can't do anything about it, therefore you should have all the rights to be integrated into society and have the same rights as heterosexuals in terms of marriage and the rights to inheritance."

"My question of all of these so-called discoveries is where in the genetic findings do they explain the early-child sexual abuse, which they know is predominant?" Reisman said, adding the political motivation behind the "genetic and unchangeable" theory actively promoted by "gay" activists is to cover up abuse by suggesting it is consensual sex.

"If we admit homosexuality is not genetic and that it's created by experiences, then we're talking about mass child-sex abuse," Reisman told WorldNetDaily. "And that would prompt questions of where are all the arrests of homosexual adult abusers, just as we've had arrests of heterosexual adult abusers?"

Reisman and other critics of homosexuality, including former "gays," contend homosexuality is a choice and that environment – particularly the "gay" rights lobby and child abuse – prompts a person's choosing to practice homosexuality.

"No one is born homosexual; it has everything to do with one's childhood, and complete change is possible," contends Stephen Bennett, a former promiscuous "gay" who has written columns for WorldNetDaily.

WorldNetDaily reported a 2001 study conducted by Robert Spitzer, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University in New York, republished in the current issue of Archives of Sexual Behavior demonstrated some "gays" are capable of becoming "predominantly" heterosexual through reorientation psychotherapy.

According to the findings, all 143 men and 57 women who claimed to have switched their homosexual preferences said the therapy altered their view of the same sex to some extent. All reported maintaining the change for at least five years.

"The current, politically correct view is that this therapy never works. I think it doesn't work a lot of the time but in some people it does," said Spitzer. "I do believe that people who are bothered by their homosexuality have a right to have this therapy."

The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, an organization dedicated to providing psychological understanding of the cause, treatment and behavior patterns associated with homosexuality, points out no researchers claim the orientation is simply genetic. Only correlations between genetic structure and behavioral traits are found.

NARTH maintains the correlations get trumpeted as scientific breakthroughs on the "gay" gene front by journalists who lose sight of the distinction between correlation and causality. An illustration of this, according to NARTH, is a British study published in the October issue of Behavioral Neuroscience that claims to find contributing biological factors for homosexual development. Even reorientation theorists, or advocates of psychotherapy to treat homosexuality, generally agree that biological factors set the stage for feelings of differentness from their own biological sex.

Yet an article in Health Day News promoted on the Internet by Yahoo mischaracterized the study's scope and findings with the headline, "Startling Study Says People May Be Born Gay."

Vilain said he and his UCLA colleagues believe genes, hormones and environment collectively shape the development of sexuality.

Related articles:

'Cure' for homosexuality?

Poll suggests backlash on 'gay' issues

Parents say 'no' to 'gay' agenda in schools

Corporations proud of 'gay' politics

Related special offers:

Spinning sex with twisted research

WND probe exposes 'gay' rights' secret agenda

For a whole week now civil unions between same-sex couples have been legal in Vermont. All appears to be peaceful. As far as I know, no town clerk issuing a license has been struck down by lightning. No applicant couple has been turned into twin pillars of salt.

OK, I'm sorry, I couldn't resist that jab. Vermont has actually been as civil as I expect any state could be in the matter of civil unions. But there have been outbursts of unbelievable vitriol in the papers, on the radio, on the statehouse steps as pious protesters ask God to smite the perpetrators of this sinful expansion of human rights. I'm not upset by civil unions, but I'm upset that anyone holds such homophobic beliefs, much less unloads them in public.

The diatribes are hard to listen to, even harder to respond to. Yet response is necessary. That hatred, based on fear and ignorance, is directed at my friends and neighbors. I couldn't stand by and hear such talk about blacks, Jews, women, any other group. I can't stay silent when it's directed at gays and lesbians either.

But what can one say back?

One could just be firm and straight: "That talk is unjustified and inflammatory and deeply hurtful to people I know and love. I don't want to hear any more of it."

But scorn doesn't open minds. Over time, if enough of us responded scornfully, everyone might learn that this is yet another prejudice one doesn't express in polite company. But the prejudice would still be there, ready to burst out in talk radio and other low places.

One could try to insert a little knowledge into a vast field of ignorance. It would help if we knew absolutely that there is a "gay gene," that homosexuality is no more a choice than dark skin or blue eyes. My guess is that we will never know that, because sexual behavior, like every other kind of behavior, comes from a mixture of nature and nurture.

The Meadows Theory of sexuality (only slightly more informed than other theories being aired in the letters-to-the-editor pages -- at least I read the science) is that we are programmed to be neither hetero nor homosexual, just sexual. Certain buttons are attached to nerves that trigger hormonal outbursts intended to perpetuate the species, but pleasurable enough to be indulged in for the sheer fun of it. Sexual play, including homosexual play, is observed in most higher animals and every human culture. Most human cultures take it much more lightly than we do.

There is natural genetic variation in this exquisite physiological system. Furthermore, tiny amounts of hormone-like pollutants (including dioxin, PCBs, and many pesticides) can disrupt the unfolding of the system in the embryo, driving sexual development more toward the masculine or the feminine, depending on the pollutant. All of which is beyond the power of any of us to alter in ourselves or in anyone else who is fully formed.

However (the Meadows Theory continues), we also seem to be programmed with a cerebral override, a culturally programmable mind that can quench or fan the hormonal flame. We can respond very differently to the right or wrong place, the right or wrong partner. An eleven-year-old kid of the same or opposite sex is a wrong partner. The middle of Main Street in the middle of the day is a wrong place. Some of our override responses are implanted in childhood, especially pathological responses arising from childhood abuse. Others should be within the control of morally responsible adults.

Inappropriate, extreme, abusive, promiscuous, disloyal, or in-your-face sexual behavior, homo or hetero, does exist and does offend and is worthy of blame. In my experience the hetero variety is by far the most common. But why condemn either our homosexual or our heterosexual neighbors because others are out of control?

In fact I rarely think about the sexual proclivities of my neighbors, so here's another possible comeback to the homophobes. Why does your mind dwell in other people's bedrooms? Are you so obsessed by sex that you miss every other thing there is to notice about people?

I notice people's ability to be pleasant, to be kind, to be responsible, to contribute to my community, to teach me useful things or work with me on useful projects. Of course I notice that they pair up in various ways, but there what I see is how they treat each other, whether they respect each other, whether they support each other and help each other grow. I see wonderful, loving relationships, hetero and homo, and difficult, debilitating ones. If I see any difference in the homosexual partnerships I know, it is that they are more caring and loving, probably because they have to put up with so much less support and so much more nonsense from the world around them.

In short, I don't think love between people of the same sex is chosen, or catching, or dangerous, or any of my business. I wish the people spouting the hatred would get to know what they're talking about. I'm sure that if they knew Wendy and Jerielle, Debra and Sonika, Richard and Pierre, Claudia and Flora Lea, many other couples like them, their fear would abate and with it their hate. The civil unions I know, like all good marriages, probably include sex (and cooking and bill-paying and picnics and disagreements and laundry and laughter), but what they are about is love.

For another perspective (not opposite), a knowledgable and highly respected Vermonter, Thomas Wilson, has written:

The strength of the argument in favor of Civil Unions depends on our society believing a myth: that homosexuality is innate, geneticly determined and mandated, that homosexuals are "born that way". If this myth were true, then one could try to make a case that gayness is "normal, natural and healthy" (as does the Vermont Dept of Education's Safe Schools project, when in fact it is none of these things), and, voila, Civil Unions could be advanced as proper (compensatory?) civil rights legislation to right mankind's ageless but ignorant homophobia. That was the gist of the pro-CU argument. It is important as events progress to remember that it is built on a myth.

In fact, modern genetic research shows no genetic mandate ("Scientific studies fail to corroborate 'gay gene' theory", Washington Times, August 7-13, 2000); in fact Nature knows no "natural" gayness in the non-human animal kingdom; in fact the world's major religions have always uniformly condemned it, and in fact the wisdom of mainstream history has categorically marginalized homosexuality for 6000 years, even in ancient Greece (see Plato's "Laws" and "Gorgias"). To their credit, many homosexuals reject the gay activist myth and admit the truth: that the gay lifesyle is a choice, albeit highly complex and compulsive, but a choice nonetheless (ibid, Washington Times, Aug. 2000; "On Choosing a Homosexual Lifestyle", Frank Aqueno, 1987).

According to a February 7, 2001 "Religion Today" article, a 1992 survey by the American Psychiatric Association's Office of International Affairs found that 122 out of 125 of the world's psychiatric associations surveyed found homosexuality to be a mental illness or a sexual deviation. In other words only 3 out of 125 psychiatric associations might agree with the gay activist myth. According to Rhea Farberman, director of communications for APA, "we have not said that it's genetic. We don't have an official position as an organization. The current state of science is that it's probably a combination of factors, partly biological and partly environmental" (ibid, Washington Times, Aug. 2000). "Partly environmental": a learned behavior. One would think some prudence, some trepidation would have been in order before socially engineering gay marriage and the subsequent validation of the gay lifestyle in our schools, but one must not, apparently, expect prudence in post modern Vermont. Prudence is, however, something we need to Take Back Vermont to. Put it on the list.

We are going to win this one; the facts of science, theology, history, and commonsense are on our side. We need to win it for our children, for our families, and for the sake of our gay neighbors too: the damage to millions of gay people and their families and society because of this "born this way" myth is apocalyptic and growing. Thank God a rational world can hold forth hope for change, as the email below offers. Please tuck this email away; sometime soon you may be able to pull it out and gently minister hope to a hurting, confused soul, and save a life.

-----Forwarded "Original Message" containing resources-----

From: "Parents & Friends of Ex-Gays" Subject: Ex-Gay Resources

Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX), a non-profit organization, is aware of the following resources for those struggling with same sex attractions, and for families and friends affected by the homosexuality of their loved one:

P.S. This list is provided for informational purposes only. PFOX does not recommend any particular material or organization. If you find that any of the above phone numbers, e-mail addresses, or web sites do not work, please send us an email at pfox_exgays@hotmail.com so we can update our records. Thank you!

(The following is an excerpt from the booklet Straight Answers for which there is a link on page one of this web site.)

Myth #2: "Homosexuals Are Born Gay"

Can someone really be born a homosexual? The contraversy over this issue is huge. Perhaps many homosexual activists cling to the ..."10 percent [of the population]" myth because they want others to believe that homosexuality is so common that that some people must be born gay. In 1993, a respected research journal, Science, published a study by Dean Hammer that ignited a "born gay" myth that exploded like the atomic bomb. Hammer basically claimed that science was "on the verge of proving that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeable –a normal variant of human nature."{12}

The media went ballistic. National Public Radio, Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal and several other news publications and programs heralded headlines and stories that suggested scientists have discovered a "gay gene". Of course, in the fine print, reporters qualified statements about this possible discovery because, in reality, there was no actual discovery –but they did so only in such a way that was over people’s heads! The public was beginning to be persuaded.

Why is it so important for homosexual activists to prove this issue? Maybe the biggest possible reason is this: If the world was convinced that some people are indeed born gay, then some would feel there is a need to protect homosexuals by the government as a designated minority class status, such a African- or Native-Americans. Slowly but surely, it seems the government is embracing this view and granting special rights to the homosexual community for what is a behaviorly-based identity rather than a true genetic one.

FACT: There Is No Evidence To Support The Claim That A Person Can Be Born Homosexual

>>All the findings combined from the study of twins, gene "linkage" studies or brain dissections cannot prove that homosexuality is genetic. Check it out:

>Dr. Charles W. Socarides, president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, argues that since psychologists and ministers have treated homosexuality with success, the genetic cause theory must be suspect.{13}

>Several researchers found fault with the well-known Simon LeVay brain study of 1991 which tried to find differences in the hypothalamuses (a very small part of the brain) of supposed straight and gay men. One researcher stated, "To say that this experiment is exceedingly dubious is a gross understatement. LeVay is attempting to tell us that he has found a difference between the brains of homosexuals and heterosexuals when he actually has no idea if there are really any heterosexuals in his group."{14}

>In 1991, psychologist Michael Bailey and psychiatrist Richard Pillard attempted to show that homosexuality occurs far more frequently among identical twins than fraternal twins. Their study had a major flaw: All of their twins grew up togther. These researchers failed to compare their findings with a control group of twins raised apart. If they had, they would have discovered other influencing factors, such as how family dynamics and their relationships with their parents affected who they were. Not to mention, only about half the identical twins studied were both homosexual. So, if the study showed that homosexuality in twins was purely genetic, then both of the twins would have been homosexual 100 percent of the time."{15}

>In July of 1996, five researchers led by Dean Hammer at the National Cancer Institute released a study that attempted to link homosexuality in men with a specific genetic region of their X chromosome. But Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, director of the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic, comments, "Homosexuality is much more complex than mere behavior and includes many complex dimensions, including thoughts, feelings, fantasies, specific attractions and identity."{16}

>Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. –in his paper "Is There A Gay Gene?" –writes "It is not possible to know what the findings mean –if anything– since sexual orientation cannot possibly be inherited in the direct way eye-color is."{17}

????: Why Does The Truth Matter?

As the myth of being born gay is more and more accepted by our government, our country is seeing the effects. For instance, more and more states will try to legalize same-sex marriages and will come up against less and less opposition. [Editor’s note: Vermont as a prime prospect.] Preschool children are being taught that to have two Mommies and no Daddy, and that being gay is just another kind of love.{18} Soon, educational curriculum may include courses on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender [Ed. Note: and questioning] studies.{19} ...

Hey, let’s face it: science is fact ...not theory. So, when the media grabs hold of a theory of genetic links to homosexuality and promotes it as a science, people are led astray. This is not right. Besides, even if somewhere in the future a genetic link could be proven it wouldn’t suddenly make the behavior right....

A genetic link to some behaviors does not prove the idea of normalcy or rightness. Look at alcoholism or propensities towards anger. While these have been promoted as having a genetic linkage, there are few, if any, in our society who would promote these behaviors as OK just because they are linked genetically. ...

-References-

12. Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. "Is There A Gay Gene?" National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) Fact Sheet (March 1999) 1.
13. Charles W. Socarides, interview in "New Gene Study; Homosexuality Inborn?" 9.
14. Grant and Horne, Legislating Immorality, 120 15. John Paulk, "Homosexuality: Not a case of genetic conditioning," The Oregon Citizen (January 1997) 1-2.
16. Ibid.
17. Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. "Is There A Gay Gene?" (NARTH) Fact Sheet (March 1999) 2.
18. Larry Burtoft, Ph.D. Setting The Record Straight: What Research Really Says ABout the Social Consequences of Homosexuality, (Focus On The Family 1994) 58
19. Ibid.

By Bill Fancher and Chad Groening

(AgapePress) - Don Feder, award-winning columnist for the Boston Herald, says his profession has been a strong advocate of homosexuality, promoting its acceptance as just another lifestyle.

Feder claims that for decades, the national media has promoted the existence of a "homosexual gene" which causes the behavior the Bible calls "abnormal" and "unnatural" -- despite the fact that no scientific proof of such a gene exists. Feder says the media has ignored evidence regarding the true nature of such a "lifestyle."

"Another seeming reputation of gay genetics is bisexuals. Do they have two sets of genes that they switch back and forth like gears on a bicycle?" Feder asks. "And what about the 20,000 individuals in the ex-gay movement? Did they change their DNA?"

He points out that the search for the "homosexual gene" has never turned up the existence of such a gene, and that the search has been abandoned by the scientific community.

"But now the media have decided that nature versus nurture versus life experiences is really irrelevant," he says. "In other words ... the media spent years uncritically mouthing the movement's pseudo-scientific claptrap; they're proven wrong; and then they decide it really doesn't matter."

The columnist insists the homosexual movement has found one of its biggest advocates in the national media. He says the media has been, and still is being, manipulated by the homosexual lobby -- and he believes that is a major factor in the rise of homosexuals' political power in America.

HIV Infections Up
Meanwhile, according to a comprehensive analysis by a panel of researchers and AIDS experts, the number of HIV infections among San Francisco's homosexual male population has more than doubled during the past four years. The study indicates the increase is partly due to new anti-viral drugs that keep patients alive longer, making it possible to spread the disease to more people.

Ed Vitagliano is the Director of Research for the American Family Association. He says the fear of death no longer appears to restrain homosexuals from engaging in what the Bible clearly says is a sinful lifestyle.

"What happens is restraints are thrown off and the appetites of the flesh are pursued," Vitagliano says. "For a few years, the fear of death from AIDS, in general, held these passions in check. But now with the increased availability of drug regimens, none of which cures HIV, the restraints are being tossed off and many experts fear another potential wave of AIDS -- and that wave might even unleash a mutated strain of HIV."

Vitagliano says when a culture removes restraints, there will be consequences.

"Once a culture begins to encourage people to throw off restraints and embrace what the Bible would consider as sexual sin, then they will just continue to spiral into more and more sexual activity, which will bring consequences," he says. "Whether you call that the wrath of God ... is really irrelevant. Sin has consequences, homosexuality is a sin, and homosexuality has physical consequences, HIV being one of them."

(AgapePress) - It’s often been said that the best way to get a controversial issue past people’s guard is to make them laugh. Hollywood activist Norman Fleishman puts it this way: "Entertainment is the most powerful form of communication in the world. It throws your defenses to the winds." That’s because the more you identify with characters in a show, the easier it becomes to see things from their point of view.

"If somebody’s lecturing or giving you facts in a documentary, your mind produces little responses," Fleishman explains. "Somebody pushes, you push back. Entertainment isn’t pushing, it’s attracting -- it takes you inside a new world."

That power is precisely what makes TV so dangerous. It makes it a lot easier for TV writers and producers to seduce you into adopting a certain point of view. And the majority of their viewpoints are influenced either by a secular humanism or a desire to make lots of money, or both. Either way, the result is pretty much the same. By using characters who are sympathetic and funny, Hollywood can lead people to question their own moral convictions.

That’s why the entertainment world made such a big deal about Ellen DeGeneres’s character announcing she was a lesbian a few years ago on Ellen. Finally, a homosexual lead character in a mainstream show! What an education for the masses! What peace and love and understanding would result!

Except that the big announcement didn’t help the show’s already tepid ratings. If anything, it lowered them even further. Suddenly the show was all homosexuality, all the time, and viewers got tired of it. Ellen’s eventual cancellation was seen by many as a sad example of American bigotry -- but seen by others as evidence that viewers were sick of having people’s sex lives shoved in front of their faces.

Give Hollywood credit for learning from its mistakes. On Will and Grace , the next TV series with a homosexual main character, the male lead was a smart, likeable, regular guy who just happened to be homosexual (and a lot more stable than his ditsy female roommate). No fuss, no fanfare -- the whole issue was handled very casually. Once the show’s creators got people interested, they could introduce a much more outrageous homosexual character, Will’s friend Jack, who was so funny that viewers took to him right away. Suffice it to say that Will and Grace has been earning the kind of ratings that Ellen only dreamed about.

Still another strategy is "catch ’em while they’re young": Get teenagers rooting for homosexual characters and portray any objections to their behavior as, you guessed it, bigotry. This is the approach used on Popular and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, among others. (The latter show basically argues -- no joke -- that if there’s nothing wrong with a human dating a vampire or a werewolf, what could be wrong with a girl dating a girl?)

Such strategies can be more effective than we realize. When TV consistently feeds us one view and forbids us to even think that there might be another one, it’s easy to go with the flow. As writer Marshall Allen remarks, "I found myself laughing or benignly accepting [TV’s] stories, situations and experiences when I should have been crying. I didn’t agree with [its] philosophy or [its] theology -- but this isn’t what really bothered me, because I’ve never insisted that everyone agree with my worldview. What really irked me was that Sony was an alluring siren that lulled me into complacency."

Do the shows you watch lull you into complacency? Are they showing a pretty picture of homosexuality and ignoring its often tragic consequences? If they are, it’s time to think about turning them off. That can be hard, especially since it doesn’t leave you a whole lot to watch. But as Christians, we have to guard our hearts and minds from temptation -- especially the temptation to think that we know better than God does what’s right and wrong.

And when you do find yourself confronted with issues like homosexuality on TV, don’t take Fleishman’s advice: Go ahead and "push back." Think critically about what’s being shown and why you don’t agree with it. You could even write to the networks (politely), let them know what’s bothering you, and make the case for morality. After all, who gave Hollywood the right to make up your mind for you?

(Gina Dalfonzo has worked at Family Research Council for nearly three years. She is an editor and writer for an online webzine written for teens.)

Despite Propaganda, Gay Parenthood Flawed
By Stuart Shepard, correspondent for Focus On The Family

Despite a flattering report on gay parenthood from ABC, children of gay parents give the arrangement a thumbs-down.

Last Friday, the ABC News program "20/20" examined the lives of children with homosexual parents. True to form, the network presented a glowing endorsement of the arrangement. But there's more to the story than the major media outlets are letting you know.

Suzanne Cook, who was raised by a homosexual father, says being raised by homosexual parents can have powerful negative effects on a child.

"In an all-male home, there is a distaste and a disdain for real females," Cook said. "They reject it and imitate it themselves."

After years of relationship problems in her own life, she finally realized the root cause: "I don't know what the rules are and what I've been taught is all wrong."

Cook said the media are seeking to influence public opinion.

"All people are doing is having their own ideas and then following that rabbit trail to gather those facts, instead of looking for the truth," she said.

In addition to anecdotal evidence, new research, published by the Marriage Law Project, investigated nearly 50 studies that claim there's no difference between homosexual and heterosexual parents. David Orgon Coolidge, who heads the project, said the analysis found that the existing studies are inconclusive.

"What they found is that, for all the studies and all the ink and all the trees that have been knocked down to publish all these studies, there's no 'there' there," Coolidge said.

Coolidge said every single study that claims gay parenting isn't harmful was found to have at least one fatal flaw in methodology. Those flaws, he said, are serious enough to make all the conclusions meaningless.

(TAKE ACTION: The entire study can be downloaded at the Ethics and Public Policy Center Web site page: "No Basis".

Dick Carpenter, Ph.D.

Last October, I spent four long days at the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Educational Network (GLSEN) annual conference in Chicago. The theme of that event was "Ending Hate, Beginning in Schools," and much time was spent strategizing how to make schools "safe places" for homosexuals. The common recommendation was that schools can be "safe" only when those who disagree with homosexuality are prohibited from speaking out.

Practically speaking, this means that students hear only one message: Homosexuality is a part of who you are and cannot be changed. Along the way, they also hear blatantly incorrect myths that anywhere from 10 to 30 percent of the population is gay, that homosexuality is genetic, and that gay teens are driven to suicide by "homophobic" harassment in schools.

Speaking up to dispel these myths, and telling kids that being gay is against God's original intent, are "hate speech," according to GLSEN, and cannot be tolerated. Unfortunately, many schools have come to agree with this notion and passed "anti-discrimination" policies based on sexual orientation, essentially muzzling those promoting the possibility of change.

The irony here is that in order to make schools "safe" for students to express and to promote their homosexuality, schools become unsafe for students of faith or others who disagree with being gay.

Take, for example, a Christian teen and high school junior from Vermont named Jonathan. In a genealogy class, Jonathan's teacher told the students that homosexuality was directly related to genealogy and was an inherited trait. Recognizing the inaccuracies in the teacher's statements, Jonathan asked what homosexuality had to do with genealogy. Ignoring his question, the teacher responded, "What's wrong Jon, are you homophobic? Did you know that a lot of the people who are afraid of gay people are actually gay themselves?"

Everyone in the class erupted with laughter while Jonathan, humiliated, stared at his desk, his face growing hot with embarrassment. Unfortunately, Jonathan again suffered such harassment from his teacher and later from his principal. Tragically, Jonathan's case is neither isolated nor "made up," and students across the country are experiencing similar confrontations.

But finally, just as GLSEN and other homosexual-rights activists seemed to be enjoying unprecedented success in criminalizing free speech, a United States Court of Appeals recently ruled that a Philadelphia school district's anti-harassment policy, which includes sexual orientation, violates the First Amendment. The ruling resulted from a lawsuit brought by two students who feared punishment if they expressed their religious convictions about homosexuality.

This ruling effectively means that telling students that being gay runs counter to God's design, or exposing gay myths as incorrect, are not "harassment" but are, in fact, constitutionally protected free speech. You can be sure that this ruling will be appealed, but for now, anyway, the court has confirmed that students may express their religious convictions about homosexuality.

At Focus on the Family, we believe schools should be safe places for all students. No student should experience harassment at school or be abused by classmates. Yet, this does not require students of faith to abandon at the door their freedoms of religion or speech. For Christian students, the U.S. Court of Appeals decision is a ray of light on a dark issue, but for all students this ruling has the potential to be life-changing. For, in the growing morass of schools subscribing to and perpetuating lies about homosexuality, the voices of students like Jonathan may be the only truth some students ever hear.

Dick Carpenter is the education policy analyst for Focus on the Family.

ADDENDUM: 

Researcher/Educator Blasts GLSEN's 'Balanced' Material on Homosexual Unions
By Jim Brown
AGAPE PRESS  April 14, 2004

(AgapePress) - A sexual orientation researcher is denouncing new high school curriculum from the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) dealing with same-sex "marriage."

GLSEN's curriculum purports to present a fair and balanced discussion of marriage. But Dr. Warren Throckmorton, an associate professor of psychology at Grove City College in Pennsylvania who has written a 24-page critical review of the material, says both sides of the debate are not presented in the curriculum.

"There were 18 references ... to books and videos and websites in this curriculum, and 15 of them were pro-gay marriage," the researcher notes. "There was only one reference to a Vatican statement against gay marriage that could have been considered negative -- all other materials were either neutral or pro-gay marriage."

Throckmorton is urging high schools not to adopt the GLSEN curriculum because the controversial learning materials contain numerous inaccuracies.

"The curriculum states that same-sex and opposite-sex couples function similarly in terms of their commitment and the length of time that their relationships last," he points out. "Well, we know that's not true; we know that, on average, the relationships of same-sex couples don't last nearly as long as heterosexual couples or marriages."

Throckmorton says the GLSEN curriculum is not only biased, but also coercive. Students, he says, are told their moral judgments on the issue do not matter. He says the material is also very impractical because GLSEN wants schools to take up to three weeks to present units on homosexual marriage. According to the educator, that is the same amount of time most teachers spend on the Civil War.

By Stuart Shepard, correspondent

A Minnesota high school officially sanctions "gay pride," but recently banned a solitary expression of "straight pride."

Elliott Chambers is 16, a Christian, and the owner of a sweatshirt that reads "Straight Pride" on the front with a logo of a boy and girl holding hands on the back. He tried to wear it at his school recently, when the school had a "gay pride" celebration, complete with stickers and posters designating so-called "safe zones" for homosexual students plastered on walls and doors.

"They have all this gay-pride stuff, and I thought it would be cool if we had a straight pride shirt for a change," Chambers said. "It was just to get people thinking."

It only succeeded in getting some of his classmates thinking of going to the principal's office, which is where Elliott ended up.

"(The principal) said that I couldn't wear it," Chambers said. "I guess his cover was that it would incite violence."

Lana Chambers, Elliott's mom, was livid when she found out about the principal's action.

"I said, 'You're telling me that he cannot wear this shirt because it's offensive to them (homosexuals)? Well, those signs are offensive to him! And to me! And I'm a taxpayer!' " Lana Chambers said.

Attorney Frank Manion, with the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), said the principal's argument that banning the shirt is a matter of school safety is a "smokescreen."

"It's obviously discriminatory and something that the school should not be allowed to get away with," Manion said. "We've got to beware of the aims and the goals of, really, the radical homosexual-rights movement."

Student Can Sport 'Straight Pride' Sweatshirt at School
Elliott's Attorney Calls Court's Decision 'Trend-Setting'

By Chad Groening and Jody Brown
May 18, 2001

AgapePress) - A Minnesota high school student will be able to wear his "Straight Pride" sweatshirt to school again, thanks to a decision by a federal court.

Elliott Chambers is a student at Woodbury High School near St. Paul. One day in January, Elliott's wore his "Straight Pride" sweatshirt to school. The shirt carries the trademarked logo "Straight Pride" on the front, and the universal symbol of man and woman, holding hands, on the back. The next day, he was summoned to the principal's office and told he could no longer wear the sweatshirt to school because homosexual students had complained that it was offensive to them.

So Elliott and his parents contacted the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, which filed a federal lawsuit on their behalf. The Law Center's chief counsel, Steve Crampton, says the ruling came down late Thursday.

"The court ruled in favor of Elliott by entering a preliminary injunction against the school and the school district that will allow Elliott to return to school wearing his 'Straight Pride' sweatshirt without fear of discipline being invoked by the school," Crampton says.

Crampton believes this ruling could prove to be a trend-setter for similar cases around the country.

"These issues are not unique to Woodbury High and Minnesota," he says. "That fact is that as the 'politically correct' continue to solidify their hold on the schools, I think they are actively trying to silence the message of 'Straight Pride' or [any] message in opposition to the pro-homosexual one that the schools have adopted. So I think this is an important and trend-setting case in that respect."

The attorney says the school could not present factual evidence that Elliott's shirt caused any violence against homosexuals.

Background on Lawsuit

The lawsuit against the school and the principal was filed in early April. According to a statement from the Law Center at that time, the school openly promotes homosexuality by displaying inverted pink triangles -- the universal symbol of the homosexual community -- in certain "safe" rooms. Those rooms, the statement said, are set aside for student/teacher discussion and counseling regarding homosexuality and "other non-traditional relationships."

Before contacting the Law Center, the Chamberses had attempted to resolve the matter by meeting with the school's principal, co-defendant Dr. Dana Babbitt. According to the Law Center, during that meeting the Chamberses expressed their concern about the school's overt support of homosexuality and bisexuality, but that Babbitt called them "homophobic."

When the lawsuit was filed, Crampton expressed his concern about the school's reaction to what was a simple, positive statement about traditional relationships.

"Elliott's sweatshirt merely makes a positive statement about heterosexuality," Crampton said in April. "It does not denigrate other forms of sexuality. This is a case of classic viewpoint discrimination. The school has chosen to openly embrace homosexuality and bisexuality, and it does not welcome dissenting points of view."

Crampton said he was especially troubled by the school's "open hostility" toward student support of committed man-woman relationships.

In a recently-released book that publisher Penguin Putnam says is for "children and teenagers," homosexual author Eric Marcus endlessly spouts homosexual propaganda, trashes religion and attempts to isolate children from parental authority.

Given the politically correct climate and fierce push of the homosexual agenda in public schools, Marcus' book,What If Someone I Know Is Gay? Answers to Questions About Gay and Lesbian People, will no doubt begin appearing in local public libraries and in public school libraries. The author is perhaps best known outside the "gay" community for Breaking the Surface, the best-selling biography of homosexual Olympic diver Greg Louganis.

While his other books, including Is It a Choice? and Making History, are generally targeted toward adult readers, Marcus said his latest work is an attempt to provide "the common sense answers" that kids are "looking for." Unfortunately, Marcus is interested in providing only the "common sense answers" that are in agreement with a pro-homosexual worldview. Even though Penguin Putnam calls the book "fair-minded," What If Someone I Know Is Gay? makes every pro-homosexual assertion known to activists.

For example, what if kids want to know, "How do you become gay?" Marcus answers, "[Y]ou can't become gay, just like you can't become heterosexual. You are what you are."

What about all those folks running around who say they once were "gay," but are no longer homosexual? Marcus tells curious young people that, "When it comes to feelings of sexual attraction, no amount of hoping, praying, psychotherapy, or wishful thinking will make them go away." Later, Marcus refers to the idea that a homosexual can change his sexual orientation through prayer as "silly."

Furthermore, Marcus tells children that, whatever their "feelings of sexual attraction" may be, those feelings are "a gift--from God, from nature, from our genes."

Marcus tells children that those sexual feelings can be fulfilled in ways that might give many parents the willies: he defines mutual masturbation, oral sex, and anal intercourse as appropriate sexual behavior between people--both heterosexual and homosexual.

-Rejecting rival authorities-
In setting up their own authority as experts on human sexuality, homosexual activists obviously must overthrow any rivals--at least where such authorities disagree with "gay" dogma.

It is therefore no surprise that Marcus takes several shots at Christianity and religion. In one instance, he says, "While many people continue to draw inspiration from the Bible, most have wisely rejected many of the outdated laws and customs first set down in the Bible centuries ago.…I think that most Christians will eventually reject the Bible's teachings on homosexuality as an excuse to condemn gay and lesbian people and to deny them equal rights."

However, as irritating as it may be to wade through Marcus' endless assertions, straw-man arguments, and disdainful treatment of organized religion, what is most infuriating is his blatant attempt to separate children from their parents.

In answer to the question, "If I think I'm gay, can I tell my parents?", Marcus says, "[Y]ou need to think carefully about how your parents are likely to react.…If there is any reason for you to think that your parents will react badly, then the best thing to do is to find other people to talk to now and wait until you're older and no longer living at home or financially dependent on your parents before you tell them that you're gay or lesbian."

It is probably unexceptional for one teenager to say to another, "Don't tell your parents." How outrageous is it, however, for an adult to do the same thing? Marcus--or the school authorities that may place his book in the library--have taken the unconscionable step of telling kids, who may only think they are homosexual, to hide this fact from their parents.

Marcus' reasoning on this score is obvious, however, since he paints parents as ignoramuses--at least those parents who think that homosexuality is immoral or unnatural. What If Someone I Know Is Gay? boldly asserts that parental revulsion to homosexuality is based on "old negative myths." Not many schools would dare to explicitly tell children that the religious or moral beliefs of their parents are mere mythology.

Penguin Putnam seems to share Marcus' disdain for parents who oppose homosexuality. In a letter introducing What If Someone I Know Is Gay?, the publisher explains, "At a time when far too many adults still accept ancient myths and hateful prejudice as fact, Eric Marcus provides a much-needed, fair-minded voice for a new generation of young people."

If the current generation of young people is not accepting enough of homosexuality, it is clear that activists like Marcus are intent on creating one that is. With a continued stream of books like What If Someone I Know Is Gay?, that day might not be far off.

Focus on the Family Position Statement on Same-Sex "Marriage" and Civil Unions

Marriage is a sacred union, ordained by God to be a life-long, sexually exclusive relationship between one man and one woman. Focus on the Family holds this institution in the highest esteem, and strongly opposes any legal sanction of marriage counterfeits, such as the legalization of same-sex "marriage" or the granting of marriage-like benefits to same-sex couples, cohabiting couples, or any other non-marital relationship. History, nature, social science, anthropology, religion, and theology all coalesce in vigorous support of marriage as it has always been understood: a life-long union of male and female for the purpose of creating stable families.

Marriage is not an American invention. It has existed as an institution since the beginning of civilization, and thus supersedes our modern laws. Every long-standing society has viewed marriage as a union of male and female. Studies of previous civilizations reveal that when a society strays from the sexual ethic of marriage, it deteriorates and eventually disintegrates.{1}

Even a casual observation of nature reveals the vital distinctions between male and female and the need that each has for the other. Gender distinctions are not simply an artificial social construct. Men and women are uniquely designed to complement each other physically, emotionally, and spiritually. Marriage is the means for melding the two sexes into a stronger and more complete whole. Thus while marriage has intrinsic value of its own, a primary purpose of marriage is procreation. Marriage is the natural and best means for the propagation of the human race.

The optimal environment for raising a child is one in which the child's mother and father are married to each other. Deliberately depriving a child of a mother or a father is not in the child's best interest. On average, when compared with children raised by both parents, children in single-parent homes fare worse in virtually every measure of well-being.{2} The sparse research regarding children raised in same-sex couple households reveals that such children are comparable in well-being to those in single-parent households.{3} In addition, children raised by homosexuals are significantly more likely to develop a homosexual orientation themselves.{4} Men and women are distinctly different. Each gender brings vitally important - and unique - elements to a child's development. Research reveals that the presence of a father in the home affects children's cognitive and verbal skills, academic performance, involvement in or avoidance of high-risk behaviors and crime, and emotional and psychological health.{5} A wealth of research and information has been published about the power and importance of the mother-child bond.{6}

We elevate marriage in our laws over other relationships because marriage has proven over millennia to be an obvious societal good. Marriage is open to any two individuals provided they meet certain criteria regarding age and blood relationship, and provided the individuals are of the opposite sex. Homosexual activists seek not to end discrimination, but rather to completely redefine - and thus undermine - the foundational institution of marriage. Indeed, some prominent gay activists have gone so far as to state this as their goal.{7} This powerful, advantaged, vocal special interest group is seeking not to be left alone, not to be simply tolerated or even respected, but to force its views on the rest of society.

Those who would redefine marriage often insist that the only necessary qualification for marriage is "love." Yet if one accepts that rationale, then there can logically be no boundaries as to what constitutes marriage; any combination or number of consenting individuals must ultimately gain the same legal and societal sanction as traditional marriage. While love is vital, it is not the definitional element of marriage. We love many people we do not marry.

The five major world religions, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism recognize and uphold the natural, heterosexual understanding of marriage. By contrast, these religions teach that homosexual behavior is sinful or wrong.{8}

Marriage is the first institution ordained by God and has served from the beginning as the foundation for continuation of the human race. Genesis tells us that shortly after the creation of the first man, God acknowledged Adam's incompleteness. God then created Eve as Adam's partner, his completer, and blessed their union.{9} Jesus underscored the importance and sacredness of marriage in His own teachings.{10} The apostle Paul taught that the marital relationship is to be an ongoing demonstration of the sacrificial love that Christ showed His church. In contrast, the Bible clearly proscribes any form of homosexual behavior as sinful.{11} As such, it is not and cannot be the basis for a sacred marriage relationship.

Marriage is unquestionably good for individuals and society. It deserves respect and protection. Any efforts to redefine marriage destroy the institution. Thus we oppose any government recognition or endorsement of marriage counterfeits, including same-sex unions.

1 See J. D. Unwin, Sexual Regulations and Human Behavior (London: Williams & Norgate, 1933).
2 See, for example, D. A. Dawson, "Family Structure and Children’s Health and Well-being," Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53:573-584 (1991).
3 See F. Tasker and S. Golombok, "Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 65:2: 203-215 (1995).
4 Ibid. See also, T. J. Dailey, "Breaking the Ties that Bind." Family Research Council Insight, February 18, 2000.
5 See D. Blankenhorn, Fatherless America. (New York: Basic Books, 1995). See also, K. D. Pruett, Fatherneed. (New York: Free Press, 2000).
6 See for example, B. Hunter, The Power of Mother Love. (Colorado Springs: Waterbrook Press, 1997).
7See, for example, Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," Out, January/February 1994, at p. 161.
8 "Major World Religions on the Question of Marriage," Marriage Law Project, April 2000, at http://marriagelaw.cua.edu.
9 Genesis 2:24.
10 Matthew 19:6.
11 Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:18-32; I Corinthians 6:9-11.
Copyright © 2000 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved. International copyright secured.

Frequently Asked Questions about Same-Sex "Marriage"

Q: Aren’t we denying homosexuals their rights by not legalizing same-sex marriage?

Homosexuals enjoy all the rights every citizen has—they can vote, own property, etc. That is not the issue. The issue is about redefining the social institution of marriage, as it has been understood and transmitted down through the centuries throughout civilization. Homosexuals have precisely the same right to marry as anyone else. Marriage is the bringing together of one man and one woman. To enter marriage, one must meet its qualifications. Any attempt to get around the rules that apply to everyone else is an attempt to have special rights, not equal rights. When homosexuals are not allowed to marry each other, they suffer no more discrimination than do bigamists or polygamists.

Q: In restricting marriage to one man and one woman, aren’t you imposing your beliefs on others?

Those who are trying to radically redefine marriage for their own purposes are the ones who are imposing their values on the rest of the population. Marriage, defined by one man and one woman, has been the foundation of civilization for thousands of years. Any attempt to alter that definition is an effort to undermine the most fundamental building block of every society: the family unit.

Q: Whom does it affect if a same-sex couple wants to get married?

When homosexual couples seek state approval and all the benefits that the state reserves for married couples, they seek to impose the law on everyone:
Business men and women would be required to extend employee benefits to homosexual "spouses."
School curricula would be required to treat homosexual behavior as morally equal to traditional, heterosexual marriage.
Same-sex "marriage" would facilitate the adoption of children by homosexual couples. There is no research indicating the positive effects of being raised in an exclusively homosexual home. What research does confirm, however, is that the domestic environment most conducive to the well-being of children has both a mother and a father.

Law is not a suggestion, but, as George Washington observed, it is force. Official government sanction of same-sex relationships as "marriage" would position the government in opposition to the opinion of the vast majority who hold that marriage should remain as being between one man and one woman. Traditional morality would, in effect, be outlawed.

Q: But if two people love each other, why not let them marry?

If the definition of marriage is radically altered based on one’s "feelings," then there is no logical reason for not letting several people marry, or for gutting other requirements, such as minimum age and blood relative status. For example, if there were no restrictions on marriage and feelings were all that mattered, fathers could marry their own daughters or brothers could marry their sisters. Any person, of any age, could marry anyone he wished or any number of persons he wished—a close relative, three young children, etc. Were there no restrictions on marriage, the possible arrangements would be endless.

Q: Don’t studies show that homosexuals are born that way?

Absolutely not. The genetic studies that have been publicized have been conducted by self-styled homosexual activists or have been misrepresented in the media. The studies themselves typically have tiny sample sizes, biased selection, and other major methodological flaws, and are not replicated by reputable scientists. By contrast, 70 years of therapeutic counseling and case studies show a remarkable consistency concerning the origins of the homosexual impulse as an uncompleted gender identity seeking after its own sex to replace what was not fully developed. Homosexuals can choose their behavior, and they can change their orientation, although this process is always difficult, as researchers Masters and Johnson showed in their landmark studies and as numerous examples of personal transformation testify.

Q: For years in some Southern states, blacks and whites were prevented from marrying by anti-miscegenation laws. Eventually, the courts overturned these laws. Aren’t same-sex couples being similarly discriminated against?

Skin color and sexual behavior are entirely different from each other. Skin color is a benign, inborn characteristic that has no bearing on conduct or character; sexual behavior, on the other hand, is based on a person’s actions and has to do with character, morality and society’s basic rules of conduct. If special rights are granted to citizens based on behavior, new laws would have to be passed almost daily to accommodate the flood of claims based on any activity. Smokers, compulsive gamblers, pedophiles, thieves, etc., could all claim new "rights" to protection against discrimination.

Q: Isn’t the traditional view of marriage religious in nature? And if so, doesn’t the restriction of marriage to one man and one woman violate the religious beliefs of those who disagree?

Although marriage does indeed arise from religious traditions, it is also an independently quantifiable good for society. Hence, the state has an interest in preserving and protecting the special status of marriage, regardless of religious beliefs. In 1885, the Supreme Court felt so strongly that marriage was to be protected that states requesting admission to the Union were required to recognize marriage’s heterosexuality, exclusivity and permanence.

Q: What about childless couples? If marriage must be protected partly because of its importance in forming families, does this mean that heterosexual couples who don’t want or can’t have children should not be allowed to marry?

Although most people marry with the intention of someday starting families, married couples who do not have children still have the potential for becoming mothers and fathers, either biologically or through adoption. But marriage is a societal good even without children. Sociologists tell us that marriage has a powerful "civilizing" affect on young men, deterring them from socially harmful behavior. Marriage also contributes to the health and longevity of both husbands and wives. Additionally, marriage encourages sexual regulation, a characteristic that historically has been the most important factor in creating and preserving healthy and productive cultures. Procreation is an important aspect of society’s high regard for marriage, but it is not the only reason that marriage is protected.

If you examine the medical consequences of homosexual behavior, you must ask the question of why something that is considered by some to be an acceptable way of living would be associated with such devastating effects on health.

David Smith, M.D.

The homosexual activists would have you believe that homosexual behavior is just an alternate way of living that is both normal and natural. If you examine the medical consequences of homosexual behavior, you must ask the question of why something that is considered by some to be an acceptable way of living would be associated with such devastating effects on health. A survey several years ago revealed that seventy-eight percent of homosexuals have been affected at least once by a sexually transmitted disease. Although the AIDS epidemic resulted in some decline in this risky behavior, there has been an upsurge again in the risky behavior characteristic of homosexuality.

Although the percentage of homosexuals in the United States is less than five percent, they are responsible for half of the nation’s cases of syphilis and more than half of the cases of gonorrhea of the throat and of intestinal infections. Major outbreaks of amebiasis and hepatitis A infections in San Francisco and Minneapolis have been associated with diseased homosexual food handlers in public restaurants. There is a twenty to fifty fold greater rate of hepatitis B among male homosexuals and a much higher rate of hepatitis A; between one-half to three-fourths of homosexual men have had hepatitis B. If you look at rates of chronic or recurrent infections with herpes virus, CMV, and hepatitis B, you would find them in ninety percent of homosexually active men.

San Francisco passed "gay rights" laws and saw a rate of increase of twenty-two times over the national average of venereal disease over the first ten years. Over this same period, the rate of amoebic colon infections increased 25 times and the rate of hepatitis B increased 3 times. Clinics that treated venereal diseases in the city saw seventy-five thousand patients every year of which close to eighty percent were homosexual males and twenty percent of them carried rectal gonorrhea. There are also a group of rare bowel diseases usually limited to the tropics that are common in male homosexuals. In this country, AIDS has been transmitted primarily by homosexual sex.

If homosexual behavior was ever meant to be a normal part of human behavior, it would not be associated with such deleterious effects. The Bible could not be clearer in its condemnation of homosexual behavior. Just read Romans 1:24-28. Our society should not promote a behavior that results in such a danger to public health.

Gay And Lesbian Medical Association Lists Homosexual Ailments Thursday, August 08, 2002

The Gay And Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) has just published a list of diseases and social pathologies that afflict those who engage in homosexual conduct.

According to the Gay And Lesbian Medical Association, men and women who engage in homosexual behaviors are at greater risk of a series of diseases and mental problems than are heterosexuals. These risks include: HIV/AIDS; substance abuse; depression/anxiety; STDs; prostate/testicular/colon cancer; alcohol and tobacco abuse; gynecological cancer; domestic violence; heart problems; osteoporosis; breast cancer and more.

Instead of discouraging these behaviors, however, the GLMA simply encourages health care providers to be aware of these diseases, addictions, and mental health problems.

If your school is pushing the homosexual agenda, school officials may wish to read about the dangerous health consequences of promoting sodomy among teenagers. GLMA has published reports on homosexual males and females, which is shown below:

TEN THINGS LESBIANS SHOULD DISCUSS WITH THEIR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS

SAN FRANCISCO — A survey of members of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) released today listed 10 health care concerns lesbians should include in discussions with their physicians or other health care providers.

"We did the survey," said GLMA Executive Director Maureen S. O’Leary, RN, "because many lesbians and far too many health professionals are not comfortable or do not know how to discuss health issues related to sexual orientation. Unfortunately, there are some health risks that are of greater concern to lesbians, and we need to make sure they are addressed."

Gynecologist and former GLMA President Kathleen O’Hanlan, MD, said that the medical community must look at all factors — gender, age, family history, and current health — but that there are cultural competence issues involved in treatment of lesbians that many do not understand.

"We in the medical community need to find remedies for all the factors that reduce utilization of medical services and screening compliance among lesbians," she said. "Short of changing the laws of the country to reduce the sting of ubiquitous disdain, clinicians need to provide a safe haven for medical care for all women.

"We know from research," said O’Hanlan, "that lesbians are less likely to seek medical care than other women because of the stigma they experience everywhere in society. They also experience it when they go for medical care. Health care providers may feel uncomfortable asking questions they feel to be personal. They then limit their visit and dash out without counseling the patient.

"Although more research is needed to understand the prevalence and causes," O’Hanlan continued, "there is evidence that lesbians smoke more and drink more. It is also more likely they are overweight, which adds significant health risks. Unfortunately, some health care providers make the presumption of heterosexuality or they may offend the lesbian patient in their conversations since they lack understanding of the salient cultural issues. Either way, it reduces the likelihood that the lesbian patient will return for care."

"We need to get the discussions going," O’Leary said. "Most health care professionals understand that there are certain risks that come with being a woman or with the aging process. However, need to make sure that lesbians get equal care and that means incorporating this kind of understanding into the regular approach to treatment."

Lesbian Health Concerns
1. Breast Cancer
2. Depression/Anxiety
3. Gynecological Cancer
4. Fitness (Diet and Exercise)
5. Substance Use
6. Tobacco
7. Alcohol
8. Domestic Violence
9. Osteoporosis
10. Heart Health

"Of course," O’Leary added, "— and it is important to repeat — many of the health concerns for lesbians are the same as they are for other women. But we must have a medical community that understands that there are cultural issues — orientation, gender identity, ethnicity, race, economic status — that must be understood as well. For lesbians, the "Ten Things" list is a place to start."

The largest organization of its kind and the recognized authority and leader in LGBT health, GLMA exists to make the health care environment a place of empathy, justice, and equity. The organization, founded in 1981, represents the concerns of thousands of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender health professionals as well as millions of LGBT patients throughout North America.

TEN THINGS LESBIANS SHOULD DISCUSS WITH THEIR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS

COMMENTARY

1. Breast Cancer
Lesbians have the richest concentration of risk factors for this cancer than any subset of women in the world. Combine this with the fact that many lesbians over 40 do not get routine mammograms, do breast self-exams, or have a clinical breast exam, and the cancer may not be diagnosed early when it is most curable.

2. Depression/Anxiety
Lesbians have been shown to experience chronic stress from homophobic discrimination. This stress is compounded by the need that some still have to hide their orientation from work colleagues, and by the fact that many lesbians have lost the important emotional support others get from their families due to alienation stemming from their sexual orientation.

3. Gynecological Cancer
Lesbians have higher risks for some of the gynecologic cancers. What they may not know is that having a yearly exam by a gynecologist can significantly facilitate early diagnosis associated with higher rates of curability if they ever develop.

4. Fitness
Research confirms that lesbians have higher body mass than heterosexual women. Obesity is associated with higher rates of heart disease, cancers, and premature death. What lesbians need is competent advice about healthy living and healthy eating, as well as healthy exercise.

5. Substance Use
Research indicates that illicit drugs may be used more often among lesbians than heterosexual women. There may be added stressors in lesbian lives from homophobic discrimination, and lesbians need support from each other and from health care providers to find healthy releases, quality recreation, stress reduction, and coping techniques.

6. Tobacco
Research also indicates that tobacco and smoking products may be used more often by lesbians than by heterosexual women. Whether smoking is used as a tension reducer or for social interactions, addiction often follows and is associated with higher rates of cancers, heart disease, and emphysema — the three major causes of death among all women.

7. Alcohol
Alcohol use and abuse may be higher among lesbians. While one drink daily may be good for the heart and not increase cancer or osteoporosis risks, more than that can be a risk factor for disease.

8. Domestic Violence
Domestic violence is reported to occur in about 11 percent of lesbian homes, about half the rate of 20 percent reported by heterosexual women. But the question is where do lesbians go when they are battered? Shelters need to welcome and include battered lesbians, and offer counseling to the offending partners.

9. Osteoporosis
The rates and risks of osteoporosis among lesbians have not been well characterized yet. Calcium and weight-bearing exercise as well as the avoidance of tobacco and alcohol are the mainstays of prevention. Getting bone density tests every few years to see if medication is needed to prevent fracture is also important.

10. Heart Health
Smoking and obesity are the most prevalent risk factors for heart disease among lesbians; but all lesbians need to also get an annual clinical exam because this is when blood pressure is checked, cholesterol is measured, diabetes is diagnosed, and exercise is discussed. Preventing heart disease, which kills 45 percent of women, should be paramount to every clinical visit.

TEN THINGS GAY MEN SHOULD DISCUSS WITH THEIR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS

SAN FRANCISCO -- A survey of members of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) released today listed 10 health care concerns men who have sex with men (MSM) should include in discussions with their physicians or other health care providers.

"Clinicians providing health care to gay and bisexual men may not be aware of all of the things that should be discussed during the visit," said GLMA President Christopher E. Harris, MD. "We are concerned that physicians and other health care providers who do not understand the health risks in the gay community cannot provide competent care. This is why we asked our members to help us define the health care concerns most relevant to MSM. Our purpose is to inform health providers and allow patients to be proactive in their relationship by knowing what questions to ask."

"Naturally, not everyone has the same set of risks," said educator and medical journal editor Vincent M. B. Silenzio, MD, MPH. "But after we look at gender (men in general are increased risk of heart disease, for example) age, family history, and other basic factors, we need to consider issues that relate to the culture or subculture. We know that gay men face greater discrimination than their heterosexual counterparts, for example. Family pressures, combined with social pressure, cause significant stress. It might be important to discuss depression or anxiety, and possibly substance use. If you know that someone is sexually active, it is important to talk about safe sex, the need for hepatitis immunization, or periodic tests for anal papiloma."

Both Harris and Silenzio stress that this list broadens previously held views about appropriate treatment for gay men. They indicated this doesn’t represent special treatment for gay or bisexual men, but appropriate treatment. Patients often don’t know what they should ask their health care provider. And worse, many providers don’t know what to look for. To effectively provide the best in health care, knowledge and honesty are essential.

"Both the provider and the patient should be aware of these concerns and they should be addressed non-judgmentally as part of a patient’s regular health care program," Harris said.

Gay Men and MSM Health Concerns
1. HIV/AIDS, Safe Sex
2. Substance Use
3. Depression/Anxiety
4. Hepatitis Immunization
5. STDs
6. Prostate/Testicular/Colon Cancer
7. Alcohol
8. Tobacco
9. Fitness (Diet & Exercise)
10. Anal Papiloma

"Certainly, there are other health concerns that gay men and MSM face," Harris added. "And there are other cultural competence issues — gender identity, race, ethnicity, economic status, for example. But the "Ten Things" list is a way to get the discussions started. Every physician and every health care professional — gay or straight — should know these things. And they should provide an open, comfortable environment in which these issues can be discussed.

The largest organization of its kind and the recognized authority and leader in LGBT health, GLMA exists to make the health care environment a place of empathy, justice, and equity. The organization, founded in 1981, represents the concerns of thousands of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender health professionals as well as millions of LGBT patients throughout North America.

Gay and Lesbian Medical Association News Release:
TEN THINGS GAY MEN SHOULD DISCUSS WITH THEIR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS

COMMENTARY

1. HIV/AIDS, Safe Sex
That men who have sex with men are at an increased risk of HIV infection is well known, but the effectiveness of safe sex in reducing the rate of HIV infection is one of the gay community’s great success stories. However, the last few years have seen the return of many unsafe sex practices. While effective HIV treatments may be on the horizon, there is no substitute for preventing infection. Safe sex is proven to reduce the risk of receiving or transmitting HIV. All health care professionals should be aware of how to counsel and support maintenance of safe sex practices.

2. Substance Use
Gay men use substances at a higher rate than the general population, and not just in larger communities such as New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. These include a number of substances ranging from amyl nitrate ("poppers"), to marijuana, Ecstasy, and amphetamines. The long-term effects of many of these substances are unknown; however current wisdom suggests potentially serious consequences as we age.

3. Depression/Anxiety
Depression and anxiety appear to affect gay men at a higher rate than in the general population. The likelihood of depression or anxiety may be greater, and the problem may be more severe for those men who remain in the closet or who do not have adequate social supports. Adolescents and young adults may be at particularly high risk of suicide because of these concerns. Culturally sensitive mental health services targeted specifically at gay men may be more effective in the prevention, early detection, and treatment of these conditions.

4. Hepatitis Immunization
Men who have sex with men are at an increased risk of sexually transmitted infection with the viruses that cause the serious condition of the liver known as hepatitis. These infections can be potentially fatal, and can lead to very serious long-term issues such as cirrhosis and liver cancer. Fortunately, immunizations are available to prevent two of the three most serious viruses. Universal immunization for Hepatitis A Virus and Hepatitis B Virus is recommended for all men who have sex with men. Safe sex is effective at reducing the risk of viral hepatitis, and is currently the only means of prevention for the very serious Hepatitis C Virus.

5. STDs
Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) occur in sexually active gay men at a high rate. This includes STD infections for which effective treatment is available (syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, pubic lice, and others), and for which no cure is available (HIV, Hepatitis A, B, or C virus, Human Papilloma Virus, etc.). There is absolutely no doubt that safe sex reduces the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, and prevention of these infections through safe sex is key.

6. Prostate, Testicular, and Colon Cancer
Gay men may be at risk for death by prostate, testicular, or colon cancer. Screening for these cancers occurs at different times across the life cycle, and access to screening services may be negatively impacted because of issues and challenges in receiving culturally sensitive care for gay men. All gay men should undergo these screenings routinely as recommended for the general population.

7. Alcohol
Although more recent studies have improved our understanding of alcohol use in the gay community, it is still thought that gay men have higher rates of alcohol dependence and abuse than straight men. One drink daily may not adversely affect health, however alcohol-related illnesses can occur with low levels of consumption. Culturally sensitive services targeted to gay men are important in successful prevention and treatment programs.

8. Tobacco
Recent studies seem to support the notion that gay men use tobacco at much higher rates than straight men, reaching nearly 50 percent in several studies. Tobacco-related health problems include lung disease and lung cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure, and a whole host of other serious problems. All gay men should be screened for and offered culturally sensitive prevention and cessation programs for tobacco use.

9. Fitness (Diet and Exercise)
Problems with body image are more common among gay men than their straight counterparts, and gay men are much more likely to experience an eating disorder such as bulimia or anorexia nervosa. While regular exercise is very good for cardiovascular health and in other areas, too much of a good thing can be harmful. The use of substances such as anabolic steroids and certain supplements can adversely affect health. At the opposite end of the spectrum, overweight and obesity are problems that also affect a large subset of the gay community. This can cause a number of health problems, including diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease.

10. Anal Papilloma
Of all the sexually transmitted infections gay men are at risk for, human papilloma virus —which cause anal and genital warts — is often thought to be little more than an unsightly inconvenience. However, these infections may play a role in the increased rates of anal cancers in gay men. Some health professionals now recommend routine screening with anal Pap Smears, similar to the test done for women to detect early cancers. Safe sex should be emphasized. Treatments for HPV do exist, but recurrences of the warts are very common, and the rate at which the infection can be spread between partners is very high.

(Editor's Note: See also related material on this site's webpage "Psychology/Medicine".)

By Bill Fancher and Jody Brown

(AgapePress) - The homosexual movement has begun a new strategy in promoting its agenda: the testimonies of "ex-ex-gays" to prove same-sex tendencies are not a "choice."

"Ex-gay" ministries are under assault by homosexuals who left the lifestyle, joined an ex-homosexual ministry, and then returned to the lifestyle. Pete LaBarbera of the Americans for Truth Project of Kerusso Ministries is not surprised by the strategy.

"This is nothing new. They are constantly trying to discredit the ex-homosexual movement," LaBarbera says. "The fact is, people can go into homosexual behavior or they can go out of it. It's like any other any other sexual sin."

LaBarbera, who was recently named senior policy analyst for the Culture and Family Institute at Concerned Women for America, is a well-known expert critic on cultural topics, especially the homosexual issue. He maintains the contention that homosexuality is a permanent, uncontrollable condition is ridiculous and not substantiated by any scientific research or studies.

"There are permanent, rigid homosexuals for life [who claim that 'ex-gays' are] just trying to fool themselves by living a normal lifestyle," he says. "That is ridiculous. We know, as Christians, that people can go into sin and they can leave it."

LaBarbera says such attacks are to be expected in this moral battle with homosexuality.