Hazardous to Your Health: The Risks of Homosexuality

BreakPoint ^ | 21 Oct 03 | Chuck Colson

[Mr. Silverback]

Smoking is hazardous to your health. Who doesn't know that by now? Thanks to a massive anti-smoking campaign by dedicated activists, you'd have to live on another planet not to realize that smoking can shorten your life expectancy by years. The media, the government, the schools, and many other institutions in our society are stigmatizing smoking as the dangerous practice that it is.

But homosexual behavior is also hazardous to your health. More dangerous than smoking, it lowers the life expectancy dramatically. And yet we celebrate it -- all part of so-called diversity. And now activists want to legalize same-sex "marriage," which is sanctioning behavior known to be dangerous. Many of the same people who are the most vigorous in the campaign against smoking are celebrating homosexual practices.

During our series on Marriage Protection Week, I've talked about the health benefits provided by marriage. The truth is that same-sex relationships have just the opposite effect. We know that AIDS is one of the worst threats to homosexuals, but it's far from the only one. Sexually transmitted diseases are running rampant in the homosexual community. According to the INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, the life expectancy of a homosexual male is twenty years less than that of a heterosexual male. Homosexual acts are inherently unhealthy, and when you add the fact that promiscuity is widespread among homosexuals, you have a recipe for disaster.

Some commentators have claimed that same-sex "marriage" will lower the disease rate by leading to higher levels of commitment. But studies show that most homosexual couples, even supposedly "committed" ones, are unfaithful to each other. In a well-known study of homosexual couples, only seven out of 156 couples surveyed -- 4.5 percent -- had been faithful to one another. And a recent study done in The Netherlands, which already has same-sex "marriage," showed that the average homosexual relationship lasts about a year and a half. So same-sex "marriage" so-called offers little hope for improving the health of homosexuals.

In addition, homosexuals have higher rates of drug abuse, alcoholism, and domestic violence than heterosexuals. Homosexual activists David Island and Patrick Letellier have written, "The probability of violence occurring in a gay couple is mathematically double the probability of that in a heterosexual couple."

Nevertheless, homosexual activists continue to call for the United States government to sanction unhealthy behavior by legalizing same-sex "marriage." The fact is that when we label such a relationship a "marriage," we're giving state sanction to something that is devastating to health. To ask the government to crack down on smoking and at the same time promote homosexual behavior is lunacy. Both practices damage people's health, although there is an important difference: Homosexual practices shorten a person's life expectancy far more than smoking.

Of course, the hazard is also to the nation's health. Every society has given preferred status to marriage because it propagates the human race. Calling gay relations "marriage" and giving it the same benefits undermines traditional marriage. It defies good sense.

[Mr. Silverback]

Gay male life expectancy is still low even when you take out AIDS deaths. I remember seeing an item awhile back that said homosexual men are six times more likely to commit suicide than heterosexuals of the same age group.

[Mr. Silverback]

BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[crazycat]

According to the INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, the life expectancy of a homosexual male is twenty years less than that of a heterosexual male.

I'm gutted. :0)

[Fudd]

I had a gay roommate in college one year. One time I looked through a gay newspaper he subscribed to. My impression from looking at the obit pages was (a) that the cause of death, when listed, was either suicide or illness, and (b) they were typically young (<40).

[cwb]

There is an interesting dicotomy here when we speak about healthcare. Many employers (especially goernment) have taken it upon themselves to order their employees to stop smoking. We have no-smoking bans and instances were local governments have even threatened to fire smokers...even when they do it in the privacy of their own home. Their reasoning behind this is healthcare and the rising costs of premiums. In other words, we have people who are discriminated against, under the guise of healthcare, for a lifetyle choice. If we were to take this to the next logical step, wouldn't it be just as valid for employees to discriminate against homosexuals based on this same concern? Doesn't this lifestyle cost healthcare providers and insurers just as much money in premiums and care? How about obesity and overweight employees? Isn't this, many times, a lifstyle choice that costs as much in medical care as smokers? If we can discriminate against smokers based on heathcare, why not other lifestyle choices that cost as much in medical care as they do?

[goodnesswins]

"If we can discriminate against smokers based on heathcare, why not other lifestyle choices that cost as much in medical care as they do?

You are TOO logical for life in the USA....you missed the SOCIALIST Indoctrination class? Welcome to the REAL world.

[Mr. Silverback]

I'm gutted. :0)

Clarify?

[expatpat]

Someone should suggest homosexuals should be taxed, to pay for the increased cost of health-care due to dangerous life-style choices. (The guy who went over Niagara Falls the other day is being clobbered for this, isn't he?)

[Steve_Seattle]

We need to realize that there are those who would like to make articles like this a crime (it's already happening in several countries). And when telling the truth is a crime, does the word "totalitarian" come to mind?

[Steve_Seattle]

In Seattle we recently defeated a 10-cent latte tax to fund child care, but maybe we could pass a 10-cent tax on drinks sold in gay bars to help fund AIDS research. There's a much more logical connection between the two.

[JoeFromSidney]

If we were to take this to the next logical step, wouldn't it be just as valid for employees to discriminate against homosexuals based on this same concern? Doesn't this lifestyle cost healthcare providers and insurers just as much money in premiums and care? How about obesity and overweight employees? Isn't this, many times, a lifstyle choice that costs as much in medical care as smokers? If we can discriminate against smokers based on heathcare, why not other lifestyle choices that cost as much in medical care as they do?

The assumption here is that the only way to get health insurance is through your employer. I don't get my fire insurance, my life insurance, or my car insurance through my employer. The only reason I have to get health insurance through my employer is our crazy tax laws. Let us buy our own health insurance, with the cost tax deductible as it is for employers (fully deductible, no 7 1/2% of AGI threshold), and the insurance companies can charge according to risk factors of the insured, just as companies selling other kinds of insurance do.

[biblewonk]

Good point!

[randog]

Good point. Drug and alcohol testing is standard in the workplace now. Companies also look into prospective employee's financial records to see if they've got problems there, too.

[Gritty]

This just makes too much sense.

Like General Boykin, somebody needs to "investigate" Colson for telling the truth.

[cwb]

I agree...unfortunately, in government employment, that is not what is being done. There was a small town down here in FLorida, where the local government banned smokers from employment because of healthcare costs. This included those who smoked in the privacy of their own homes. Unless they were screening their blood or urine, I don't know how they could be sure they were smoking, BUT if this is their reasoning, it should apply to all high-risk lifestyle choices. I believe the ADA lists obesity as a more hazardous lifestyle than smoking...and the cost for treating AIDS patients is astronomical. There's just a lot of hypocrisy, here.

[r9etb]

My impression from looking at the obit pages was (a) that the cause of death, when listed, was either suicide or illness, and (b) they were typically young (<40).

You've got to be careful about reading too much into that, though: the obits would have been meaningful only to the subscription base, which may have been biased to younger, and perhaps more active (i.e., promiscuous), individuals.

[Mr. Silverback]

In Seattle we recently defeated a 10-cent latte tax to fund child care, but maybe we could pass a 10-cent tax on drinks sold in gay bars to help fund AIDS research. There's a much more logical connection between the two.

AHA! Yes, and what was one of the main arguments in favor of the espresso tax? We'll be taxing people who can afford to pay the tax, because they're buying a coffee that costs at least $2, so what's an extra 10 cents? Well, back in the mid-90s I saw these stats:

Household income, National average: $36,000
Household income, gay Nat'l average: $55,000

Household education level, national average: One member of family has a Bachelor's degree.
Household education level, gay national average: Both adults are university educated, with one of them at the Master's level.

Hmmmm....sounds to me like they can afford it!

[cwb]

Exactly...but do you think the government would touch that with a ten-foot pole? If we were honest about homosexuality, our schools wouldn't be teaching what a wonderful lifestyle it is. They would at least be teaching that homosexual males die significantly younger than heterosexual males. This is a healthcare issue and this entire aspect of homosexuality is missing from the debate...where you can't even have a debate without being labeled a homophobe.

[r9etb]

I think the article in question is this one. Rather than buy it, you can see the authors' explanation of the study here.

[r9etb]

Or maybe it's this one.