Replies

The homosexual rights movement is built on a foundation of lies, language manipulation, and factual disinformation.

Seeking to gain total acceptance of their destructive behaviors, their propaganda machines work ceaselessly, pumping their poisonous lies and deceptions into the cultural bloodstream of America.

But one cold hard fact that is always airbrushed out of the public image of the gay lifestyle is the number of young men and women who are dying of AIDS, hepatitis, and new strains of TB, all diseases whose ascendance is largely a result of homosexual activity.

For example, researchers at St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver, British Columbia published a report in 1997 in the International Journal of Epidemiology that concluded: "In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently 20 years of age will not reach their 65th birthday."

Gay authors Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen write, "Alas, it turns out that, on this point, public myth is supported by fact. There is more promiscuity among gays . . . than among straights. They cite the pattern among gay males of the "non-stick, one-swipe, disposable lover." Even among "married" gay males, they observe, "the cheating ratio, given enough time, approaches 100%."

Do statistics back up Kirk and Madsen’s contention that "there is more promiscuity among gays?" Let’s look at the facts! To start with, one widely regarded study, published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, had a representative sample of non-infected male homosexuals keep sexual diaries. On the average, these gay men had 106 partners per year."

That was just the tip of the iceberg.

A survey of gay men by researchers Bell and Weinberg in the mid-1970s found that only 14 percent of gay males, and only 40 percent of lesbians, were living in "monogamous" relationships.

And as we have seen, monogamy in the homosexual definition of the word entails a much shorter duration than the standard meaning of the term. In fact, many studies indicated that the range for a so-called monogamous relationship for a homosexual often lasts no more than nine months, almost never more than five years (and even this is extremely rare)."
The Bell and Weinberg study found that:

43 percent of the gay men estimated having sex with 500 or more different partners. 75 percent estimated 100 or more partners. 28 percent estimated more than 1,000 partners.
79 percent said that more than half of their partners were anonymous.
70 percent said that more than half of their partners were men with whom they had sex only once.

A later study by these two researchers estimated that only 2 percent of homosexuals could be considered monogamous or even semi-monogamous (having ten or less lifetime partners). Lesbians are often credited with more fidelity than gay men, and this is true to a point. Yet even here, the rate of instability seems to exceed any definition of a monogamous, normal community.

One study found that 38 percent of lesbians surveyed had between 11 and 300 sexual partners. Another revealed that 41 percent of lesbians admitted to having between 10 and 500 lifetime partners.

Yet even snapshots of typical homosexual behavior fail to give the total picture. A sizeable percentage of the gay community is not merely promiscuous, but wildly so, and therefore at risk for AIDS.

Research into at-risk or HIV-positive homosexuals reveal astonishing figures. In one study, "homosexual men . . . reported a median of 1,160 lifetime sexual partners." In another, "the median number of lifetime sexual partners of over 4,000 homosexual respondents was 49.5. Many individuals reported ranges of 300-400, and 272 of them reported over 1,000 different lifetime partners."

Another article in the Annals of Internal Medicine listed over fifteen severe injuries, diseases, or syndromes, including rectal tearing and hepatitis A and B, that commonly occur in gay males as a direct result of oral and anal sex.

The article also said that the Centers for Disease Control reported that almost half of male patients with syphilis claimed homosexual or bisexual contacts, despite the fact that gays are only a small percentage of the population. Compiled studies by leading medical researchers show that:

Homosexuals account for 80 percent of America’s most serious sexually transmitted diseases.
Youths engaging in homosexual behavior are 23 times more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease than strictly heterosexual youths.
Lesbians are 19 times more likely than heterosexual women to have had syphilis, twice as likely to suffer from genital warts, four times as likely to have scabies.
Male homosexuals are 14 times more likely to have syphilis than male heterosexuals. They are also thousands of time more likely to have AIDS.

It is also now known that hepatitis A, and a virulent, antibiotic-resistant strain of tuberculosis are rampant in the gay community. Other self-destructive patterns have been observed. Researchers have noted a disproportionate abuse of drugs and alcohol by homosexuals, as well as higher levels of emotional mental problems, social instability and disruptive behavior.

The final indictment by nature of the gay "lifestyle" is that is in reality a deathstyle. The effect of AIDS on the gay community is well known. Not so well known, however, is the short lifespan for those not suffering from AIDS. In 1991 and 1992 the Family Research Institute surveyed 5,371 obituaries from sixteen American homosexual newspapers. It was found that across the United States, the median age of death for a homosexual male not having AIDS was only 42 years, with a mere 9 percent living to old age. Of 106 lesbians survey, the median lifespan was only 45 years, with 26 percent living to old age. When compared to a large sample of obituaries from regular newspapers, these life spans were extremely brief.

The New York Times reported in a July 7, 2002 article that the vast majority of young gay and bisexual men in the U. S. who were found to have the AIDS virus in a new study were unaware of their infection. "Most of these infected men perceived themselves to be at low risk of being infected, despite having engaged in frequent high-risk sex like unprotected anal intercourse," said Duncan MacKellar with the federal Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention in Atlanta, which conducted the study.

The study involved 5,719 men who were interviewed at dance clubs, bars and other places frequented by gays in Baltimore, Dallas, Los Angeles, Miami, New York City and Seattle. They found that 573 had HIV. The study shows that the very men who are at greatest risk of HIV infection are those who are least likely to think they are at risk. Federal officials estimate that 40,000 Americans become infected each year with gay men accounting for the largest proportion of new HIV infections.

Now you can see why gay strategists Kirk and Madsen insisted that "the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent – only later his unsightly derriere."

But in spite of caustic denial, the impression of gay culture as promiscuous, unhealthy, and bizarre is supported by a huge body of well-researched medical and sociological data. It is not prejudice that condemns them; it is hard data which exposes them. The Gay Deathstyle

Is Same-Sex Marriage Good for the Nation?

Whereas:

All persons hold the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, and therefore they hold equal dignity and protection under due process of law; [all people]

And whereas:

The historic family unit, rooted in heterosexual faithful monogamous marriage and the raising of children is the basic institution in society;

And whereas:

There are those who by choice, circumstance, or the brokenness of adversity who are unable to participate fully or partly as members of the historic family unit;

We affirm: [and there are three points of affirmation]

1. Marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman in mutual
fidelity;

2. No punitive laws shall exist to restrict private association, whether heterosexual or homosexual; [And there are people on the conservative Christian right that Norm's been talking about tonight who disagree with me on that. You'll find a very strong libertarian ethic, but it's based on a prior definition of equal life for all.] and;

3. All persons shall accept accountability for the public consequences of their private associations and actions, and they shall in no way deprive others of life, liberty, or property.

What I'm saying here is that I disagree with same-sex marriage. I disagree with homosexual relationships. Nonetheless, all people are free to disagree with me as I am with them, so long as we have an understanding of unalienable rights, that everyone has life, liberty and property, free not to be violated by other people. So the real debate comes down to those boundaries. And many acts of a homosexual or heterosexual nature, or other forms of sexuality, do violate life, liberty and property. And I'm equally opposed to all of those because I'm in favor of life, liberty and property. But for those acts of any nature that do not violate them, then people have that freedom in a civil society. And you will not see me pursuing those matters.

The second thing that I want to share with you is a petition that I've circulated around the state. I led off the testimony this year in the statehouse February 11th saying "no" to same-sex marriage. I was part of the same panel last year. And this is actually the summation of my testimony one year ago. And I'll walk through the definition of terms as I go. It's entitled, "Petition to Members of the Connecticut General Assembly."

Yes to man and woman in marriage.

No to same-sex marriage.

[Now an important predicate is, I don't say "no" to anything unless I first say "yes" to something. I think you will find that my agenda is a positive one, and my only concern is to protect life, liberty and property, or should I say, to affirm a government that protects life, liberty and property. I seek to do that myself to begin with. And so the real question is, can we honor these unalienable rights while also coming to a place of difference of interpretation. So my "no" is predicated on a prior "yes."]

As a resident of Connecticut I affirm the following: [and there are four affirmations]

1. In the United States, the civil rights which we all enjoy are rooted in the laws of nature and of nature's God, in the unalienable rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. [I have been in contact with all 187 legislators on this matter, at least five to eight times. I've heard back from 48 of them, and none of them will dispute the statement I just gave to you.]

2. The only source for unalienable rights in all human history is the Creator, the God of the Bible. [I've had a couple of people try to dispute me on this. And some years ago one was Nadine Strossen, who is president of the ACLU. And I said that the only source is the God of the Bible, and she started off that evening, and the topic was homosexuality and civil rights that evening. And she quoted the language from Jefferson, that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And as she quoted that, I said you started at the same source that I started: unalienable rights. And so I just have one simple question. Who is the Creator that Thomas Jefferson was referring to? And Jefferson was a rationalist. He was not by any stretch an evangelical Christian as myself, and yet he and those with him who were from an orthodox Christian background in a Protestant context, appealed to a source higher than King George III. They appealed to the Creator. So I asked Nadine Strossen, who is the Creator? She looked at me and said well, you have your Creator and other people have their Creators. I said no, you've just described polytheism. In other words, that's not the context to which Jefferson was referring to. And if you look at every polytheistic culture in all of human history, they have no concept of unalienable rights. Rights go to those who are in power, whereas the concept of unalienable rights upon which this nation is founded, are rooted in the biblical understanding of the Creator, that says that all people deserve the same rights because they are people, and not because of any other secondary reason.]

3. The God of the Bible defines true marriage as one man, one woman, one lifetime. [This is the order of creation, the image of God.] The health of society is rooted in this foundation.

4. In human history, no society has ever affirmed both homosexuality and unalienable rights. [So here is an intellectual challenge, to track out history, to find out where unalienable rights are affirmed. And if you can find any society that ever has affirmed homosexuality and unalienable rights together, you won't find it.]

Therefore, in order for any member of the Connecticut General Assembly to support legislation that even incrementally moves in the direction of same-sex marriage, he or she must answer these questions.

1. Are civil rights being redefined?
2. If so, why?
3. If so, what is the new basis for these rights?
4. What are the consequences?