A Study of Homosexuality, all its Repercussions, and Marriage
...by Matt1618

A Christian Response to the Clamor for Homosexual Rights ...by Matt1618

The Purpose of Marriage
Are Homosexuals Born Homosexuals? A Look
----------APA and AMA Recognition
----------Victims of Molestation
----------Poor Relationship with Same Sex Parent, Close, Dependent Relationship with Opposite Sex Parent
----------Gender Identity Issues
Homosexual Psychological and Physical Health Issues
----------Eating Disorders
----------Homosexual Partner Abuse
----------Lesbian Partner Abuse
----------Alcohol, Substance Abuse
Sexual Fidelity
----------Male Homosexuality: Promiscuous or Faithful?
---------- Lesbian Sexuality
The Medical Consequences of Homosexual Sex
----------Anal Sex
----------Oral Sex
----------Lesbian Sexually Transmitted Diseases
----------AIDS, the Disease of Homosexuals
Can Homosexuals Change?
----------What is Reparative Therapy?
----------Anthony Falzarano
----------Joseph Sciambra
----------David Morrison
----------Janet Boynes
---------- But I Could See that He/She was Going to be Gay since He/She was a Kid!
The Comparison to Religion, Blacks, and Civil Rights
Resources for Those Struggling with Same-Sex Attractions


Now, this is a big study, and I read new books to prepare for this study, as well as a lot of new web site documentation. This has not been an area I have specialized on. Since this is a very long study, I have this format set up so that you can click to any section that interests you, if you don’t want to read through it all. Also, I have footnotes on all the quotes. I quote either from books that I have, and a lot of documentation I have found are from government sources, and I have links to those studies. I did not rely on third hand citations in my documentation. The book citations are books I possess, (a couple of places where I quote from books referring to another book, I will also cite). A book Mass Resistance, which documents many of the physical health issues, on many occasions, in most cases I will only refer to that book, when I can verify the citation online. I have it set up so if you are interested in the source of the citation, you can touch the footnote, look at the citation, and quickly click back to the place where you are reading. I will take a look at arguments advanced by homosexual activists, and respond to them, though it must be granted, in my responses, I borrow a lot of ideas from people who have done a lot of work in this area.

Recently, there has been a push for homosexual rights across the country, with many pushing for civil right of homosexuals. The rights of homosexuals have been portrayed as similar to the rights of blacks in the civil rights era with Martin Luther King. They were/are an oppressed people, denied rights based on their skin color. Black Americans, now the latest term is African Americans, were enslaved. After a civil war won them freedom, there was still widespread segregation and a denial of equality. People, mostly Christians, rightly pushed for rights for them so that they could have equal opportunity for employment, housing, etc. In some locations, especially in the South, laws banned interracial marriage. Homosexual activists will argue that to oppose same-sex marriage rights, is denying the same type of rights that blacks were denied through much of US history. Laws against interracial marriage were upheld by the Supreme Court until the 1960s. Now, Christians are called homophobes if we are against same-sex marriage, and are compared to the racists who were for slavery before the civil war, and for segregation and discrimination against blacks after the civil war. Homosexual rights activists believe that homosexuals are born homosexuals, and just like black Americans, have no control over how they were made. Christians who deny them rights are seen the same as those who denied civil rights to black Americans. In this paper I will look extensively at this issue. I will argue that the society is better if we do not accept homosexual marriage as the equivalent to heterosexual marriage. I will argue that it is not for the betterment of society, or for the betterment of homosexuals themselves, if we accept homosexual activity as normal. I will also argue that homosexuals are not born homosexual and it is a false equivalence to compare the rights of homosexuals to the right of Blacks or Hispanics.

In the past, on message boards and in conversation, I’ve been told because I am against homosexual activity, and against what is called ‘gay marriage’, that means that I am a hater, and I’m homophobic. The first thing when I go over this, is to say why my position against homosexual activity, does not mean that I hate homosexuals. Through the bulk of this paper, Scripture will not be the basis for this examination of homosexuality. I will use Scripture at times, but for most of the paper, it will be an examination of non-Scriptural stuff. Usually, I use Scripture quite extensively in my examination of issues, but not as much here. I do want to bring up a Scripture which will show why I have a concern for those who are practicing homosexuality. It is one of the reasons why I do not believe that the practice of homosexuality should be promoted, and it should be discouraged. I understand that there are plenty of homosexuals who do not believe in God, or religion, though there are some people called ‘Gay Christians’ who will attempt to say that the Bible, when looked at in context, does not condemn homosexual activity, per se. Supposedly the biblical condemnations only apply to those who are heterosexual and experiment in homosexuality, or if there is an abusive relationship where their practice is not as equal partners. There are groups such as ‘Dignity’, which is a ‘Catholic’ organization that says same sex activity is ok. This paper I will not deal with the way that they interpret Scripture to justify same-sex activity. (I do have a debate with someone who thinks that Scripture does not condemn homosexual activity, That is available here .) Nonetheless, the reason why I and many others preach against homosexuality is summarized in one Scripture: 1 Cor. 6:9-11, Paul relates:

9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
Paul says that those who practice homosexual sex, will not enter the kingdom of heaven. In the same sense that adulterers, or thieves, or drunkards, immoral will not enter heaven, if those sins are on their soul. I believe that those people who practice these sins, not just homosexuality, but many other things, and they do not get those sins wiped clean and forgiven by God, will not enter the kingdom of heaven. If we just zip our lip, say nothing about the activity, we are complicit in approving of this activity, and we are not being a beacon that God calls us to be, that we are to witness to the world, the gospel of Jesus Christ. Also, as noted, Paul himself writes, he was writing to a Corinthian community, which is in Greece, at that time was practiced in the society that these Christians had come to. The Society gave some tacit approval to that activity. Paul wrote here that not only can you not practice homosexuality, but he is proclaiming here, that some of these Christian readers, were homosexuals, but they were washed, in Christian terms, they were baptized, and their sins wiped clean. When they were washed they were not only cleansed, they were sanctified, justified. In Christ, they were cleansed. He says do not be deceived, if you think you can practice homosexuality, or adultery, or fornication, and still get to heaven, Paul says you are deceived. So, this specifically warns the ‘Gay Christian’ people that you can not continue to practice that activity and still think you can go to heaven. Paul acknowledges this sin, but does not spell out this sin any more than the others (he does spell it out more in Romans 1:26-27), but that is not the issue present in this paper. So, he was giving support to people who had been steeped in such sins, he warned them to stay on the straight and narrow, do not go back to robbing people, committing sexual sins outside of marriage, be it heterosexual or homosexual.

Thus, souls are at stake. This is the view that I come from. However, I also speak against heterosexual fornication, adultery, drunkenness because that will lead, if those sins are not wiped clean, to their eternal damnation. Now, many homosexuals can care less what I say about it. By me just saying this I am homophobic. However, I say the same thing to other sinners, I am a sinner myself, if I fall into these sins that Paul warns about, I can cut myself off from God’s kingdom. So, I am not trying to be self-righteous because I must stay away from any sin that will lead to my damnation, including those on that list in 1 Cor. 6. However, when I speak against fornication as a wrong, I am not fornicator phobic. If I encourage an alcoholic to stay away from liquor, because of the abuse of alcohol, can separate you from God, I am not alcoholic phobic. If there are adulterers I tell them to stay faithful to their spouse. By straying from your spouse, you are committing a mortal sin. I am not adulterer phobic, when I say, please stay truthful to your spouse. When someone takes hard drugs, and gets addicted to that, I encourage people to get away from drugs, I am not drug addict phobic. Go try to get help, get counsel, go through drug rehabilitation, get off the drugs. If you get addicted to drugs or alcohol, that disrupts any relation to God, and your life can end early, both spiritually and physically. If I say that, I do not hate the alcoholics, fornicators, thieves, drug addicts etc. Generally, most people will understand that when I say don’t practice those things, they will most often understand the concept of love, when I tell them it would be best for their soul to not be drug addicted, be an adulterer, or fornicate, or be alcoholic. Unfortunately, in today’s society, fornicators don’t see their activity is wrong.

On the other hand, if you are a practicing homosexual, they say ‘that is who I am, that is the way God made me, and no matter what you say, it is not wrong.’ Or they can say the same without any reference to God. I say what Scripture speaks for the sake of their souls. If they keep on that path, their soul will not be able to inherit the kingdom of heaven, and I do not want them to lose their souls. However, besides that, as we will see later, there are a lot of problems that homosexuals will have, and it does not have to do with them being stigmatized. The homosexual will say, ‘this is the way I am, like it or not, I am not equivalent to a drug addict, even the American Psychological Association destigmatized homosexuality. It is normal, and that is a part of who I am.’ The American Medical Association is often referred to, as saying it is normal. The homosexual, or at least the homosexual activist leaders will decry any attempt to say that it is wrong, because if one says so, it is termed ‘hate’. In this study I will look at why the APA actually destigmatized it back in 1973. We will see that there was no scientific evidence for that change back in 1973. It was harassment of the APA that led to them changing the assessment of homosexuality. That change back in 1973 laid the groundwork, for ultimate acceptance of this activity in the United States. Nonetheless we will see that there is no actual scientific evidence that points to homosexuals being born homosexual. There are a ton of factors involved, which will explain why a homosexual, becomes homosexual. However, the idea that homosexuals are ‘born that way’ is not scientific. We will find that there a slew of reasons that lead to one becoming homosexual.

We will see that homosexuals have a higher rate of transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, higher suicide rate, higher rate of alcoholism, drug abuse, partner psychological and sexual abuse, predator sexual abuse of minors, etc. Even though the homosexual community has a slightly higher monetary standard of living than the non-homosexual people (this will be documented in this paper), those problems persist, and has a negative impact on society, and the lifestyle that leads to such negative repercussions, should not be promoted. I will go to government sources that deal with this issue.

The main point here is that if Christians are true to their faith, they hold no hatred towards homosexuals. I do not want to place homosexuals who practice homosexuality, in jail. The thing is that the promotion of homosexuality, the teaching to children that it is just another option, and equivalent to heterosexual marriage, is what I am against. The public-school teaching that people are just born this way, and they have no choice in the matter and that those who are ‘oriented’ in that fashion, is something that the homosexual advocacy groups promote, is what I am against. Sure, I believe in the Bible, and the Church, which teaches that homosexuality is wrong, and the practice of homosexuality will lead to the damnation of people. But for many nonreligious reasons, that we shall see, that homosexual activity should not be promoted. We will see that even atheistic countries such as Cuba do not recognize same sex marriage, and that is not for religious reasons. China does not recognize same sex marriage and it is an atheistic country. So, it is not just supposedly bigoted Christians, who do not want homosexuality to be promoted. I also believe that if someone does have homosexual tendencies, it is not that they are born that way. There are psychological reasons for it, as we will see.

One thing that must be admitted is that with the media advocacy, the tide has seemed to turn against the traditional teaching against homosexual activity. The constant barrage from the media, and public-school teaching that homosexuality is not much different from heterosexuality, and to think that people who commit homosexual sex, are now seen as normal. Just a few years ago, people saw homosexual marriage as wrong, now see it as normal. In state after state, people voted against homosexual marriage. There was a federal Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress, and states did not recognize homosexual marriage. However, with court decisions nullifying those laws, and homosexual advocacy propaganda winning over many, the popular tide at the moment seems to be accepting homosexual marriage. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of same sex marriage in 2015. With the media propaganda, anyone who speaks against the act of homosexuality is termed a ‘bigot.’ People who actually think that homosexuals can change are seen as bigots, and doctors who attempt to get at the root of why someone has homosexual tendencies and gives treatment that discourages such activities are either totally ignored or seen as quacks. Those who have turned away from homosexual activity, some term ex-Gays, are rarely given a platform to speak. So, homosexual activists seem to be winning the cultural war, unless something changes. So, just a few years ago, even non-religious people saw homosexual activity as sexual perversion, now the people who practice it, are seen as the same way that African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, or European Americans are seen. Any attempt to be against Homosexual marriage, is now seen as the same as denying service in the south to African-Americans in the 1950s and 1960s.

One question before we address this issue is what exactly has the homosexual activists won, when Society is being more accepting of that behavior, and those who teach against that behavior are seen as bigots? One person, who used to be a practicing homosexual, and as a homosexual activist, even debated Christians, his name is David Morrison. He is now celibate, turned to Christianity, and has turned away from the practice of homosexuality, states the following:

If the “religious right” has been steadily losing the societal debate over homosexual practice, who has been the winner—actively homosexual men and women, vast numbers of who still suffer and die from HIV and suffer alcoholism and other addictions? Has society that has turned a complicit eye on waves of sexual excess, both of the heterosexual and same-sex varieties really been better for people living with same-sex attraction? [1]

The Purpose of Marriage

Now, I am Catholic and I will put the reason a Catholic view the purpose of marriage, partly through the words of Jesus. I am putting this for the record, but in this paper, I am not limiting my discussion to just ‘Catholic’ even ‘Christian’ reasons for marriage. I will expand on the society’s purpose of marriage. However, since this is a Catholic web page, it would be remiss of me not to mention Jesus’ comment on marriage as well as briefly the Church teaching on the Sacrament of marriage, then I will look at the purpose of marriage within society as a whole, and how that impacts this issue.

Jesus here is not directly touching on the issue of homosexuality, or homosexual marriage, but is addressing what he sees as the purpose of marriage. The background is that Jesus is asked about marriage, and on what grounds could a man divorce his wife. Here he goes beyond the issue of divorce, but the purpose of marriage itself. We see him as going back to the time of creation of man and woman.

Mark 10:2-8

2 And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” 3 He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” 4 They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away.” 5 And Jesus answered and said to them, Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. 7 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh so then they are no longer two, but one flesh .
So besides pointing to the Old Testament, which elsewhere explicitly condemns homosexuality, he also says that the way people were to be mated was as male and female. Man shall be joined to his wife. Male and female. That by definition would exclude male-male couples.

Jesus will not take anything out of context to prove a teaching matter. He quotes from two locations in Genesis, Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24, and quotes them directly. He talks about God making human beings as male and female. Jesus directly deals with the issue under discussion. An important passage is related in his Genesis 1 quotation

Genesis 1:27-28:

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.
Jesus is specifically uniting God making people man and woman, to man leaving his parents to go to be with a woman, with procreation, to be fruitful and multiply. So thus, when Jesus is uniting Genesis 1:27 with 2:24, where God said man and woman will become one flesh, we know that part of marriage is this very important part of it, which is to be fruitful and multiply. So automatically procreation is a part of the marriage package. Only man and woman united can be procreative. Homosexual sexual activity can’t lead to being fruitful. Thus, Jesus’ definition of marriage, when taking from the context of the passages that it is drawn from, automatically excludes any homosexual union.

Paul also writes of the marriage between man and woman (Eph. 5:21-33). He speaks of a man loving his wife in the same way that Christ loves the Church (5:25). He of course sees the woman and man married, not any other combination. He like Jesus speaks of marriage being where a man leaves his parents as well as the woman leaves her parents and unite in love, and it is a mystery. They complement each other. They become joined which includes the sexual love, as they are complementary to one another. Paul’s teaching is consistent with Jesus’ teaching.

The Catechism teaches the following about the Sacrament of Marriage:

1659 St. Paul said: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church. . . This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church" (Eph 5:25, 32).

1660 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman form with each other an intimate communion of life and love, has been founded and endowed with its own special laws by the Creator. By its very nature it is ordered to the good of the couple, as well as to the generation and education of children. Christ the Lord raised marriage between the baptized to the dignity of a sacrament (cf. CIC, can. 1055 § 1; cf. GS 48 § 1).

1661 The sacrament of Matrimony signifies the union of Christ and the Church. It gives spouses the grace to love each other with the love with which Christ has loved his Church; the grace of the sacrament thus perfects the human love of the spouses, strengthens their indissoluble unity, and sanctifies them on the way to eternal life (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1799).

1664 Unity, indissolubility, and openness to fertility are essential to marriage. Polygamy is incompatible with the unity of marriage; divorce separates what God has joined together; the refusal of fertility turns married life away from its "supreme gift," the child (GS 50 § 1).

1665 The remarriage of persons divorced from a living, lawful spouse contravenes the plan and law of God as taught by Christ. They are not separated from the Church, but they cannot receive Eucharistic communion. They will lead Christian lives especially by educating their children in the faith.

1666 The Christian home is the place where children receive the first proclamation of the faith. For this reason the family home is rightly called "the domestic church," a community of grace and prayer, a school of human virtues and of Christian charity.

One other thing that the church emphasizes is fidelity to one another:

1646 By its very nature conjugal love requires the inviolable fidelity of the spouses. This is the consequence of the gift of themselves which they make to each other. Love seeks to be definitive; it cannot be an arrangement "until further notice." The "intimate union of marriage, as a mutual giving of two persons, and the good of the children, demand total fidelity from the spouses and require an unbreakable union between them."[2]

Reflecting Jesus’ account of the uniting man and woman, the ‘refusal of fertility’ turns married life away from the ‘supreme gift’, the child. Fidelity is absolutely essential. So, we see that the Church echoes Jesus and Paul’s statements on the union of man and woman in marriage reflects God’s creation. Men and women are complementary and signify the union of Christ and the Church. And it is ordered to procreation.

That is the Catholic view of marriage, but since most people in the United States are not Catholics, and non-Catholic Christians are not bound by Catholic teaching, why should people not of the Church say that this teaching should matter at all? I will say that there is good reason, for the tradition of the West, that homosexuality has never been accepted with the same status of heterosexual married partners.

The first idea is that the family is the foundation of all society. Children need to be brought up by parents who represents both the feminine and the masculine, to get the best of both worlds. It is essential.

In a book debate on marriage, and her opponent, who is a homosexual activist, John Corvino, Maggie Gallagher gives us reasons for marriage:

The first is that the overwhelming majority of us are powerfully attracted, and not by reason, to an act that makes new human life. Sex between men and women makes babies.

The second persistent truth: society needs babies. Reproduction is optional for the individual. But only those cultures that successfully manage the procreative implications of male-female sexual attraction survives to become of the human possibilities.

The third truth on which marriage is based is that children ought to have a father as well as a mother. [3]

So, we see by definition for society the only way that marriage for society to be promoted, if a man and a woman raise a child, that is best for the child. By definition male/male couples will not produce children, and if they adopt children, the children do not get the benefit of both a true mother and true father. By definition, a homosexual marriage, by nature does not produce children, and if they adopt children, those children will lack either a mother or father.

Gallagher notes the way that marriage protects children:

Whether or not his parents intended to create him (or her), almost every child born to a married couple at least begins life with is mother and father committed to caring for him in one family, together. Virtually no child from any other type of union receives this gift.[4]
Gallagher notes even more succinctly:
Marriage arises, like all social institutions to answer a set of social problems. In the case of marriage, the institution emerges in every human society because the problems it addresses are rooted in human nature. If this is the reason that marriage exists and in particular the reason that societies employ law as well as custom to support marriage, then same-sex unions do not fit. They are neither part of the problem marriage seeks to solve, nor part of the solution.

Gay sexual unions, either temporary or enduring may entail their own unique goods and difficulties, but they have nothing to do with babies. No same-sex union produces a child. And no same-sex union can give any child the gift of a father and mother in the same family. A gay man is not ‘banned’ from marriage. He quite reasonably does not want to become a husband, and do the full work of marriage. Marriage does not fit him or his needs.

To reorient marriage to the needs of same-sex couples is necessarily to orient it away from its core public and civic mission of channeling sexual passion so that children do not get hurt and so that society gets the next generation it needs.[5]

The children have absolutely nothing to do with homosexual marriage and they are placed at the bottom of the list in priorities. The sexual expression involved in a homosexual relationship by definition as we will see later on in this paper, leads to venereal disease, and by its nature cannot be procreative.

What is the purpose of marriage according to homosexual advocates? Children are not primary. Corvino in the book uses a quote from St. Pope John Paul II when talking of men and women, and transferred it to two men, showing the primary root of marriage:

”The inner and essential raison d’etre of marriage is not simply eventual transformation into a family but above all the creation of a lasting personal union between a man and a woman based on love”
Noting of course that the Saint is talking about a man and woman, Corvino interjects:
Or perhaps the pope realized what most people know: marriage is indeed a lasting personal union based on love—which is not to say that it is only that. [6]
Then discussing the role of marriage and children Corvino says it is a false idea that homosexuals will not take care of children just as well as heterosexuals and that to compare heterosexual marriage parenting to broken families is wrong to compare it to those children brought up by homosexuals and even points to studies that show that their parenting is just as good as heterosexuals:
But to lump such situations together with planned same-sex two-parent families-ones begun by adoption, insemination, or surrogacy—is to mix apples and oranges.

What happens when we control for these other variables and directly compare children raised by same-sex parents to children raised by different-sex parents? Although the research (like all research) has its limitations, its conclusions are consistent: children raised in same-sex households fare just as well as their peers on standard measurements of health and well-being. But don’t take my word for it. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the nation’s premier child-welfare organization:

The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectation for health adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual…
So, the claim that children do best on average with their own married biological mothers and fathers is at best misleading.
There are a couple of things missing in reference to Corvino’s argument, and that argument is indeed addressed by Gallagher. Natural sex between man and woman in the covenant of marriage is by definition open to children. Nothing extraordinary has to happen for a child to generate. However, if a married homosexual couple has a child, something out of the ordinary has to happen. A child can not generate from the anal sex that a male to male couple has, or a female to female sexual activity. At its basis, children are not involved. One of the ways is if homosexuals comes from a broken marriage that comes from a divorce, then the child of one of them is brought into that marriage. So, it is already in a bad situation. Or else they practice in-vitro fertilization, which involves the destruction of a baby. As reported here:

Official statistics show that almost half of embryos used to help a women conceive through in vitro fertilization were thrown away during or after the process.

The embryos are created from female eggs and male sperm during the IVF process, with some introduced into the womb, put into storage, discarded as unwanted or used in scientific experiments.

Campaigners last night described the figures, released in response to questions from peers about the level of waste generated in hospitals and fertility clinics, as disturbing.

They were gathered by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the fertility industry regulator, which has recorded IVF processes over the past 21 years, and made public by Lord Howe, the Health Minister. Since August 1991 more than 3.5 million human embryos have been created, producing only 235,480 “gestational sacs” or evidence of successful implantation.[8]

This is a study of England, but you can see a large amount of babies thrown away. Discarded and used as scientific experiments in the UK.

In the US, the Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tells us that 127,977 embryos are destroyed every year, in the attempt to get in-vitro fertilized babies. [9]

So, if Corvino was correct in what he says, the means to get those babies through the invitro process, is the destruction of other babies. That is a bad means to an end that he says is good. Bad means is not something that is acceptable.

Now, to the argument that homosexuals raise children just fine according to these organizations studies. The sample sizes that they have are on lesbians with little sample size with self-reporting and no studies of male homosexual couples. On the other hand, in a study done by Mark Regnerus, it is the largest sampling of any of the studies. The study was of 3000 families of married couples, including 175 who had Lesbian Parents and 73 Male Gay parents, enough to give a statistically significant conclusion, New Family Structures Study. The APA had put out a report in 2005 of multiple studies but none of them had any representative sampling with no direct comparison to children of heterosexual married couples. The samples were self-reporting. The APA has adopted the ‘homosexuality is ok theory’ and used unscientific sampling to put out a report that confirms what it is promoting. As noted by Loren Marks:

“Only four of the 59 studies cited by the APA even met the APA's own standards by "provid[ing] evidence of statistical power." “Not one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA brief compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a random, representative sample of married parents and their children. The available data, which are drawn primarily from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalizable claim either way.”[10]
Now this is the only study that dealt with the effects of homosexual parenting after the children, are now adults the ages of 18-39. The studies that APA pointed to were self-reporting by parents, who surely want to give a good report on their parenting. Those studies were lacking because they did not show the result of the parenting. So, this study gives us children who are no longer at home with their same-sex parents, able to give us the issues that they are dealing with as adults. Now, the Regnerus study gives us these results. The results are statistically significant:

-------------------------------------------IBF (intact bio family) ---LM (lesbian mother) ---GF (gay father)

Currently married ----------------------43---------------------------36-----------------------------35
Unemployed -----------------------------8----------------------------28----------------------------20
Thought recently about suicide--------5----------------------------12----------------------------24
Had affair while coupled -------------14----------------------------40----------------------------25
Same Sex relationship------------------4-----------------------------7-----------------------------12
Ever forced to have sex-----------------8----------------------------31----------------------------25
Touched sexually by parent -----------2----------------------------23------------------------------6
Identified as only heterosexual-------90----------------------------61----------------------------71[11]

Unlike the APA studies, this was a huge representative sample, of 3000 children, 175 raised by same sex women, and an additional 73 of raised by same sex men. The rest were children who did not have same sex parents. It was weighted as well to ensure accuracy.

So, we can see that those people who were brought up by homosexual parents were more likely at some point in time forced to have sex, touched sexually by a parent, more likely to have a same-sex relationship. Psychological issues are shown while only 5% of heterosexually raised children thought recently about suicide. 12% of Lesbian raised children, (more than double the amount), 24% raised by the homosexual fathers, compared to almost 5 times the number of heterosexuals, who wanted to commit suicide. The homosexually raised children were much more likely to be unfaithful to their partner, and more likely to cohabit without the benefit of marriage. So, we see the results of homosexual parenting are not good. Now, more research may be necessary, but at first glance, it confirms that which we all know, every child needs a mother and a father, a male father and female mother, not two male or female parents.

Homosexual marriage is a recent construct, with no equivalent standard in any culture at all. Even atheist run countries, in Cuba, China, North Korea, do not legalize same-sex marriage. They understand if marriage is undermined, so goes society. Now, there are some people who will refer to exotic locations, where there was same sex marriage. There are exceptions to the rule for sure, however, they were nowhere near as what same sex advocates would refer to. For example, Corvino pointed to the Nuers of Sudan as pointing to a culture accepting same-sex marriage, and you will find homosexual web sites that point to this example.[12] This has to do with a female same sex marriage. However, though it was an exception, it nowhere relates to our concept of same sex marriage. In that situation, Lesbian sex was not involved, which is one of the core issues involved in propagation of same sex marriage.

Gallagher points to this exception, but you will note, it has practically zero relatability to same sex marriage as seen by homosexual advocates:

On rare occasions, the Nuers of Sudan would permit an older childless woman to “marry” another woman. Occasionally an older woman would inherit or build sufficient wealth in cattle that she could support children. The only way for such an older childless and mate-less woman to have heirs capable of inheriting her wealth (thus keeping in the lineage) would be to “marry” a woman, whose children would then belong to her lineage. The woman in these cases was seen to be acting as a man; the children would address her as “father”. The women would not have sex with one another; Gay sex would have defeated the whole purpose of this unusual adaptive use of Nuer marriage system. [13]

Are Homosexuals Born Homosexuals? A Look

The basic premise that is taken by many homosexual advocates is that homosexuals are born homosexuals and any attempt to say that they are not born that way is backwards and bigoted. That ended up serving a basis for the Supreme Court decision that legalized Same Sex marriage. However, no scientific studies really say that. Even if some claim that there is a biological basis for that ‘orientation’, it is only one of many factors. Biology does not make one that way, the most that homosexual advocates can say is that there is a combination of things, not just biological. It has been a political message saying that Homosexuals are born homosexuals despite nothing indicating that it is purely a biological reason for people having that homosexual preference. A homosexual advocate writer in 1991 gives a view that has made the rounds everywhere. This is exactly what it has become now, when it was written in 1991, no one could have envisioned us getting to this point:

Now, two different messages about the Gay Victim are worth communicating. First the public should be persuaded that gays are victims of circumstance, that they no more choose their sexual orientation than they did, say, their height, skin color, talents, or limitations. We argue that for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay-even though sexual orientation, for most humans seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence. To suggest in public that homosexuality might be chosen is to open the can of worms labeled “moral choice and sin” and give the religious Intransigents a stick to beat us with. Straights must be taught that it is as natural for some person to be homosexual, as it is for others to be heterosexual: wickedness and seduction have nothing to do with it. And since no choice is involved, gayness can be no more blameworthy than is straightness.

Second, gays should be portrayed as victims of prejudices.[14]

So, the whole premise of the homosexual advocates in the early 90s was to convince people that they are ‘born’ this way. Just one phrase that we are familiar with notes the difference. Now, when homosexuality was spoken of just a few years ago, the term that was often used was ‘sexual preference.’ If the person’s sexual ‘preference’ was of the same sex, that was their sexual ‘preference.’ It was still seen as respectful, the term used was someone’s ‘choice.’ Now, no one uses that phrase anymore. Common lingo now says that it is sexual ‘orientation’. That is a new term, but it is like one is just made this way, they don’t have any preference, that orientation identifies them as gay, or homosexual. If one is oriented that way, who are we to tell them to change? Just as a black is born black, a white is born white, etc. So, they should have the same rights as Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc.

APA and AMA Recognition

Now, what does the American Psychological association say why Homosexuals have sex with Homosexuals? Does the APA say that they are born that way? Taken from the APA web site are the following statements:

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

No, lesbian, gay and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.[ 15]

Note at the beginning, the APA says there is no agreement of how they are ‘oriented’ to same-sex attraction. Scientists do not say that they are oriented by biological reasons. That is acknowledged by the APA, but then says homosexuals are not disordered, with no actual backing of that assessment.

The AMA says likewise:

The American Medical Association (AMA) released a report in 1994-DEC which calls for "nonjudgmental recognition of sexual orientation by physicians." They suggest that psychotherapy be directed help homosexuals "become comfortable with their sexual orientation."[ 16]
So apparently the professional organizations say that we need to accept it. The only type of psychotherapy that should be is to accept the fact of their orientation.

However, despite the statement saying that there was a scientific basis for this change in 1973, it was not because of any scientific findings, but by statements from homosexual rights groups, it was pressure that they put on the APA that led to the change, Ryan Sorba, documents this here:

Let us, for a moment, rewind to the year 1970. In this year, same-gender sex activists began a program of intimidation aimed at the American Psychiatric Association (APA). Activist Frank Kameny states the movement’s objective clearly, “I feel that the entire homophile movement…is going to stand or fall upon the question of whether or not homosexuality is a sickness, and upon our taking a firm stand on it…” (The Gay Crusaders, by Kay Tobin and Randy Wicker, p. 98)

In 1970, psychiatrists generally considered sexual desires toward members of one’s own gender to be disordered. Karoly Maria Kertbeny’s term, “homosexual” was the official descriptor for those inflicted by this mental-physical disassociative disorder. Psychiatry’s authoritative voice influenced public opinion, which at the time was negative toward same-gender sex. Of course, public sexual activity in parks and public restrooms contributed to societies negative views about the types of people that did such things, but “scientific opinion” was crucial in the public attitude.

Led by radicals like Frank Kameny, same-gender sex activists attacked many psychiatrists publicly, as Newsweek describes, “But even more than the government, it is the psychiatrists who have experienced the full rage of the homosexual activists. Over the past two years, gay-lib organizations have repeatedly disrupted medical meetings, and three months ago—in the movements most aggressive demonstration so far—a group of 30 militants broke into a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in Washington, where they turned the staid proceedings into near chaos for twenty minutes. ‘We are here to denounce your authority to call us sick or mentally disordered,’ shouted the group’s leader, Dr. Franklin Kameny, while the 2,000 shocked psychiatrists looked on in disbelief. ‘For us, as homosexuals, your profession is the enemy incarnate. We demand that psychiatrists treat us as human beings, not as patients to be cured!’” (Newsweek, 8-23-71, p.47)

Ironically, at the very moment Franklin Kameny was claiming that same-gender sex was healthy, safe, and natural, a deadly virus was silently passing through communities of men all over the nation as a result of the promiscuous, unhealthy nature of the sex they were having. Only a decade later, thousands of men would be dead or dying, of AIDS.

On June 7, of the following year, 1971, Franklin Kameny wrote a letter to the Psychiatric News threatening the APA with not only more, but worse, disruptions. In this letter he states, “Our presence there was only the beginning of an increasingly intensive campaign by homosexuals to change the approach of psychiatry toward homosexuality or, failing that, to discredit psychiatry.” (The Gay Crusaders p. 130-131)

Same-gender sex activists continued to pressure the APA through 1973. A same-gender sex magazine, The Advocate, talks of “…what happened in 1973…referring to the widespread protests by the gay and lesbian community that led to the APA’s dropping homosexuality from the DSM.” (The Advocate, 12-28-93, p.40) As a result of the pressure, in the words of the prominent journalist and same-gender sex activists, Andrew Sullivan, in December of 1973 the APA, “…under intense political pressure…removed homosexuality from its official list of psychiatric disorders…” (Love Undetectable, book by Andrew Sullivan, 1998, p. 107) Under this “intense political pressure” the APA’s board of trustees finally caved in to the demands of same-gender sex activists. Another same-gender sex activist Mark Thompson writes, “Just before the first of the year, the American Psychiatric Association’s board of trustees declared we were no longer sick.” (The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p. 97) [17]

So, despite the statement of the APA, there was no medical discoveries that formed the basis for the acceptance of homosexuality as normal. From the homosexual advocates own words, their policy was to intimidate the APA to remove homosexuality as a disorder. They succeeded. Back then, as now, there were more homicides, depression, suicide, etc. that comes when there are psychological issues. Now some will say, that was because of all the intimidation of homosexuals, that is what leads to their problems, it is not innate. However, as the societies throughout the west, develop into a more accepting of homosexual activity, there is in fact intimidation of those who practice Christianity and reject homosexual activity as immoral and wrong. With that, we will see the rates of suicide, depression, sexual battery of their mates, psychological problems, promiscuous activity, alcoholic and drug abuse, are still higher than the general population.

In fact, at the time many psychiatrists did not accept this reversal of this finding on homosexuality:

As Father John Harvey notes in his study of the issue:

The decision to drop homosexuality as disorder ignores the large body of accumulated literature indicating psychodynamic connections between unresolved and largely unconscious conflicts and homosexual orientation. This literature, wrought from clinical experience, sees compulsive and symptomatic homosexuality as a sexualized resolution of conflict in which the particular traumatizing experiences of an individual became interwoven with psychosexual development.[18]
There is no scientific basis for the claim that Homosexuality is not a disorder, however, caving into homosexual activists, they have put it into the mind through the homosexual affirming media, that there is nothing that is problematic about those having a homosexual preference for sex. However, what does the APA say now about the issue, do they now say that homosexuals are born homosexual, as homosexual activists have driven into the mind of the public, especially recently? Now, more than 40 years after they made the change, what does the APA say about how one gets to be homosexual now?
Some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime. Individuals maybe become aware at different points in their lives that they are heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual… No one knows that causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality… Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.[19]
So, the APA in 2015 says that homosexuality is fluid, not fixed. It is unscientific to call it fixed. However, because of the Supreme Court ruling in favor of homosexual marriage, Anthony Kennedy said that homosexuality is immutable, they changed their web page. The APA made no ‘correction’, just totally ignored what they themselves said. Even pro-homosexual writers admit that homosexuality is not immutable.

Dr. Andre Van Mol summarized two important studies:

A 1993 scientific literature critique by Byne and Parsons in Archives of General Psychiatry reviewed the major studies on the subject and found no evidence favoring sexual orientation being either genetically or biologically determined. Researchers Friedman and Downey of Columbia University School of Medicine remarked: At clinical conferences one often hears that homosexuality is fixed and unmodifiable’, Neither assertion is true… The assertion that homosexuality is genetic is so reductionist that it must be dismissed out of hand as a general principle of psychology.[20]
Mass Resistance notes that LGBT-friendly researchers, Lisa Diamond and Clifford Rosky stated in 2016:

Arguments based on the immutability of sexual orientation are unscientific, given what we now know from longitudinal, population-based studies of naturally occurring changes in the same-sex attractions of some individuals over time.
So, the premise is that homosexuality is immutable is unscientific. Let us say that someone’s genes made the person much more likely to be a homosexual. That is the unscientific premise that we are given. Does that mean that the person in order to be normal, must engage in homosexual sex to make them whole? Even given that unscientific premise, that is not the answer. Why? Because if someone is born in a family where running in their blood someone is prone to being heavy, that does not excuse one born in that family to become fat. Even if their mother and father were fat, and all their brothers and sisters were fat, that does not excuse the one born of such parent, to become fat. Even if one is prone to fatness, still someone can choose to be healthy, not eat fattening foods, even if the rest of the family eats fattening foods. He/she can exercise to keep their bodies healthy, even if mom, dad and all their brothers and sisters, eat cake, cookies and twinkies, while they lay down while they watch ‘Jeopardy’ at home on the couch regularly. Even if biologically one is much more likely to get fat or be homosexual, someone can choose to not eat and get fat, someone can choose not to behave in an unhealthy manner sexually that will lead to unhealthy outcomes for one’s life.

With that said there is an amalgamation of studies that show that there are lots of factors that lead to homosexual tendencies with the biological factor not something that is determinative of one’s homosexuality. In this study of a series of studies that researches the causes of homosexuality, McHugh and Mayer came up with these conclusions:

1)The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings—the idea that people are “born that way”—is not supported by scientific evidence. 2) While there is evidence that biological factors such as genes and hormones are associated with sexual behaviors and attractions, there are no compelling causal biological explanations for human sexual orientation. While minor differences in the brain structures and brain activity between homosexual and heterosexual individuals have been identified by researchers, such neurobiological findings do not demonstrate whether these differences are innate or are the result of environmental and psychological factors. 3) Longitudinal studies of adolescents suggest that sexual orientation may be quite fluid over the life course for some people, with one study estimating that as many as 80% of male adolescents who report same-sex attractions no longer do so as adults (although the extent to which this figure reflects actual changes in same-sex attractions and not just artifacts of the survey process has been contested by some researchers). 4) Compared to heterosexuals, non-heterosexuals are about two to three times as likely to have experienced childhood sexual abuse.[22]
The Doctors add:
Bearman and Brückner did not find evidence of significant genetic influence on sexual attraction. Significant influence would require that identical twins to have significantly higher concordance rates for same sex attraction than fraternal twins or non-twin siblings. But in the study, the rates were statistically similar: identical twins were 6.7% concordant, dizygotic pairs 7.2% concordant, and full siblings 5.5% concordant. The authors concluded that “it is more likely that any genetic influence, if present, can only be expressed in specific and circumscribed social structures.”… Thus, they inferred that their results “support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences.”[23]
Mayer’s conclusion was the following:
The largest attempt to identify genetic variants associated with homosexuality, a study of over 23,000 individuals from the 23andMe database presented at the American Society of Human Genetics annual meeting in 2012, found no linkages reaching genome-wide significance for same-sex sexual identity for males or females….

The evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality is inconsistent and inconclusive, which suggests that, though genetic factors explain some of the variation in sexual orientation, the genetic contribution to this trait is not likely to be strong and even less likely to be decisive. As is often true of human behavioral tendencies, there may be genetic contributions to the tendency toward homosexual inclinations or behaviors. Phenotypic expression of genes is usually influenced by environmental factors—different environments may lead to different phenotypes even for the same genes.[24]

So as a given that at the least, genes though perhaps influencing, can not scientifically account for someone becoming homosexual, what are factors that when studying homosexuals, seem to be more common with homosexuals, than for heterosexuals? Several factors are involved. Now, when I go through each item I do not mean to say ‘if one is molested as a child, one becomes homosexual’. Nor do I say, ‘I was estranged from my father that made me a homosexual. ’ ‘I was made fun of as a kid that made me a homosexual.’ Nor do I say, ‘I was unathletic, that made me homosexual.’ There are tons of people who were molested as children who did not turn out homosexual. There were tons of unathletic people who did not turn out homosexual. However, these factors we will see, make them more likely to become homosexual.

Victims of Molestation

Mass Resistance quotes a study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior:

In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation.[25]
A study of almost 2,000 lesbians throughout the US (interviewed in the 1980s) found that:
Over half the sample had had thoughts about suicide at some time, and 18% had attempted suicide. Thirty-seven percent had been physically abused as a child or adult, 32% had been raped or sexually attacked, and 19% had been involved in incestuous relationships while growing up.”[ 26]
The following is an NIH study:
METHODS: Using survey data from 63,028 women participating in the Nurses' Health Study II, we investigated sexual orientation group differences in emotional, physical, and sexual abuse in childhood and adolescence. Multivariable log-binomial and linear regression models were used to examine orientation group differences in prevalence and severity of abuse, with heterosexual as the referent and controlling for sociodemographics.


Results showed strong evidence of elevated frequency, severity, and persistence of abuse experienced by lesbian and bisexual women. Comparing physical abuse victimization occurring in both childhood and adolescence, lesbian (30%, prevalence ratio [PR] 1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.40, 1.84) and bisexual (24%, PR 1.26, 95% CI 1.00, 1.60) women were more likely to report victimization than were heterosexual women (19%). Similarly, comparing sexual abuse victimization occurring in both age periods, lesbian (19%, PR 2.16, 95% CI 1.80, 2.60) and bisexual (20%, PR 2.29, 95% CI 1.76, 2.98) women were more likely to report victimization than were heterosexual women (9%)SB.[27]

So, we see in this huge study, of 63,000 people, a huge sampling, well more had been abused, one out of lesbians three had been abused, as opposed to one out of five heterosexual women.

The following is an amalgamation of studies that looked at childhood abuse of childhood abuse of heterosexual as opposed to homosexual children:

Objectives. We compared the likelihood of childhood sexual abuse (under age 18), parental physical abuse, and peer victimization based on sexual orientation.

Methods. We conducted a meta-analysis of adolescent school-based studies that compared the likelihood of childhood abuse among sexual minorities vs sexual nonminorities.

Results. Sexual minority individuals were on average 3.8, 1.2, 1.7, and 2.4 times more likely to experience sexual abuse, parental physical abuse, or assault at school or to miss school through fear, respectively. Moderation analysis showed that disparities between sexual minority and sexual nonminority individuals were larger for (1) males than females for sexual abuse, (2) females than males for assault at school, and (3) bisexual than gay and lesbian for both parental physical abuse and missing school through fear. Disparities did not change between the 1990s and the 2000s.

Conclusions. The higher rates of abuse experienced by sexual minority youths may be one of the driving mechanisms underlying higher rates of mental health problems, substance use, risky sexual behavior, and HIV reported by sexual minority adults.[28]

So, this is a cross sectional study, an amalgamation of a look at all the studies of childhood. Sexual minority are of course those who are homosexual/bisexual. According to this amalgamation of all the studies they are 3.8 times more likely to be abused sexually as children. This showed male and female victims were both likely to be abused at school and at home by those who eventually had same-sex attractions.

This study documents prevalent and persistent abuse disproportionately experienced by lesbian and bisexual women.

This is not to say that if one is molested as a child, one is automatically a homosexual because most people who are abused do not become homosexual, however, that coupled with other things will make one more likely to become homosexual. Now, as I’ve read several books on people who have lived a homosexual lifestyle and sexual abuse is a common thing. For example, Janet Boynes is a woman who lived a homosexual/lesbian lifestyle for a long time, 14 years, before turning away from it. Her background is not uncommon. She recounts her life story, one that was filled with a bad family background, but for the purpose of this focus, here is what she ran into before she was 13 years old. Before her 13th birthday, she writes:

Bobby was the father of my sister Patricia and my brother Robert and we often went to visit him. One day he sent my two sisters to the store, but made me stay behind with him. That day changed my life. While we were alone in his house, he started touching me in areas that no man should ever touch a little child.

I hated myself for being so weak that I couldn’t even protect myself from him. He drove around my block later that day and I was sure he was looking for me to make sure I didn’t tell anyone what he did to me. I didn’t tell my mother what had happened because I was too afraid of what she would do to me if she found out. I was afraid that she wouldn’t believe me and that she would beat or kill me instead.

Only a few months later, I was raped by an altar boy at church. I went to the basement to go to the bathroom after the service and he followed me, yanking me into the boiling room. He pulled my pants down and attacked me. [29]

Boynes was abused in both a house setting and actually at church as well.

Another example is Anthony Falzarano, who eventually entered the homosexual lifestyle as a man who says he had a homosexual relationship with the famous Roy Cohn, who was conservative politically, but was a closeted homosexual who had sexual relationships with young men. Falzarano was one of them. He had a promiscuous homosexual lifestyle, had sex with 450 men is his estimation over nine years, before he turned away from homosexuality, as we will go over that later. However, what was his relationship with his Father? He did not have an abusive father, even loving (unlike Janet Boynes who was treated harshly and was beaten by her mother and didn’t have a relationship with her father). However, he was still distant:

Although he was at home every night after work, he was the classic “psychologically absentee” father. We would all have dinner together as a family, but shortly thereafter he would retreat to the family room and soon fall asleep in his recliner watching television or listening to his Italian opera records.

He never taught me how to play sports because he never learned these skills from his own father and to make matters worse, they didn’t play traditional American sports in Italy. This seriously impeded my assimilation into traditional American culture. None of the guys wanted to play bocce. By the time I started elementary school I was already feeling inferior to the other boys.

Because my father worked so hard, my mom would be the one to take me to Cub Scout meetings and other functions. Her intentions were good however; this was embarrassing, because all the other boys were at Scouts with their fathers. [30]

So, with that background no close father, or son, or male friend, and little athletic ability the ‘feminine’ in him was developed to the detriment of his maleness:
The feminine in me was overly developed. I remember an incident in the sixth grade when I expressed to my mom a desire to dress up as a girl for Halloween. I not only received encouragement from her and her girlfriends, they helped me apply make-j; and my mother even let me wear her mink-stole as part of my costume. This kind of behavior should have obviously been discouraged. This was not a healthy choice of Halloween costumes for a boy who was showing early signs of gender-confusion.

It is also important to point out that there was also some inappropriate touching and rubbing that two of my older siblings initiated with me. One of those two brothers turned out to be a homosexual and the other turned out to be a promiscuous heterosexual who wound up committing suicide in his late 20s.[31]

As a young teenager the following events happened for Falzarano:
One time my mother took me to a concert at church and a man followed me into the bathroom and tried to molest me. As he started to touch me, I knew instinctively this was wrong. I remember feeling so desperately needy inside. Part of me was crying out to be touched, however, the Holy Spirit’s prompting told me to flee from the bathroom and I’m glad that I did.

That was the same year that I was molested by a pederast at the downtown movie theatre and then to add insult to injury soon thereafter I was seduced by a teacher from another school at a National Key Club Convention in the Poconos.[32]

So, we see in different settings, he was molested by older men, at a church setting and in a movie theater.

One of the pioneers in treating those with a homosexual orientation, through psychological means was Doctor Joseph Nicolosi. He recently passed away, he helped thousands, but the homosexual advocacy groups despised his work. In any case, he wrote in his book the following in reference to Rock Hudson:

But Hudson’s autobiography reveals that he hated his father who deserted the family, and did not get along any better with his stepfather who beat him. When his mother worked as a live-in housekeeper. Rock and his mother shared a bed in the servant’s quarters. Then, at the age of nine, Hudson was sexually molested by an older man (he says he encouraged and enjoyed the encounter).[33]
Michael Brown notates some of the commonality of some of the following current public figures:
What do Anderson Cooper, Don Lemon, George Takei and Milo Yiannopoulos have in common? They are all out and proud gay men, and they were all sexually abused as underage minors. Sadly, this is an extremely common occurrence, as there is frequently a connection between childhood sexual abuse and adult homosexuality. [34]
The Southern Poverty Law Center, a left wing radical group will say that there is no issue of child abuse, and quotes the American Psychological Association:
THE FACTS No scientifically sound study has definitively linked sexual orientation or identity with parental role-modeling or childhood sexual abuse.

The American Psychiatric Association noted in a 2000 fact sheet available on the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists, that dealing with gay, lesbian and bisexual issues, that sexual abuse does not appear to be any more prevalent among children who grow up and identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual than in children who grow up and identify as heterosexual.[35]

The study I looked at only refers to the APA saying there is no proof. Within the link there was no study debunking the studies just mentioned. Again, no one says that if one is abused sexually as a child, that makes one homosexual. One is not even saying that most homosexuals have been abused as children. It does indeed show that it is a contributing factor, and the studies show that it is more prevalent, as documented scientifically. To ignore that, one is putting one’s head in the sand.

Poor Relationship with Same Sex Parent, Close, Dependent Relationship with Opposite Sex Parent

Here is the theory that one often hears about that contributes to the relationship is the fact that there is missing a bonding with the same sex parent, and a lack of male emulation with the Father. For male homosexuals, it would signify a lack of attachment to the Father, and then because the lack of a non-sexual male bonding with the Father, one will make up for that male bonding by wanting, having a sexual relationship with the male figures to make up for the lack of relationship with the Father. Also, with the lack of a bonding relationship with the Father, that can lead to a lack of non-sexual bonding with Fathers. That has been a theory that has been around a long time. However, that has been discredited by those promoting homosexual marriage, as not having any relevance to reality. Before I address this issue, I do want to actually spell out the theory in a little depth. I will quote some relevant sections from a book written by Elizabeth Moberly, which spells out the theory to some extent at least, so we can have a general understanding. She is one that will speak to the need for reparative therapy, that helps one to develop an attachment to male in a non-sexual manner. We will look at this further in this paper down but for now, we can see this:

The homosexual condition implies a problem in the capacity for relating to the same sex, and not merely a desire and facility for so doing. The checking of the same-sex identificatory process will mean that the homosexual is unable to relate in a truly heterosexual manner to the opposite sex. But the essential problem is one of incomplete same-sex psychological development, and it is vital that it should be recognized and dealt with as such.[36]
Moberly notes that what many who have attempted to solve the situation by just marriage, without dealing with the psychological root of the issue, is bound to fail:
Attempted heterosexual relationships, or social contact with the opposite sex, are not the solution to homosexuality, since the increased opposite-sex contact can do nothing to fulfill same-sex deficits. Relationships with the opposite sex are literally, by definition, irrelevant to a problem of this nature. Such a mistaken solution in fact leaves the problem untouched, or even confirms it. The capacity for same-sex love is the natural healing process, and it is most unfortunate that the bypassing or blocking of this process has often been mistaken for the solution….

From the present evidence it would seem clear that the homosexual condition does not involve abnormal needs, but normal needs that have, abnormally, been left unmet in the ordinary process of growth.[37]

In our examination we have already noted that the male Falzarano and the female Boynes were distant from their same sex parent. They were never confirmed in their masculinity or femininity. Falzarano had a distant father who worked hard for the family but spent no time with him. Boynes as we see was blasted by her mother, and beat by her. She was not close to her mother and was afraid about being beaten up by her.

I want to examine a couple of others who came up to be homosexual, and were not abused but ended up homosexual, but eventually turned away from that lifestyle.

David Morrison, like Falzarano noted above, and unlike Boynes, (who had a mother who abused her), became an active homosexual, had a father who was not abusive. He just didn’t spend a lot of time with his son, nor did he do Father son things. Here are his words:

My father lived a public life, with a lot of meetings, late-nights, and formal dinners. He was absent much of the time and carried himself with an air of grave importance when he was at home. At home my father tended to work off my grandfather’s model of fatherhood. He looms in my memory as aloof and demanding as my primitive theology told me God must be.[38]
Most of the time I recall him as indifferent. It’s not that he neglected the more proprietary part of being a father—food always came to our table, a roof covered our heads, and clothes warmed our backs. Rather, he wasn’t particularly interested in my life unless he needed to discipline me for some failure, which he did in the bathroom with a wide belt. Meanwhile, I recall my mother making herself all too accessible. Where my father was aloof, my mother was cloying. I quickly understood that the family dynamic was she and I against my father. ... When my mom complained about my father –which she did with increasing vehemence as the years passed—she came to me at least some of the time. Her complaints assumed an authority in defining my father that was probably not useful.[39]

So, just as Falzarano, although his father provided food on the table, he spent little to no time with him. The same as Falzarano, he had a mother who clung to him, who went to her son as a confidant.

One of the more compelling arguments made in favor of the faulty father-son relationship as a contributing factor for homosexuality was made by famed gay novelist Andrew Holleran in his Forward to the book “The Man I Might Become: Gay Men Write About Their Fathers:”

Many men, straight and gay, wish they’d been closer to their fathers. To this day when I see in public a man and his son talking, or holding hands as they walk down the street, I linger on the sight. Once, in a restaurant, I watched a boy sit down in the next booth with his father and a group of friends. Tired from an afternoon of fishing, the boy proceeded to rest his head against his father’s shoulder, and then the father rested his head on top of his son’s, so that the two of them were folded like chimpanzees that had just groomed each other. I could scarcely contain myself. The image of this father and son expressing their affection, their trust, their intimacy, in so unself-conscious a way, it was astounding to me – it seemed so what I was never able to do with my own.[40]
Dr. Nicolosi notes in his book the well-known homosexual athlete, famous diver Greg Louganis, who won gold medals for diving in 1984 and 1988.
In a 20/20 television interview in 1995 with Barbara Walters, Louganis described his abusive relationship with the father who adopted him when he was an infant. As Louganis’s mother lamented, “His father had nothing to do with Greg until Greg took first place [in driving]. He never played with him, he never took him any place, he wasn’t a role model for my son.”

In a People magazine interview, Louganis described a particularly painful memory: one day his father struck him with a belt to make him practice a dive he had been reluctant to do in the freezing weather. “He hit me across my backside and legs until it burned. That I can’t forget... The best way to deal with my father was to steer clear”…

Louganis’s mother proved to be the lonely boy’s only ally, and not surprisingly, they developed a close attunement to each other. She told Walters, “He’d come home from school and I could tell you the way he felt when he walked in the door. I knew exactly what he was feeling, I knew exactly what he was going to do. “My mom loves me no matter what” Louganis told People. Both he and his mother became socially withdrawn because his father was reportedly so abusive. [41]

Father Harvey, as mentioned earlier founded a Catholic Organization called Courage: https://couragerc.org. It is a Catholic Organization that seeks to help those people who have homosexual tendencies, and for the most part have acted on those tendencies, to help those struggling with those tendencies, to stay faithful to the biblical, and Catholic teaching on sexuality. He has now passed away but had a big impact on assisting people with homosexual tendencies. He founded that apostolate. He worked with many Catholic people, was a licensed psychiatrist, and worked on helping the people to get at the root of why they faced homosexual temptations. With his work through many years of counseling, he found the Father son relationship to be one of the things lacking. With this counseling, he found something common to many. One of the most important is that the maleness identity was missing in early life. Associated with that, he found:
The next most common hurt is that of an emotionally distant, insensitive, or unaffirming father. While there is usually little resistance in recognizing the sports wound, many males have great difficulty admitting how much they have wanted emotionally from their fathers and how deeply hurt they have felt when these needs were not met. This resistance can be overcome in part by the therapists, sharing their own struggles in facing disappointments with their fathers. [42]
Associated with this distance from the father is an unhealthy closeness to the parent of the opposite sex. That parent, in this case the mother is controlling and is close. That is what Louganis mentioned. Just as an aside a person and this is anecdotal for sure. A neighbor down the street of mine ended up homosexual. He had a distant father, but was overly close to his mother. The mother wanted a girl, and dressed the boy as a girl, and got into girl activities. He never got into sports at all. With the overbearing mother, the boy ended up effeminate, and became homosexual. That is with the overbearing mother. He was the second of two boys, and the mother wanted a girl, and told him so. She encouraged feminine stuff, the father did not encourage heterosexual man/boy sports activities, etc. Because he was effeminate, people made fun of him, and he eventually became homosexual. He moved to San Francisco, and ended up dying of AIDS. Of course, this is anecdotal, and a tragedy, but he fits the profile just mentioned.

Father Harvey found out a pattern he found in those he counseled when he writes:

Mistrust of those of the opposite sex is the next most common cause of homosexual attraction. This is often the result of childhood and adolescent hurts with a parent who was overly controlling, too dependent, intensely selfish, emotionally distant or manipulative, absent addicted, or otherwise dysfunctional. Also, an adult betrayal experience can result in severe fear of being hurt by those of the opposite sex.[43]
Here is one example of many found by Nicolosi where the parents would tell how they dealt with their son Danny.
Danny was just six when his mother, Jenny, bought him a matching apron and told him he was going to by “my little chef” while she prepared dinner. Jenny had watched for years as her husband and their two older sons made fun of the little boy for not being good at sports. In fact, they made fun of him just about anything you could think of. Jenny felt terrible about Danny’s hurt feelings, and she decided that rather than trying to talk to her husband Steve, once more, she would step in and help the boy herself.

A slight, frail child, Danny struggled with both nearsightedness and a lack of coordination. Above all else, he was very emotional and, as Jenny put it, “he feels things very deeply.” In her view, his macho dad and rough-and-ready brothers were the crux of his problem. Why couldn’t they just be nice instead of hassling him?

Besides, if the truth were known, Jenny really enjoyed having her younger son’s company. She herself often felt overpowered by the houseful of males, who always seemed to be rushing out the door to play ball together or go off somewhere with their guy friends. Danny was a quite sweet ally who really liked to stay home and be with her. Together, they shared many hours of talking about their dreams, their hurts, their hopes, or the books they had read. “Danny”, Jenny said, is the only member of this family who understand me.”[44]

So again we see a distant father, and an overbearing mother, who the child becomes dependent and the mother ends up depending on the son. Nicolosi would note with that background Danny struggled with same-sex attractions at school and he fantasized about boys.

A study investigated a sampling of homosexual patients who dealt with psychotherapists and their background was in the early 1960s. Nowadays, because of the acceptance of homosexuality as ‘normal’, there is not an incentive to do a study on the relationship of the homosexual and their parents. There is supposedly no need to study a person becoming homosexual, as there is nothing to be concerned about. At least I am not aware of a huge study today about the relationship of homosexuals and their parents, where the homosexual goes through psychotherapy. Of course, those who believe that parenting or lack of parenting do play into this, such as Nicolosi, are downplayed and labeled as hateful of homosexuals. So, in order to get a scientific study of this issue, we have to go back a ways, so the study is dated, 1962. But the nature of homosexuality has not changed in more than 50 years, so even if it is an old study, the relevance is important in our study today. This study was done by a field of psychologists, headed up by Irving Bieber, as noted in the book, ‘Homosexuality, a Psychoanalytic Study.’

So, the background of the study was that there were 106 homosexuals and 100 heterosexuals, who sought psychological help. In the early 1960s homosexuality was seen as a psychological disorder, and people sought help in dealing with various issues, including depression, but in some cases, they sought to get rid of their homosexual leanings. Only about half of them who were seeking psychoanalysis because of sexual problems. The issues involved included sexual difficulties, anxiety, various neurotic symptoms, work inhibitions and so forth. The Homosexuals were New Yorkers, but 50 percent were raised out of town. The population of the heterosexuals 74% were native New Yorkers.[45] 64 percent of the homosexuals wanted to be ‘cured.’ The psychoanalysts even then knew it is not something easy to ‘cure’ but did believe with psychological help, they would be able reduce their homosexual attractions, and hopefully become heterosexual. A total of 77 psychoanalysts contributed in the study of the homosexual and the comparison group. The results were produced by the psychologists who worked with the homosexuals and heterosexuals and their various issues. They studied many things, but I will concentrate on the findings of the relationship with their parents, both heterosexual and homosexuals. This approach was scientific, and they attempted to make it as unbiased as possible, realizing that everybody brings their attitudes towards things into the equation. There were hundreds of hours of work with both heterosexuals and homosexuals, and they are seeking psychological help, and what the patients, homosexuals and heterosexuals, felt about their relationship with their Father:

I want to highlight just a couple of things in a graph in this book:


Patient is Fathers Favorite--------------------------------------------7---------------------------28
Patient knowingly hated Father------------------------------------60---------------------------37
Time spent with Father, little, very little, father absent---------87---------------------------60
Patient accepted Father----------------------------------------------20---------------------------50
Patient regarded Father as admirable------------------------------16---------------------------47
Father has less respect for patient than other male siblings----42----------------------------19
Patient both hated and feared Father------------------------------57----------------------------31
Patient accepted Father ---------------------------------------------28---------------------------48
Father encouraged masculine attitudes----------------------------45---------------------------60 [46]

The homosexual was much more likely to hate his father, he both hated and feared him, did not consider him as admirable. The heterosexuals, though of course they had their own psychological issues, was more likely to be the fathers favorite, less likely to hate his father, accepted his father more, and was more likely to be encouraged by his father to have masculine attitudes. It is noteworthy that of the 106 homosexuals that were studied, 79 of the 106 were identified as detached from their fathers. Among the psychological factors were things such as time spent with children and other issues. As noted by Bieber, of these 79 in reference to their fathers:
18 were distant and indifferent to their sons; 44 were hostile and 14 were ambivalent and 3 were dominating-exploitative.[47]
When Bieber noted the effect of the attachment, how it could lead to homosexual attachment in their partners:
Some children may interpret detachment as rejection, but in any case, no matter how it is experienced, it is always traumatic. The child may attempt a way out by seeking other reparative relationships to fulfill his yearnings—often with other males. Thus, the pathologic seeking of need fulfillment from men has a clear point of origin in father who were detached. Our study revealed that sons of detached father sough in homosexual partners the qualities they had not known in their own fathers. 45 homosexuals sought warmth, 47 sought friendliness, and 63 sought “contact.” We assume that any circumstances that create pathologic needs in males which can be satisfied only by other males, operate in the direction of promoting homosexuality or homosexual problems...

Of the 79 homosexual patients who had detached fathers, 53 (67 per cent) sought masculine traits in their partners. The homosexual’s attraction to masculine qualities may represent, at least in part, a reparative and self-protective attempt to relate to a strong male who will be able to defend against the power of the mother—unlike the father who did not.[48]

So, the secular psychologist Bieber, used the term ‘reparative’, in reference to homosexuals seeking masculine affirming in his mate. This term is used well before it became fashionable to stigmatize the term later used by such psychologists as Moberly and Nicolosi. In the summary of the Father-son relationships Bieber concluded:
The most arresting feature of father-son relationships in the entire patient sample is the consistency with which psychopathologic phenomena appear. Profound interpersonal disturbance is unremitting in the H-father-son relationship. The responses to 21 questions tapping psychopathologic factors distinguish the H-fathers from the C-(C stands for Comparison group of patients who sought counseling but were heterosexual) fathers at statistically significant levels (from .05 to .001). As a group, the H-fathers were detached, hostile, minimizing, and openly rejecting. The outstanding attitudes of homosexuals toward their fathers were hatred and fear.[49]
Now, Bieber noticed that though 79 of the 106 homosexuals had detached parents, indeed a lower rate, but 54 of the 100 heterosexuals also had detached fathers. In his analysis he asks why those 54 did not turn out homosexual, and based on the study of the heterosexual patients:
Comparisons of detached H-fathers with C-fathers reveal consistently less detachment and hostility among the C-fathers. The extent of detachment and the intensity of hostility apparently play a determining role in the sexually adaptive outcome.[50]
The detachment to the father was much more pronounced in the 79 homosexuals, than the heterosexual patients of the 54.

While the Father is more likely to be detached, and not be a positive influence, and would be less likely to encourage masculine activities, what is the relationship of the mother to the son? As my neighbor’s boy was attached to the mother and distant from his father, and was encouraged by the mother to have feminine characteristics and the boy ended up homosexual, is this an old wives’ tale about the binding closeness to the mothers?

So, in this study there were 70 questions which explored the relationship between mother and son, and they found 27 of those question that were found to be the most sensitive indicators of differences between the homosexual and non-homosexual groups (termed in the book ‘control’ group.


Was Patient mother’s favorite? ------------------------------------66---------------------------50
Did Mother demand to be the prime center of the --------------61---------------------------36
Patient’s attentions
Amount of contact (time spent between mother-----------------56---------------------------27
And child) Great Deal
Did Mother encourage masculine activities and attitudes------17---------------------------47
Did Mother discourage masculine activities and attitudes-----37---------------------------16
Did Mother encourage feminine activities and attitudes ------35---------------------------11
Did Mother interfere with patient heterosexual activity?------58---------------------------35
Was Patient the mother’s confidant?-----------------------------52----------------------------36
Was Mother the patient’s confidante?----------------------------39---------------------------23
Did Mother openly prefer patient to husband?------------------58---------------------------38
Did Mother try to ally with son against husband?--------------62---------------------------40
Does the Patient consider his mother to have been-------------61---------------------------46
Does Patient feel his mother “babied” him?---------------------61---------------------------41
Did Mother’s concern about health or injury cause her--------49---------------------------26
to interfere with or restrict his play, social or other activities?

So, in contrast to the distant father we have an overbearing mother. She is not very happy with her husband and confides to her son. She is the son’s actual confidant. She is more likely to openly prefer the patient over her husband, which tells us of a bad relationship with her husband, in order for that to happen. The mother used the son against the husband. We saw that in Morrison’s book referred to earlier. The study showed that mothers actually interfered with heterosexual activity. Apparently, they were prudish and did not like them having any girlfriends. That definitely impacted their social relationships. Apparently, they were more likely to baby their son, 61 percent in fact. She also was so concerned about his health that she did not want the boy to play sports, which exactly fits the patterns of homosexuals. They do not want to get involved with sports. They also discourage masculine things and are more likely to encourage feminine things. You can see the marked contrast, with some significant differences in the way that the heterosexual patients were treated by their mothers with all the things done by the mothers making them less masculine, which obviously played out in the development of the homosexual psyche.

Bieber gives a few case studies with the mother and her child and how that had an impact on the child who would become homosexual.

Case No. 129

The patient’s mother was extremely possessive and overprotective. She supervised the play of both the patient and his older sister and chose their playmates. Neither was allowed to play rowdy games, and the boy in particular was constantly cautioned against “rough” boys and “rough” play. …

The mother was the most important influence in the patient’s life. Except for the few hours a day he spent at school during childhood, he was with his mother almost constantly. She accompanied him everywhere. When on tour or on a trip, they shared the same hotel room. While his father was away during the war the patient slept in his mother’s room…

Although she permitted some socialization with girls during the patient’s adolescence, he was strictly supervised and in a sexual sense, warned repeatedly against women. Whenever the patient liked a girl, the mother immediately found fault. She encouraged his relationship with a boy with whom the patient had his first homosexual affair.[52]

Case No. 153

The patient described his mother as an extremely nervous woman who was overprotective, seductive, and close-binding-intimate. “She is a bundle of nerves and terror. She considers my father a villain—she has accused him of playing God, being unhelpful, and all sorts of things.” When the patient was four years old his parents quarreled bitterly; he did not know why…

The patient had no playmates during childhood although the family lived in the same house for a long time. Beginning at an early age and continuing through his later life, his mother would criticize him as soon as he “opened up” with others. She arranged to cut him off from any outside relationships. “It was as if she demanded that I give her all my attention. She criticized my friends and did it so nicely that it hurt more.”….

The patient detailed how his mother constantly “babied” him and continued to do so into his adult life. He frequently received gifts from her “on the sly.”[53]

Those were just a couple of examples shown with close binding mothers having a tremendous impact on their sons, and impacted their relationship with the opposite sex. Those raised that way ultimately became homosexuals. But just because you have a close binding mother, that does not make you homosexual. Many have close binding mothers without one becoming homosexual. So, in the comparison study Bieber looked at the heterosexual patients who sought psychological help but also had close binding mothers. What is the difference between those sons of close binding mothers? The first thing though is that only 32 of the heterosexual sons had close binding mothers of their 100 compared to the 73 out of the 106 (69 percent) homosexuals who had close binding mothers.[54]

Again, C mothers are considered Comparison, and when Bieber uses the term ‘comparison’, he is talking of those people who ended up heterosexual, and ‘H’ is for the homosexual. So, what did he note on the differences (Also remember CBI stands for close-binding-intimates)?
Despite the similarities noted between the CBI H- and CBI C-mothers, there were several items which differentiated the groups in respect to psychopathology of mother-son relations: Mother encouraged masculinity (12 per cent of H-mothers, and 38 per cent of C-mothers--.05 level of significance). Two other items approached but did not reach the .05 level of significance: Mother interfered with heterosexual activities in adolescence (68 per cent of H-mothers and 44 per cent of C-mothers); Mother interfered with other activities (62 per cent of H-mothers and 37 per cent of C-mothers). These three items reflect maternal interference with the son’s development of self-assertiveness, independence, self-esteem, and appropriate sexual identification.[55] But what about those mothers who were not close binding? How did those sons become homosexual? There were 9 for example who were not ‘close’ to them, but still dominated him. In the description of the mother, and her impact on the son, are a couple of items to highlight. In case number 139 for example:

The mother of this homosexual patient was an extremely masochistic, hypochondriacal, anxiety-ridden woman, and a compulsive housecleaner who needlessly overworked, and frequently complained of fatigue. She often quarreled with the patient’s father, yet appeared to be rather dependent upon him.

Until the patient was six years old, the mother dressed him as though he were a girl, kept his hair in a “Buster Brown” bob (similar to her own hairstyle during her childhood), and encouraged him to play with dolls. The mother had wanted a girl when the patient was born…

The patient felt that any self-assertion on his part would upset his mother (i.e., make her sick, anger her, and so forth). He had no close friends prior to puberty, and would spend much time in solitary pursuits such as reading, stamp-collecting, and cooking. He would avoid sports, not only because he feared injury, but because he expected to fail in his attempts. [56]

So, this is an example of a mother, who just as my neighbor down my street became homosexual, dressed him up as a girl. He also did not play sports as he was unathletic. He would do things to try to please his mother but would never satisfy her.

Now, what was Bieber’s conclusion after looking at the mothers and fathers and how their rearing impacting on whether one becomes a homosexual? All had some kind of issues in rearing their son. Now, as a positive, as a way to encourage the normal heterosexuality, of an attraction of boy to one of the opposite sex, he notes that though a mother can impact, discourage heterosexuality, and thus impact a boy’s leaning to homosexuality, it still is ultimately up to the Father to be the role model for the boy. In these 106 boys there was not a normal, close relationship of the son to the Father, and most had irregular relationships with their mother. The conclusion by Bieber was the following:

The father played an essential and determining role in the homosexual outcome of his son. In the majority of instances, the father was explicitly detached and hostile. In only a minority of cases was paternal destructiveness effected through indifference or default.

A fatherless child is deprived of the important paternal contribution to normal development; however, only few homosexuals in our sample had been fatherless children. Relative absence of the father, necessitated by occupational demands or unusual exigencies, is not in itself pathogenic. A good father-son relationship and a mother who is an affectionate, admiring wife, provide the son with the basis for a positive image of the father during periods of separation. We have come to the conclusion that a constructive, supportive, warmly related father precludes the possibility of a homosexual son; he acts as a neutralizing, protective agent should the mother make seductive or close-binding attempts. [57]

Also, Bieber dedicates another chapter on the issue of siblings and has more numeric breakdowns on that. But I will not delve much into that, as the impact is a little more remote. However, in many cases, the father has had the capacity to be loving towards a son, and promote heterosexual things such as sports, and show affection for a son, but in most cases the father showed favoritism and care for another son, and a role model for the other son, to the exclusion of the care for the homosexual son. The father of the homosexual son preferred the sibling over his son at nine times the rate. [58] They also have bad relationship with their brothers and have hatred and fear of their father, they had and favored relationship with sisters.

So according to the study, though a mother can tend someone toward having homosexual proclivities because of feminization and so forth, it is still the father who has the most impact on the issue. If he spends time with his child, encourages him to play sports, encourages him to have male friends, then he can help to overcome the feminization that the mother can tend him to. And when we look at reparative work later on, we see that when the masculine ideal is set up for the child, he is much more likely to end up heterosexual.

One other study, which we will look at later in reference to fidelity/lack of fidelity between male homosexuals, also briefly looked at the issue of closeness to mother or father. This is a totally independent of the study 22 years later (1984, as opposed to 1962), with a totally different perspective. The authors see homosexuality as fine and come into it proclaiming that there are no psychological issues because of their homosexuality. David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison, was a homosexual male couple who did a study of 156 male couples, and they wrote a book on the issue of the development of relationships between male homosexuals. As I wanted to get a perspective from someone coming from the homosexual perspective, I got the book, so I am not just reading notes from others quoting from this book. In any case, one thing they mentioned was on the closeness of the 312 male homosexuals, which was of 156 couples and all the ins and outs, the background of their homosexuality, and they note six stages in their relationship. They did not focus so much on their parent’s relationships with parents, but they did still address the issue of who they were close to. Who did they have a close relationship with and where were the parents in this? Now, they didn’t have all the categories/sub categories, but they did also look at the male homosexuals, who they were close to. The homosexual researchers found out of their 312 participants the following:

More than three-quarters of the men remember being closer to their mothers, while less than 5 percent say fathers. The remaining claim they did not feel closer to either parent. The influence of closeness to one parent of the other on the quality of their current relationships is very difficult to assess. It is easier to see, however, that in those men who claim closeness to neither parent the potential for influence on the relationship is more obvious.[59]
Participants report more physical contact with mothers than with fathers. There was a much higher frequency of affectionate touching than physical discipline. During childhood mothers are usually around more than fathers and provide the most affection. We find this to be the case for most men. There seem to be strong feelings expressed by those men who remember punishment by their fathers. Fathers were more responsible for physical punishment than were mothers. [60]

Participants remembers some wrestling and jostling with fathers during preadolescence, but many of them report negative feelings about the behavior. Some men recall that they were manifesting some effeminate characteristics that their fathers would try to eliminate by roughhousing with them…. However, the one positive that he’d say: ‘I’d jump on his back, then he’d roll over and tickle me. I used to love it when he’d rub his bearded chin on my belly. I still like that when Jay does it to me.[61]

McWhirter had a key finding, they were closer to the mother by far. 82% were closer to their mother as a preadolescent and 76% as an adolescent as opposed to only 4 and 5 % were closer to their father (the rest were neither).[62] This fits the pattern identified by Bieber, homosexuals were close to their mothers, and detached from their fathers.

Gender Identity Issues

The most prominent issue that lies at the root of the issue, is the inability to grasp male issues. In many cases, they are unathletic, and do not play the rough and tumble type of sports, baseball, basketball, football, etc. Many don’t participate in sports, and will tend towards more feminine things. They also will not attach themselves to male friends, at an early age will make friends with females and not have close relationships, with males.

In males, a weak masculine identity and loneliness resulting from a lack of male peer acceptance due to an inability to play team sports requiring eye-hand coordination, such as baseball, soccer, and basketball.

A few of the examples that touch on both things are shown in the books by those who had turned to homosexuality. For example, David Morrison wrote in his biography:

In addition to my sense of failure at home, I also experienced early social and athletic setbacks. My father, who inherited his family’s stature (at 5’9” on tiptoe I am a tall Morrison), didn’t have a particularly strong sports career in school and tended not to push sports at home. I can’t recall one time when my father ever tossed a ball with me. Sports weren’t his thing, and I didn’t make them my thing either.

This inaugurated my ongoing battle with weight and real hatred for my body, especially as I perceived it in the eyes of my peers. To her credit my mother saw the danger at hand and tried to help remedy it. But the constant battle over weight and diet, control versus the consolation food provided, tended to be merely one more place for me to fail.[63]

Another person, Joseph Sciambra, who became homosexual, and had been heavily involved in pornography from a young age. He would later become a homosexual porn star. Eventually he would come to the Catholic Faith, and turn away from homosexuality. When he came to the faith, he was influenced by men such as Father John Harvey, who he calls a Saint. However, he recounts his body image from the beginning:
As a pre-teen, I was a thin, gangly, and artistic-leaning child. Porn tended to keep me constantly looking internally, as fantasy became my private playground. When the other boys were busily preoccupied with flag football, I often sat on the bench drawing pictures or just aimlessly doodling. For this reason, I became good friends with a portly, but good-natured class-mate that was repeatedly left-out of the school-yard athletics. He was often protective when sometimes, the other boys made fun of me. The called me names: such as “gay” or “fag.” I had no idea what the words meant, I guessed it had something to do with being a “sissy. I became embarrassed. I felt ashamed of myself, but I did not know why. I tried to act as if nothing affected me. In fact, I was wounded.…From then on, I tended to stay quiet and inconspicuous. I wanted to be left alone…. I pulled further inside. I remained distant from men, I couldn’t easily connect with other males, or my own developing masculine identity.[64]
Another example is Falzarano, who I’ve referred to earlier. He also did not have close relationships with other males, was not into sports, and had a bad view about his body, and masculiness, as he relates:
As the boys were getting older my sports deficit became more apparent. After being one of the boys that was constantly humiliated because he was chosen as the last person on the baseball team, I started to give-up in side and withdraw.

I also have come to realize that I began to be drawn to other boys who had either physically or psychologically absent fathers. Most of the male peer group that I was friendly was also needy for male attention. In psychological terms, was also needy for male attention. In psychological terms, they were experiencing same sex deficits. By the time I was 12, I had even engaged in minor unhealthy sexual exploration with some of these boys.

The feminine in me was overly developed. I remember an incident in the sixth grade when I expressed to my mom a desire to dress up as a girl for Halloween. I not only received encouragement from her and her girlfriends, they helped apply make-up and my mother even let me wear her mink-stole as part of my costume.[65]

As Falzarano proceeded, he never got going with sports, or rough and tumble play, or have the male camaraderie often found with male youth. As he did not develop closeness or any male bonding, he started developing attractions for men sexually.

Going back to Bieber’s analysis we saw that the Fathers of the homosexuals spent very little time with their sons who became homosexual. (80 percent spent very little time with their son). So how it impacts their athletic ability is spelled out where Bieber points to an example where an overbearing mother was involved. Bieber goes to case number 153:

The father spent most of his time at his clubs. When he saw his son, he was mildly affectionate and sometimes confided in him. However, when the mother sent the boy to a girls’ private day school, the father did nothing to protect the patient against this decision. The boy had no male playmates.

When the patient was about five years old, his father gave him a glove and a bat. The equipment was of excellent quality and had probably been chosen with care. When the gift was handed to the child, the father said, “now you can play baseball.” But he knew no other boys with whom he could play. When the patient was twelve years old, his father brought him a birthday gift of an elaborate set of tools encased in a handsome chest, costing well over two hundred dollars. Once again, the father made no effort at mutual participation with his son. He neither showed the patient how to use the tools nor did he manifest any further interest. The patient resented his father’s casual attitude and began to hate the tool outfit. He never used it. [66]

So, doing athletic things, and having male friends can give a masculine mindset. That lack of a masculine mindset can have some consequences that leads to a feminization of a person, which ultimately can lead to homosexual feelings and tendencies as shown in the above experiences. These tendencies obviously have some real consequences that impact the people, and their sexual proclivities.

Homosexual Psychological and Physical Health Issues

Now in this section I want to go over both physical, and psychological issues that arise for those who enter the homosexually active lifestyle. In this section I will give references whenever possible, but a lot of credit for this will go to the book ‘The Health Hazards of Homosexuality: What the Medical and Psychological Research Reveals’. This book is thorough in showing many of the problems that Homosexuals have, psychologically, and physically. But the main thing is that is so good about the book, is that it is not just someone giving their opinion. It documents from many sources, many of these sources are found online. I will attribute to Mass Resistance, the page number on the book, when I can find documentation confirming it. Many of the citations are government based, like the Centers for Disease Control, etc. There is way more found in this book, that goes over a lot more than I give here. But it is thorough. Now, when I can get a link to location I will provide the link that is cited. I am only giving a few references, there is much more documentation than I am giving here, in the book referenced.


First thing I’ll look at is suicide attempts. In the US, when suicide is successful, they do not identify by homosexual or heterosexual, so there is no tally on that. However, there are polls that look at whether one has attempted suicide by their orientation, heterosexual or homosexual. So, let us look at a few studies.
Here is a study in the Netherlands in 2006:

De Graaf, Sandfort, and Ten Have (2006) conducted a random, nationally representative household survey of the general population in the Netherlands, which has a tolerant social climate toward homosexuality (Sandfort et al., 2001). The participation rate was 69.7 percent and the sample consisted of 125 men and women reporting homosexual behavior and 5,873 men and women reporting only heterosexual behavior. De Graaf et al. reported the following at risk odds ratios (OR):
Lifetime death wishes: 26.8 percent of homosexual men showed a lifetime risk of experiencing death wishes vs. 5.8 percent of heterosexual men.

Lifetime suicide contemplation: 40.2 percent of homosexual men showed a lifetime risk for contemplating suicide vs. 7.8 percent of heterosexual men.

Lifetime deliberate self-harm: 14.6 percent of homosexual men showed a lifetime risk for deliberate self-harm vs. 2.0 percent of heterosexual men.

Lifetime suicide contemplation: 23.3 percent of homosexual women showed a lifetime risk for contemplating suicide vs. 2.3 percent of heterosexual women.[67]

The Netherlands legalized same-sex marriage well before the US did. They are even more sensitive for homosexual rights, at least historically, compared to the US. The numbers aren’t even close. Suicide contemplation is 40.2 percent versus 7.8 percent. About five times the rate of suicide contemplation. Again, lifetime death wishes, five times the amount, deliberately self-harm, 7 times the amount, 23 percent as opposed to 2 percent, so that is 10 times the amount of lifetime suicide contemplation 10 times the amount of that for Lesbians as opposed to heterosexual women.

Now NIH did a study in the US. The conclusion from the homosexual confirming NIH is the following:

LGB people are at higher risk of mental disorder, suicidal ideation, substance misuse, and deliberate self-harm than heterosexual people
Suicide and other issues are at a higher rate of suicide ideation, and a bunch of other negative things in the US.

Dr. Delaney Skerrett led a team of researchers from the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention (AISRAP) in studying suicides in Queensland. He found that a leading cause of suicide among “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex” (LGBTI) people is stress from their romantic partners:

We tend to assume that the psychological distress LGBTI people are often going through is due to family rejection. But it seems that’s not so much the case. The conflict seems to be largely related to relationship problems, with partners,” Dr. Skerrett said.

In fact, he said, “The numbers are telling us there’s a general acceptance at the family level,” something he said is “great” and “really heartening!”

Instead, the study, which was published on April 2 in Asia Pacific Psychiatry, found that “LGBT individuals experienced relationship problems more often” than heterosexuals, “with relationship conflict also being more frequent than in non‐LGBT cases.”[68]

So we see that suicide is higher because of broken relationships.

We will see suicide in Sweden is high. The reason that many have given for the higher suicide rate is because of prejudice towards homosexuals. Supposedly, bad treatment of them can lead to suicide, and it is basically the people who don’t accept homosexual sex, that leads to suicide. Before I look at this I just want to highlight how much Sweden is another ‘gay friendly’ place. Before I point to the statistics, I want to look how ‘friendly’ Sweden society is, of accepting homosexual sex:

Civil unions granting gays and lesbians the same legal status as married couples have been allowed under Swedish law since 1995.

Sweden, already a pioneer in giving same-sex couples the right to adopt children, would become one of the first countries in the world to allow gays to marry in a major Church. The Lutheran Church, which was the state Church until 2000, has offered gays a religious blessing of their union since January 2007.[69]

In Sweden it gets to the point that the National Church accepts the integrity of a homosexual ‘marriage.’ We are told it is homophobia that causes problems, not the condition itself. But if society has long accepted it as more normal, then surely suicide rates should be comparable. The study in Sweden says the following:
The risk of suicide was higher among same-sex married individuals as compared to different-sex married individuals (IRR 2.7, 95 % CI 1.5-4.8), after adjustment for time at risk and socioeconomic confounding. Sex-stratified analyses showed a tentatively elevated risk for same-sex married women (IRR 2.5, 95 % CI 0.8-7.7) as compared to different-sex married women. Among same-sex married men the suicide risk was nearly three-fold greater as compared to different-sex married (IRR 2.895 % CI 1.5-5.5). This holds true also after adjustment for HIV status. Even in a country with a comparatively tolerant climate regarding homosexuality such as Sweden, same-sex married individuals evidence a higher risk for suicide than other married individuals.[70]
We see that those who don’t have HIV status, when even now you can treat HIV with better drugs, they still commit suicide at a much higher rate. For ‘married’ same-sex women, it is elevated, while for same-sex married men, they commit the rate at three times the rate.

Next, we have the US NIH looking at this issue overall:

US and international studies consistently conclude that LGBT youth report elevated rates of emotional distress, symptoms related to mood and anxiety disorders, self-harm, suicidal ideation, and suicidal behavior when compared to heterosexual youth (Eskin et al. 2005, Fergusson et al. 2005, Fleming et al. 2007, Marshal et al. 2011), and that compromised mental health is a fundamental predictor of a host of behavioral health disparities evident among LGBT youth (e.g., substance use, abuse, and dependence; Marshal et al. 2008). In a recent meta-analysis, Marshal et al. (2011) reported that sexual minority youth were almost three times as likely to report suicidality; these investigators also noted a statistically moderate difference in depressive symptoms compared to heterosexual youth.[71]
So, we see that the homosexual youth in the US were also three times the suicide risk.
This is historical. Now in a book written by The Institute for Sex Research, founded by Alfred Kinsey as written by Alan Bell, and Martin Weinberg, 1978, suicide attempts by homosexuals was a regular occurrence. This was an intensive study with a lot of participants. White homosexual men attempted at least once to commit suicide at the 18 percent rate, and another 19 percent seriously considered it but did not attempt it. 20 percent of the Black Males attempted once. 25 percent of White Lesbians attempted at least once and 16 percent seriously considered it, while Black Lesbians attempted 17 percent of the time and 8 percent seriously considered it. Compare that to the heterosexuals in the study, only 3 percent of both black and white heterosexual males attempted to commit suicide, and only 10 percent of whites considered it and 0 percent of the blacks considered it. Now the White Lesbians 25 percent actually attempted while 16 percent considered it while Black Lesbians 16 percent attempted and only 3 percent considered it. Whereas white heterosexuals 16 percent of whites considered it, only 10 percent actually tried it, while blacks 16 percent attempted while only 3 percent considered it.[72]

Many of the suicide attempts that were seriously considered were dramatically higher with both male and female homosexual:

Among those who had ever seriously considered suicide, many of the homosexual respondents did not directly relate their feelings of desperation to their being homosexual (Table 21.13). Some however said they reached this state as a result of difficulties with their lovers or because of their inability to establish a meaningful sociosexual relationship.[73]
Again, a lot of suicide attempts impacted by bad relationships, most likely breakups, 40 years ago, the same 40 years later.

Here is another massive amalgamation of studies:

RESULTS: Of 13706 papers identified, 476 were initially selected and 28 (25 studies) met inclusion criteria. Only one study met all our four quality criteria and seven met three of these criteria. Data was extracted on 214,344 heterosexual and 11,971 non-heterosexual people.
Meta-analyses revealed a twofold excess in suicide attempts in lesbian, gay and bisexual people [pooled risk ratio for lifetime risk 2.47 (CI 1.87, 3.28)]. The risk for depression and anxiety disorders (over a period of 12 months or a lifetime) on meta-analyses were at least 1.5 times higher in lesbian, gay and bisexual people (RR range 1.54-2.58) and alcohol and other substance dependence over 12 months was also 1.5 times higher (RR range 1.51-4.00). Results were similar in both sexes but meta analyses revealed that lesbian and bisexual women were particularly at risk of substance dependence (alcohol 12 months: RR 4.00, CI 2.85, 5.61; drug dependence: RR 3.50, CI 1.87, 6.53; any substance use disorder RR 3.42, CI 1.97-5.92), while lifetime prevalence of suicide attempt was especially high in gay and bisexual men (RR 4.28, CI 2.32, 7.88).


LGB people are at higher risk of mental disorder, suicidal ideation, substance misuse, and deliberate self-harm than heterosexual people.[74]

This study goes on to mental disorder, suicidal ideation, etc. As noted, lifetime prevalence high in suicide attempts are called ‘especially high.’
We then compared non-heterosexual and heterosexual people on prevalence of psychiatric disorder and use of health services, while adjusting for the key sociodemographic variables gender, age, ethnicity and holding an educational qualification. Only those variables that were significant were retained in each of the final models. For the group that was non-heterosexual in terms of sexual orientation, the adjusted odds ratios (OR) for neurotic disorder overall (OR = 1.47), depressive episode (OR = 1.80), obsessive–compulsive disorder (OR = 2.24), phobic disorder (OR = 1.91), probable psychosis (OR = 3.75), drug dependence (OR = 1.70), alcohol dependence (OR = 2.05), as well as lifetime suicidal thoughts (OR = 1.85), suicide attempts (OR = 2.21) and self-harm (OR = 2.82) were all elevated, whereas that for happiness (OR = 0.67) was reduced.[75]
So, what was elevated included besides all the psychological issues, was elevated suicide attempts. Happiness was reduced. This was a study involving England, matching findings in other countries. Drug dependence, suicide attempts, self-harm, multiple disorders are thus higher within the homosexual community. So as evidenced elsewhere, the same problems for American homosexuals exist for English homosexuals as well. Now they did say it was most likely because of perceived discrimination, but did not produce evidence that specifically tied in prejudice to those negative actions. If a person is well balanced, someone calling me a negative thing, does not make me get drunk. Even if I was spoken negatively about, that does not make me drink or take drugs in excess, unless the psychological well-being is not up to par.

Now, the most usual reason given for the negative repercussion is because of prejudice. Of course, nowadays, in the United States, the schools are teaching that homosexuality is normal, to be a Christian who believes that homosexuality is wrong, is termed ‘bigotry.’ Christianity is less acceptable than homosexuality in many quarters. Homosexual awareness, and the comparison to civil rights to Blacks, Hispanics, is often used. If we were a country that puts homosexuality on the same level as heterosexuality in all its fashion, what would be the result for the mental well-being of homosexuals? After all, if prejudice is outlawed, there should be no differences between the homosexual and heterosexual community. However, we have just seen that in countries that have accepted Homosexuality both legally and in all facets, we have seen suicide attempts higher. Look at the Netherlands which legalized homosexual marriage in 2003, well before the US did:

Of the participants, 63.9% and 12.8% reported suicidal ideation and suicide attempts, respectively (no significant gender differences; Table 1). These percentages are much higher than those found in a representative study among 18- to 24-year-old individuals in the Dutch population, which showed that 10.3% had ever “felt so down that they had thought about killing themselves,” and 2.2% had attempted suicide.

Despite the relatively positive attitude toward gay and lesbian people in the Netherlands, this study suggests that suicidality among Dutch LGB youths is significantly higher than among heterosexual youths. This is in line with the findings of studies both among LGB youths in other countries and among Dutch LGB.[76]

Earlier in this study it says that they were victimized by the general population and homophobia, and parents and others not accepting them. It is like people are pained to look for victimization, though in the schools they are mandated to teach homosexuality is ok in the Netherlands. Despite the legitimization of homosexual activity, and mocking of Christianity, they still commit, and attempt to commit suicide. So that in and of itself is a sign of unresolved psychological issues, whether the advocates for homosexual rights want to admit it or not.

Eating Disorders

Another sign of a psychological issue for homosexuals is the rate of eating disorders experienced by them. If the homosexual condition is as normal as the heterosexual condition, eating disorders should be about the same. No homophobic heterosexual can cause homosexuals to eat food in either the right or wrong way. The Book I have referred to in this section, ‘Health Hazards of Homosexuality’ again documents some quotations that show the problem.

It has been known for some time that eating disorders are more common in gay men than in heterosexual men. In the United States, approximately 3% of men identify as being gay or bisexual; however, studies show that up to 42% of men who present with eating disorders identify as being gay or bisexual.[77]
What are the reasons for that? Well, apparently from the same page, there is some speculation from the web site covering both single and ‘paired’ homosexual men with different eating issues:

Younger gay men (and lesbians who identify as feminine) are more susceptible to these socio-cultural pressures than older gay men, which may be due to less exposure to the media or to the fact that older gay men are more likely to be in a stable relationship. Being in a relationship has been shown to be a protective factor against restrictive disordered eating in gay men. When looking for a partner, men, regardless of sexual orientation, seek out attractiveness and thinness. Single gay men, therefore, feel pressure to be thin. Heterosexual men do not experience this pressure because women place less emphasis on physical features when looking for a mate and do not perceive thinness as the aesthetic ideal. Interestingly, gay men also place a higher emphasis on physical attractiveness than heterosexual men do when they evaluate their own characteristics.

Although restrictive disordered eating is common in single gay men, it turns out that bulimic symptoms are actually more frequent in gay men who are in a relationship. It is postulated that these bulimic symptoms arise not so much because of a pressure to be thin as because of psycho-social difficulties within relationships.[78]

Mass Resistance again points to another web site which documents an issue with eating issues with homosexuals:

According to the International Journal of Eating Disorders, there is a three times greater likelihood for gay men to have a clinical eating disorder than for heterosexuals. The study says 15 percent of homosexual or bisexual males in the U.S. have struggled with such eating habit disorders as bulimia, binge eating, and anorexia. Of men overall, who have an eating disorder, 42 percent of them are homosexual or bisexual.

Linda Santangelo, a psychologist who runs an eating disorder program, tells the UT San Diego that the likelihood of homosexual men binge eating is seven times more than heterosexual men. Furthermore, in regards to purging, gay men have 12 times more likelihood than heterosexual men. Santangelo said the reason why eating disorders are such an epidemic among homosexual men is because it is a coping method for discrimination, violence, or rejection in response to their sexuality. They may also be stressed about coming out. '

Benjamin O’Keefe, an LGBT rights activist and actor, tells Salon that a lowly one in 10 individuals will seek treatment for their illness, and thus, compared to other mental diseases, eating disorders have the highest mortality rate.[79]

Evidence also shows Lesbians are more likely to be overweight, obese, than heterosexual women as documented:
Adjusted multinomial logistic regression analyses showed lesbians have more than twice the odds of overweight (odds ratio [OR]=2.69; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.40, 5.18) and obesity (OR=2.47; 95% CI=1.19, 5.09) as heterosexual women. Bisexuals and women who reported their sexual orientation as “something else” (besides heterosexual, lesbian, or bisexual) showed no such increase in the odds of overweight and obesity. Conclusions. Lesbian women have a higher prevalence of overweight and obesity than all other female sexual orientation groups. This finding suggests that lesbians are at greater risk for morbidity and mortality linked to overweight and obesity. This finding also highlights the need for interventions within this population.[80]
In a study by NIH:
To estimate and compare the prevalence of overweight and obesity among self-identified lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual college age women.

A secondary analysis of the Spring 2006 National College Health Assessment was conducted with 31,500 female college students (aged 18 to 25 years) to compare body mass index (calculated from self-reported height and weight) among lesbian, bisexual and heterosexual college women.

Compared to heterosexuals, female college students, lesbians and bisexual women were both significantly more likely to be overweight or obese. Lesbians were also less likely to be underweight compared to heterosexual college women.

Self-identified lesbian and bisexual college women were more likely to be overweight or obese than their heterosexual counterparts. Health care professionals and educators should target these high-risk populations for obesity prevention programs. This study highlights the need for additional research examining the potential risk factors for overweight and obesity among young sexual minority women.

Now, if there is no ‘psychological’ issue, then surely there should be no problems in eating or purging or obesity. However, these results show there is something. Someone who is not respectful of homosexuals is not going to cause male homosexuals to purge their food, causing them to have eating disorders, and cause lesbians to become obese.

Homosexual Partner Abuse

In many of these issues, it is alleged that it is because of heterosexual hate, homosexuals are victims. Nowadays there is much less anti-homosexual antagonism than there has been in the past. However, whatever the issue, heterosexuals can not make a homosexual attack his lover, partner. A heterosexual can not make a homosexual rape his partner, nor can a heterosexual make a homosexual abuse, or kill his lover. However, we will see in this section, homosexuals will be more likely to do these things. Homosexuals do in fact commit a higher rate of abuse of their homosexual lovers, than a heterosexual husband will abuse his wife. In fact, homosexuals also commit a higher rate of abuse of than heterosexual partners who are single.

A UCLA study which included documentation of partner violence, took a panoramic look at all domestic violence in California:

Nearly 4 million adults in California reported being a victim of physical or sexual violence at the hands of a spouse, companion or other intimate partner, according to a new policy brief from the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research.

Of those victims, more than 1 million reported being forced to have sex by an intimate partner, the study found.

CHIS is one of few large public health surveillance tools that includes questions about sexual orientation, permitting separate estimates for IPV (Intimate Partner Violence) by sexual orientation—and the findings are alarming. Bisexual (40.6%), gay, lesbian or homosexual adults (27.9%) are almost twice as likely to experience IPV as heterosexual adults (16.7%; Exhibit 6). The high rates of IPV among sexual minorities that are identified by CHIS 2007 data warrant further attention and exploration so that preventative measures may be undertaken.[82]

Another key survey finds:
The 2010 National Intimate Partner Violence and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) found that 44% of lesbian women, 61% of bisexual women, 26% of gay men, and 37% of bisexual men experience IPV at some point in their lives.02 Dank, Lachman, Zweigm and Yahner (2013) found that LGBT youth are more likely to experience all forms of relationship violence compared to heterosexual or cisgender youth. (cisgender is a new term apparently saying that one identifies themselves as the person as male or female as shown as on their birth certificate).[83]
Antiviolence project in 2014, reported the 2013 results. In this they did a report, that covered reported cases only:
Gay identified survivors remained the majority of those reporting to NCAVP member programs. In 2013 42.8% of total survivors identified as gay, similar to 2012 when 41.7% of those reporting identified as gay. Lesbian survivors accounted for 23.8% of total reports to NCAVP members, remaining consistent with 2102 (24.5%). Bisexual survivors accounted for 11.6% of total reports, heterosexual survivors20 accounted for 15.9% of total reports, and 18.6% of survivors did not disclose their sexual orientation. Questioning (1.3 %), queer (3.4%), and self-identified (1.7%) survivors comprised less than 7% of the total reports. Bisexual survivors increased from 2012 (9.8%) to 2013 (11.6%), while self-identified survivors decreased slightly from 2012 (2.0%) to 2013 (1.7%). Heterosexual survivors decreased from 16.7% in 2012 to 15.9% in 2013. It must be noted here that many transgender survivors may also identify as heterosexual.[84]
Gays, approximately 3% of the population, but 42.8% of survivors are of partners who are abused by their same-sex partner!!! Lesbians account for 24%. That is astounding.
The NISVS found that 44% of lesbian women, 61% of bisexual women, and 35% of heterosexual women have experienced physical violence, stalking, or rape as a result of IPV.[85]
Gay men were more likely to experience threats, intimidation and harassment as a result of IPV. Gay men were 1.7 times more likely to experience threats and intimidation and 1.5 times more likely to experience harassment within IPV relationships when compared with other survivors. Lesbian survivors were more likely to experience physical violence within IPV, more likely to experience IPV at the workplace, and more likely to experience violence in shelters due to IPV. Lesbian survivors were 1.5 times more likely to experience physical violence within IPV relationships. In addition, lesbian survivors were 2.4 times more likely to experience IPV incidents at the workplace. Lesbian survivors were also 4.9 times more likely to experience violence in shelters.[86]
Now, in this paper, they are only going by victims reported. It has been theorized that because some think homosexuals because of their situation, are hesitant to report battering. Actual battery, and sexual assault can possibly be much worse than what is reported here. That is so reported in the Anti-Violence report:
Survivors who are not ready, or who do not want to exit their relationships, may be protective of their abusive partner and may not report weapons to avoid potential legal action against their partners. This is particularly likely if that partner is also LGBTQ or HIV-affected, and may be subjected to bias, discrimination, and violence within the criminal legal system.[87]
That was dealing with reported victims. The next study did a poll over the phone in general in 4 cities, San Francisco, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. This study spoke with 2881 homosexuals between 1996 and 1998:
The prevalence of battering within the context of intimate partner relationships was very high among this probability-based sample of urban MSM. Approximately 2 of 5 MSM (39%) reported experiencing at least 1 type of battering by a partner during the previous 5 years, with almost 1 of 5 (18%) experiencing multiple forms of battering (34% reported psychological/symbolic violence, 22% physical violence, and 5% sexual violence). In a nationally representative sample of heterosexual men (defined in the study as men who reported cohabitation with women), 7.7% reported lifetime physical or sexual partner violence, compared with 23% (95% CI=21.5%, 25.4%) of our urban MSM who reported such battering during the previous 5 years.

Our estimates are substantially higher than those reported for heterosexual men and higher than or comparable to those reported for heterosexual women. This study demonstrates that intimate partner abuse among urban MSM is a very serious public health problem. It sheds light on a subject that has long been taboo both within and outside this MSM community—that is, men are also victims of battering and not solely perpetrators.[88]

Battering is much more prevalent among those who have same-sex partners. It is much safer for heterosexual men and women.

The introduction of a piece on homosexual abuse in Canada says a lot:

We examined patterns of same sex partner abuse in a random sample of 284 gay and bisexual men. Respondents reported on perpetration and receipt of physical, psychological, and sexual abuse over multiple time frames, as well as injuries resulting from abuse. Almost all respondents reported psychological abuse, more than one-third reported physical abuse, and 10% reported having engaged in unwanted sexual activity because of partner force or threats of force.[89]
So, in Canada, almost all reported psychological abuse. More than one third reported physical abuse.
Shouting or yelling and ignoring or shutting out one’s partner were the most commonly reported acts. Almost all men (94%) reported having been the recipient of at least one psychologically abusive act and having been psychologically abusive to a male partner ever in the past (96%).[90]
In fact, almost all reported themselves as being abusive, not just being on the receiving end of abuse.
Although research on partner abuse has traditionally focused on acts of partner violence such as hitting, it is also important to consider the abusive context in which violence takes place. When partner violence occurs, it is most often preceded and accompanied by psychological or verbal abuse such as demeaning and controlling behaviors (O’Leary, 1999). Moreover, psychological abuse may be as harmful for individuals and as destructive for relationships as is physical violence (O’Leary, 1999). As with physical abuse, obtained rates of same-sex psychological abuse vary considerably and differences across studies make comparisons difficult.[91]

Lesbian Partner Abuse

The book, Mass Resistance notes a CDC analysis of 2010 statistics. The next four citations come from this CDC analysis:

• Four in 10 lesbian women (43.8%), 6 in 10 bisexual women (61.1%), and 1 in 3 heterosexual women (35.0%) reported experiencing rape, physical violence, and/or stalking within the context of an intimate partner relationship at least once.[92]

• Nearly 1 in 3 lesbian women (29.4%), 1 in 2 bisexual women (49.3%), and 1 in 4 heterosexual women (23.6%) has experienced at least one form of severe physical violence by an intimate partner in her lifetime.[93]

• Most bisexual and heterosexual women (89.5% and 98.7%, respectively) reported having only male perpetrators of intimate partner violence. Two-thirds of lesbian women (67.4%) reported having only female perpetrators of intimate partner violence.[94]

• More than 6 in 10 lesbian women (63.0%), 7 in 10 bisexual women (76.2%), and nearly one-half of heterosexual women (47.5%) experienced psychological aggression by an intimate partner at some point in their lives (Table 8). The differences in prevalence between heterosexual and both bisexual women and lesbian women were statistically significant.[95]

So we see that Lesbians have a higher rate of physical violence than Heterosexual women. The image that we have of men heterosexual abuse of women being much worse, and thinking that Lesbians at least would be safer with their partners, is belied by the facts.

The study here, reflected findings from a period just a little bit earlier from the US Department of Justice:

The survey found that same-sex cohabitants reported significantly more intimate partner violence than did opposite-sex cohabitants. Among women, 39.2 percent of the same-sex cohabitants and 21.7 percent of the opposite sex cohabitants reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a marital/cohabiting partner at some time in their lifetime. Among men, the comparable figures are 23.1 percent and 7.4 percent (exhibit 8).[96]
So, we see that it was worse than for opposite-sex cohabitants. 39% of lesbians getting abused is much worse than 22 percent, in this Department of Justice study.

Next, we look at a review of existing research done by the Williams Institute of the University of California, which looked at Intimate Partner Violence and Sexual Abuse among LGBT People that came out in November, 2015:

Studies that used purposive sampling of lesbians found a wider range of lifetime IPV prevalence than found in studies that used representative sampling. Some studies that used purposive sampling found prevalence to be as high as or higher than in the general population. For example, Balsam et al (2005), which used a scale for the level of physical assault and injuries participants had experienced (CTS2), found that 47.5% of lesbians had experienced IPV. Other studies found lower prevalence, such as Carvalho et al (2011) which found that 25.0% of lesbians had experienced IPV in their lifetimes, asking survey participants whether they had “ever been a victim of domestic violence” and, if so, whether this violence was “same-sex violence,” “opposite-sex violence,” or “both.” P. 8.

Walters et al (2013) also estimated that 49.3% of bisexual women compared to 29.4% of lesbians and 24.3% of women in the general population had ever experienced severe physical violence by an intimate partner. Bisexual women were, therefore, more than twice as likely to have experienced severe physical violence by an intimate partner than women in the general population.[97]

So, in this study we see that lesbians experience a large amount of physical violence by their same sex partner. Generally, one will have a vision since men account for a lot of the violence in opposite-sex violence, but lesbians will account for a surprising amount of violence in same-sex relationships.

Alcohol, Substance Abuse

Again, citations in this section has its source in the book ‘The Health Hazards of Homosexuality’, this time chapter six, on MSM lifestyle, this part is on pages 139-149, but I only quote where there is a link to a web site where this can be documented. This section has a bunch of citations, I will highlight just a couple of the references. For fuller documentation, I highly recommend the book. So, If homosexuals are psychologically fit, with psychological problems not having to do with their sexuality, there should be no difference in alcohol and drug use between them and heterosexual. Or at the least, if there is anything, the differences should be minor. But is that the case? Apparently not. Smoking is much more prevalent in the MSM but I will not highlight that, the book shows the statistics on that. Here I will focus on drugs and alcohol. When you take drugs or a lot of alcohol, you know that in some sense you are turning away from reality. Of course, troubled heterosexuals do this as well.

Mass Resistance refers to a link which shows among youth homosexuals substance abuse is 2.89 times higher than heterosexuals. Within that study that I was pointed to, I found the following, this is a NIH study:

Several decades of research have shown that there are high rates of substance use and substance use disorders in lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) adults, and recent evidence suggests that these higher rates may have their origins in adolescence. For example, some large, well-designed studies with representative samples show high rates of substance use in LGB youth compared to heterosexual youth…

LGB adolescents reported higher rates of substance use compared to heterosexual youth (overall odds ratio = 2.89, Cohen's d = 0.59). Effect sizes varied by gender, bisexuality status, sexual orientation definition and recruitment source. None of the studies tested mediation and only one tested moderation. One employed a matched comparison group design, one used a longitudinal design, and very few controlled for possible confounding variables.

Conclusions Results of this meta-analysis indicate that LGB youth report significantly higher rates of substance use compared with heterosexual youth, and a meaningful proportion of the effects could be characterized as large, to very large, depending on the subgroup and the type of drug that was used. For example, the average Cohen's d for the relationship between sexual orientation and life-time cigarette use, injection drug use and a composite drug use variables were all greater than 0.80. Compared to suggested definitions of small (0.20), medium (0.50) and large (0.80) [34], effects of this magnitude are noteworthy. When the overall effect sizes were converted to odds ratios, the odds of substance use for LGB youth were 190% higher than for heterosexual youth and substantially higher within some subpopulations of LGB youth (e.g. 340% higher for bisexual youth, 400% higher for females).[98]

So apparently the odds of using are two times, whereas actual use of substance use is almost three times, among LGB.

Mass Resistance similarly points to the CDC study in 2013. I have the study linked:

Studies have shown that, when compared with the general population, gay and bisexual men, lesbian, and transgender individuals are more likely to:

• Use alcohol and drugs,
• Have higher rates of substance abuse,
• Not withhold from alcohol and drug use, and
• Continue heavy drinking into later life.

Alcohol and drug use among some gay and bisexual men can be a reaction to homophobia, discrimination, or violence they experienced due to their sexual orientation and can contribute to other mental health and physical problems. It can disrupt relationships, employment, and threaten financial stability.

For some gay and bisexual men, alcohol and illegal drug use, especially methamphetamines (meth), amyl nitrates (poppers), and drugs used to treat erectile dysfunction (when a man has a hard time keeping an erection during sex), also contribute to a higher chance of getting HIV and other STDs. Persons using drugs or alcohol may also raise their chances of getting HIV or giving it to others by getting involved in more risky sexual practices and behaviors or through sharing needles or other injection equipment.[99]

A liberal author from a liberal web site acknowledges the issues homosexuals have:
Gay and transgender people smoke tobacco up to 200 percent more than their heterosexual and nontransgender peers. Twenty-five percent of gay and transgender people abuse alcohol, compared to 5 to 10 percent of the general population. Men who have sex with men are 3.5 times more likely to use marijuana than men who do not have sex with men. These men also are 12.2 times more likely to use amphetamines than men who do not have sex with men. They are also 9.5 times more likely to use heroin than men who do not have sex with men.[100]
25% to 5% abuse alcohol. 3.5 times the rate of marijuana. 9.5 times the rate of heroin usage. Huge differences. Then Mr. Hunt goes on to describe it is because of discrimination against homosexuals. If there is discrimination against somebody, that does not give anybody the excuse to inject themselves with heroin. Christian bakers forced to violate their conscience by providing cakes in same-sex weddings, I have not heard of them turning to heroin. It is a weak rationalization. There is no rationalization for someone turning to drugs. In employment nowadays, many are taught, in secular jobs, to not treat homosexuals differently.

A study in England and Wales found the following:

Whether it is a coping mechanism in the face of homophobia or just hectic partying is not clear, but new figures suggest that gay people are seven times more likely to take illegal drugs than the general population, with one in five of those surveyed showing signs of dependency on drugs or alcohol. More than a third of gay, lesbian and bisexual people took at least one illegal drug in the last month, according to the largest study of its kind. Whether drug use is a psychological crutch, a way of integrating into the "scene" or perhaps both, that figure compares to 5 per cent of the wider population who admitted using a drug in the last month in the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW).

Campaigners yesterday described the findings as a "wake-up call", while specialists warned that gay people risk being "excluded" from traditional drug treatment services. The report, conducted by the Lesbian and Gay Foundation (LGF) and the University of Central Lancashire, who sampled more than 4,000 people over two years, warns that there is "significant problematic substance use among lesbian, gay and bisexual people" and a risk of "substantial hidden harm".

The most widely used substances among those surveyed were party drugs such as cannabis and poppers, followed by powder cocaine, ecstasy, ketamine and amphetamines. They were 10 times more likely to have used cocaine in the last month than the wider population, and 13 times more likely to have used ketamine. Heroin use was comparable among both populations, but the use of crack cocaine was again higher among the gay community.[101]

Just in the past month glb was 10 more likely to use cocaine!! Seven times more likely to use drugs than the general population. A homophobe can not make one put drugs into themselves. No psychological problems?

The next study based in the US:

ATLANTA -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta.

A population-based telephone survey of nearly 3,000 gay men living in urban areas across the United States showed that in the prior 6 months, 90% of respondents had used alcohol, 50% had smoked marijuana, nearly 20% had used cocaine, 10% had used crack cocaine, and 10% had used methamphetamine. About 1% of respondents were current intravenous drug users.[102]

Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men, along with depresstion.

Then Dale O’Leary in this NIH study notates:

The sexual excesses of the gay community, including the weekend-long circuit parties are only possible through the use of various drugs (Wainberg, Kolodny, and Drescher 2006). Besides the more traditional substances—alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine—gay men used a number of substances which are taken singly or in combination to enhance the Circuit party, club, or sexual experience.

Ecstasy or MDMA (crystal meth) acts as a stimulant and a hallucinogen, gives users a sense of well-being and sensory distortion. It appears to be the new drug of choice because it is cheap and can keep a user high for 48–72 hours at a time (Moore 2005). For MSM, addiction to crystal meth is difficult to overcome because: Methamphetamine usage and sex have become fused; these men believe they will be unable to achieve a satisfying sexual life if they abstain from methamphetamine. (Larkins, Reback, and Shoptaw 2006).[103]

Because of the ‘need’ homosexuals have to get their sex needs fulfilled, another problem is developed, just based on their sex drive, not known to be as addictive for the heterosexual community, at least to the extent that homosexuals have:
methamphetamine (CM) is an extremely addictive stimulant that increases sexual arousal while reducing inhibition and judgment. Its use is associated with a range of high-risk sexual behaviors that increase the likelihood of acquiring or transmitting HIV. Given the relatively high prevalence of CM use among people living with HIV and among men who have sex with men (MSM), there is great concern that this drug is fueling the HIV epidemic. Equally worrisome are the effects that CM use can have on the prognosis and overall health of HIV-infected patients.

Known by various street names (most commonly, “ice” and “glass”), CM can be smoked, snorted, injected, swallowed, or inserted into the rectum. Compared with other illegal drugs, CM is inexpensive, readily available, and provides a stronger, longer-lasting “high” (8–24 hours).1 Prevalence of use in the U.S. is difficult to pinpoint, but estimates of past-year use from national cross-sectional surveys range from 1.5% to 2.8% among young adults.2 Estimates of past-year use are even higher among MSM — 9.7%, according to one San Francisco study.[104]

Illegal drug use is thus documented prevalent in same-sex communities in study after study. With increasing acceptance of this behavior by this community, why is the psychological foundation of the people who are doing this, not looked at?

Sexual Fidelity

The one thing that tends to make the basis for marriage is that one is faithful to each other til death do us part. Now, not necessarily looking at marriage but on homosexuals in generals we want to look at historically, how many homosexual partners does a homosexual have, and is it conducive to fidelity? Now, there are many other reasons to show that homosexuality marriage is not a good fit for society, and we have looked at them, but fidelity or lack of fidelity is another factor. Now, in all honesty because of the other reasons we have gone over, and even if homosexuals were faithful to each other, that does not mean a Christian would accept that, and that is honest, but this is another factor that must be looked at. I remember listening on the radio to ex-gay Anthony Falzarano, who I’ve mentioned, and will look at later, but previous to the many things he did in late 1990s and in the 2000s. I remember, it possibly was the mid-1990s, on the radio, when he reflected on his homosexual days, which were in the 80s, he mentioned when he was looking for a partner, that would be faithful. He said he had had sexual relations with 400 to 500 male homosexuals. After all this wandering, he was looking for a partner, where there would be some kind of fulfillment with someone of the same sex, and he went around asking homosexuals who he knew had homosexual partners (even if he had not had sex with that one), and asked each one of them, ‘Have you been faithful to your mate?’ He said, now this is on the radio, it was most likely a Janet Parshall’s America show sometime in the 1990s. He said he would stay in the homosexual lifestyle if he could find one Homosexual male who was faithful to his partner for a sustained period of time. He was feeling a spiritual call away from homosexuality but still was considering staying in that lifestyle if he could find one couple where they had been faithful to each other. If he could find one couple like that, he would venture to find a mate where they could attempt to be faithful to each other. However, whenever he spoke to a homosexual couple, ultimately each one would admit that they had been unfaithful, in fact, many would admit that they were into threesomes, etc. That is one of the things that turned Falazarano away from the homosexual lifestyle. Whether homosexual males can be faithful, will be looked at later, but this discouragement in not being able to find one couple who was faithful to each other, no doubt is a factor when considering the plausibility of homosexual marriage. Again, from a biblical perspective there is not a way that homosexual marriage is plausible. However, just looking at it from a secular, non-religious point of view, is this good for society?

Male Homosexuality: Promiscuous or Faithful?

Historically, looking at how many partners an average homosexual has, we can look at the study done by the Kinsey Institute, a ‘progressive’ institute which supports homosexuality and the acceptance of homosexuality, well before it became popular. As referenced before, they did a massive study on many issues, including this one. Here is what the book finds in its study of the issue. First, Bell notes before the study that the image of homosexual is that of being unable to maintain a long standing sexual partnership. It is supposedly an image that apparently Bell intended, or at least hoped would be disproven by the Kinsey Institutes’ study. He noted other studies which showed male homosexuals which indicated rampant looseness, promiscuity. However, in this study the promiscuity is beyond what Bell imagined:

Almost one-half of the white homosexual males (WHMs) and one-third of the black homosexual males (BHMs) said that they had had at least five hundred different sexual partners during the course of their homosexual careers. Another third of the WHMs and a quarter of the BHMs reported having had between one hundred and five hundred partners. Saghir and Robins reported that three-quarters of their male respondents had had more than thirty sexual partners over the course of their lives; over 90 percent of our white male respondents reported have twenty-five or more partners.[105]
So Falzarano’s what seems like crazy promiscuity, was not all that different from what homosexuals practiced in the 1970s. When I looked at table 7, it notes that 28% of the homosexuals actually had more than 1000 sexual partners. Only 8 percent of white homosexual partners had between 25 & 49 partners. With the multiplication, and adding it ends up being 84% had over 50 partners. Now it must be acknowledged that this is before AIDS had hit that community. That is with the breakdown of 28% over 1000 partners, 15% between 500-1000. (So, in other words, 43% had over 500 partners). 17% between 250-499, 15% between 100 and 249 partners, and 9% between 50-99 partners. That adds up to 84% had over 50 partners. To say that the pathology to drive to have that amount of sex, is ‘normal’, is not reasonable. Now Black homosexuals had 19% over 1000 partners, and adding their numbers 77% had over 50 partners, and 83% over 25 partners, a little less promiscuous than the white male homosexuals.[106] It points to a large number of homosexuals having a sexual addiction, and to say that this does not mean that there are psychological issues, is not plausible.

Bell notes in this study the following:

With respect to other partner characteristics, most of the whites and significantly fewer of the blacks said that more than half of their partners had been strangers prior to the day of their sexual contact….
Most of the WHMs, as opposed to about a third of the BHMs, said that more than half of their partners were persons with whom they had sex only once. In the same vein, about two-thirds of the WHMs, compared with almost half of the BHMs, said that following their sexual contact, they had not seen most of their partners socially.
Continuing on the next page, talk was how many partners the homosexuals had just in the previous year:
With respect to the number of male sexual partners they had had during the current year, more than a quarter of the respondents said that they had more than fifty partners. Another quarter had been between twenty and fifty sexual partners. About one-fifth of them had had fewer than six partners during the current year.[108]
Bell previously had noted:
Another reason advanced for the instability of homosexual partnerships include the large marketplace for sociosexual contacts in the gay world and the likelihood that homosexual couples will meet many sexually available persons in their social milieu, conditions which may militate against fidelity to one’s partner.[109]
Mass Resistance, quotes Homosexual author William Aaron in his book, Straight:
In the gay lifestyle fidelity is almost impossible. Since part of the compulsion of homosexuality seems to be a need on the part of the homophile to “absorb” masculinity from his sexual partners, he must be constantly on the lookout for [new partners]. Constantly the most successful homophile “marriages” are those where there is an agreement between the two to have affairs on the side while maintaining the semblance of permanence in their living arrangement.[110]
19 years after the Bell study, 1997, the Journal of Sex Research, available online says:
Almost three quarters of the older men had either 1 (28.5) or between 2-10 (44.9) partners during the preceding six months. For the older men, the modal range for number of male sexual partners ever was 101-500 (21.6); 2.7% had had sex with 1 partner only, and between 10.2 & 15.7 only; and between 10.2% and 15.7% reported having had sex with a number of partners indicated by the following ranges: 2-10, 21-50, 51-100, 501-1./font color="maroon">[111]
In this study 2.7% had sex with one partner, but 44% had between 2 and 10 partners, a large amount 21.6 % had between 101-500 partners. That is still a large amount, many years after the inception of AIDS.

The next study I refer to is a study in San Francisco,

Monogamous agreements were reported by 45% of the couples whereas 47% reported open agreements and 8% reported discrepant agreements (i.e., one partner reported having a closed agreement while the other reported having an open agreement). Couples were defined as monogamous if both partners indicated that the following scenario reflected their agreement regarding sexual encounters outside of the relationship: ‘‘Both of us cannot have any sex with an outside partner”, regardless of whether or not that agreement was broken.

We also found that increased levels of general social support were associated with increased odds of UAI (Unprotected Anal Intercourse) with concordant outside partners for both concordant negative and concordant positive couples (i.e., serosorting). It could be that partners who provide positive emotional support to their partners are more accepting of a wide range of behavior from their partners.[112]

This study was of 566 male couples in 2011 in San Francisco. 45% monogamous, 47% open. Another 8% basically open because one person will stay supposedly faithful while the other person is open, so in effect 55% wide open. However, of the 45% supposedly monogamous, it says ‘we won’t have sex with other people, regardless of whether that agreement was broken!!’ In other words of this 45%, it is expected to be broken. It is all theory, because implicit, it is going to be broken.

Previously in 1984, Homosexuals themselves and homosexual advocates, David McWhirter, Andrew Mattison, did a study of 312 people, 156 male couples who have had relationships of some endurance.

Sexual exclusivity among these couples is infrequent, yet their expectations of fidelity are high. Fidelity is not defined in terms of sexual behavior but rather by their emotional commitment to each other. Ninety-five percent of the couples have an arrangement whereby the partners may have sexual activity with others at some time under certain conditions. Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated in another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships. Many of the couples have started their relationship with either explicit agreements or implicit assumptions about sexual exclusivity, which have modified over time, finding emotional fidelity more enduring.

Our culture has defined faithfulness in couples always to include or be synonymous with sexual fidelity, so it is little wonder that relationships begin with that assumption. It is only through time that the symbolic nature of sexual exclusivity translated into the real issues of faithfulness. When that happens, the substantive, emotional dependability of the partner, not sex, becomes the real measure of faithfulness.[113]

So, we see examples the homosexual writer say that the culture has put sexual fidelity as important to the relationship. But every single homosexual couple that had been more than five years did not retain any sexual exclusivity. So, apparently McWhirter thinks you can still be ‘emotional dependent’ on the partner, even if he was unfaithful. McWhirter gives us an example of a couple’s outlook on sexual fidelity:
I see sex with Peter on a whole bunch of levels. At times it’s been the most important way we say how much we love each other. Sometimes we’ve made love in anger and then again to relieve our urges for sex. We’ve never felt that either of us should be sexual only with the other. From the beginning that was absurd. He knew as well as I that we would trick out, so why start our relationship by making rules and denying that probability? We do lots of things alone together, and we share those same activities with others. We have pleasant meals with others. We dance and party with others. And we have sex with others. Sex can be like a recreational sport and still maintain its specialness for us between ourselves. Our relationship is maintained by our love and willingness to make it work, not what we do with others in bed.[114]
Love apparently is maintained apparently without caring what the mate does with others in other beds. The idea that they would have sex only with the other person was termed absurd!!

Another example is where one intends to be faithful. McWhirter quotes another fellow, Ralph:

I did start my relationship with Brad with the intention of not having sex with others. Although a wide variety of sexual partners was part of my lifestyle, I was willing to give that up for a partner like Brad. Fortunately, Brad felt the same way about it. At first, we had some mutual assumptions that we would be monogamous. Then when things got a little shaky between us, we made a verbal agreement to be sexually faithful.[115]
This couple intended to be monogamous. He had a history of a ‘wide variety’ of sexual partners. They intended to be faithful with each other, but it got shaky. Shaky most likely meant they did become unfaithful but they intended to be better going forward. After five years, all the couples had come to the conclusion that some outside sexual relationships had to be accepted for the survival of the relationship.

So for the survival of the relationship, they had to accept some outside sexual relationships? At the end of the book, the authors had a dozen conclusions, here are the ones touching on faithfulness:

4. The majority of couples in our study, and all of the couples together for longer than five years, were not continuously sexually exclusive with each other. Although many had long periods of sexual exclusivity, it was not the ongoing expectation for most. We found that gay men expect mutual emotional dependability with their partners and that relationship fidelity transcends concerns about sexuality and exclusivity.

5. By finding these 156 couples, with close to a third of the sample living together longer than ten years, we did dispel the old myth that gay male relationships do not last. Also, in the past few years we have met additional male couples who have been together for forty and fifty years. Male couples in ongoing and long-term relationships are not as unusual a phenomenon as was formerly believed.[116]

So, the authors were proud that they found people who were with others as couples for such a long time. However, in a normal marriage relationship, fidelity is central to stability in any normal relationship. However, for the homosexuals, infidelity was accepted by all, even if there were periods of sexual exclusivity. McWhirter mentions people who were together even longer beyond those he studied, he was indeed proud of those findings. However, again, he does not note that any of these people who were together longer, were sexually exclusive. So not only is procreation, and family absolutely no part of this coupling, infidelity is a part of the homosexual culture, and to be expected. Why would we want marriage to be extended to this?

Now, in reference to AIDS, and the spread of disease, I will look at that in a later section. However, in reference to the comparison of those who have steady partners, their commitment to their partner, we want to look at a more updated look at faithfulness to their partner. Next, is a study done by the National Institutes of Health. It is called the ‘Development and validation of the Sexual Agreement Investment Scale’, a study headed by Torsten Neilands. In this study it was of 380 gay men, not including transgender:

All participants reported on the characteristics of their sexual agreements. Almost half of the participants (48.7%) were monogamous, slightly fewer (42.1%) reported non-monogamous sexual agreements with some conditions or restrictions, and a relatively small number (9.2%) reported sexual agreements with absolutely no restrictions on sex with outside partners. A third of the participants (32.4%) reported breaking their agreement in the preceding 12 months and 14.8% reported having UAI in the preceding 3 months with an outside partner of discordant or unknown serostatus.
In Study 3 of 1001 respondents.
Two-thirds (67.8%) of the participants were HIV-negative and one-third (32.2%) were HIV-positive. Consistent with Study 2, close to half of the participants (48.8%) were monogamous, slightly less (41.3%) had sexual agreements with some conditions or restrictions, and 10% had open agreements with no restrictions on sex with outside partners. A fifth of participants (21.9%) reported breaking their agreement in the preceding 12 months and 13.2% reported having UAI in the preceding 3 months with an outside partner of unknown or discordant serostatus.[117]
So, we see again a good amount of people breaking their promises. Many don’t even want to make the promise and a good amount broke the promises that they did make. 13% had unprotected anal intercourse with an unknown partner, just in the previous 3 months. This is even when he has a steady partner!! That is indeed astounding.

The next thing I want to briefly look at is a study on homosexual partnerships in Holland, that was done in 2003. The period covered in this comprehensive look was from 1995 to 2003. Now Homosexual marriage was legalized in 2001. Now I do not want to misrepresent the study, other organizations have used the results of the study that was in a way with more conclusions than actually what the study actually showed. Now, many places have featured this study to say well this shows Homosexual partners are unfaithful to each other, even in homosexual friendly Netherlands. The length of these steady partnerships only lasted one and a half years, and even when they were in those ‘steady’ partnerships, they had sex with on the average eight people a year while at the same time they had been committed to their partner. And the conclusion is that since the Netherlands is homosexual friendly and their relationship only lasted a year and a half, this shows Gay marriage will not work. Now, that has been shown in several locations, but that is not the purpose of the study. The study focuses on those homosexuals who were concerned about AIDS, and concentrated on the years 1995-2003, so much of the study would be before homosexual marriage was made legal in 2001. Haart is a reference to drugs that treat AIDS. So, this study is specifically about people checking, concerned about AIDS transmission with their activity. So, this would include more people who in a sense are more risky than normal. Now it included people who were more apt to contract AIDS with their activity, it is people checking themselves into clinics. So, this study would be more people apt to engage in risky behavior, and did not mean to represent the Amsterdam homosexual population as a whole. Those who were infected with AIDS, would then be removed from the study as they were thought to have ceased having sex. Now, when we study a little later about the disease infections, we will see that that assumption is not necessarily correct. Those infected with AIDS we will see, even after the discovery of AIDS, does not necessarily stop sexual activity with even unknown people. But that is for later down in this study. People who may have been less promiscuous in the homosexual community, would not have been in the studied population. But with that said, here is the quote from the study:

the mean rate of acquiring casual partners (range 16–28 for singles and 6–10 for men with a steady partner);

the mean frequencies of URAI and UIAI among casual partners (αa, αb, range 2.5–7.5%) and among steady partners (φa, φb, range 7.5–22.5);

the mean duration of steady partnerships (0.75–2.25 years) and then the rate of acquiring steady partners was calculated as ρ = σ + 2μ;[118]

So, the fact is that of those studied, those who are concerned about getting AIDS, still practiced a high amount of sexual activity. Though they were checking themselves into clinics to check on AIDS, they practiced a lot of sex. So, the singles, who did not have a steady partner, had on the average 22 sexual partners in one year. Also, those who had a steady partner, still had on the average between six and ten sexual partners in one year, with the average of about 8. So, this average is for sure less than 22, but at 8 partners is still a huge amount of promiscuity, even when the person has a supposedly steady relationship.
The mathematical model presented in this paper suggests that the majority of new infections among young homosexual men in Amsterdam can be attributed to steady partners. Changes in risky behavior with steady partners thus have a greater impact on HIV incidence than the equivalent changes among casual partners. The model also shows that increases in risky behaviour may counterbalance the positive effect of HAART, although such increases could be outweighed by increased HIV testing and HAART administration.

The aim of our model was to assess the shares of steady and casual partners as sources of HIV infection among young homosexual men in Amsterdam, and the implications of these on the further development of the HIV epidemic. Our results show that steady and casual partnerships form two different routes of transmission of HIV, and that the former is currently the predominant one.

Fig 2 shows the fraction of new infections that can be attributed to casual partners for scenarios B1 and B2. If risky behaviour increases by an average of 50% only among steady partners, then 12% (range 10–15%) of the new infections can be attributed to casual partners and the remaining to steady partners. This proportion is 20% (range 14–26%), if risk with casual partners increases by 50% on average. Therefore, steady partners contribute to incidence more than casual partners. This can mainly be explained by the fact that risky behaviour with steady partners is much greater than that with casual partners (30 versus 1.5 UAI acts annually, see Table 1) and even if risk with casual partners increases by 100%, it still remains much lower than that with steady partners.[119]

So, with the availability of drugs for AIDS treatment, apparently even those who have steady partners, have sex outside of that partner, and are more likely to pass it on rather than those who had no steady partner.

Mass Resistance, pointed me to this this link to a study of homosexuality in Germany in reference to those with steady and those with non-steady partners:

The study population consisted of 1731 men. Among individuals in the outcome group (n = 271), 67% reported UAI with a non-steady partner of unknown status and 9% reported UAI with a non-steady HIV-positive partner in the past 12 months; 55% considered themselves to be at low risk for HIV acquisition.[120]
67% of homosexuals had unprotected anal intercourse with a non-steady partner of ‘unknown’ status. Remember, the US government taught for many years that anal intercourse is too dangerous to practice with or without a condom, but two thirds of homosexuals in Germany practice it without even that protection in the past twelve months.

Lesbian Sexuality

Now, the male homosexual population approximately doubles the rate of the Lesbian population, as far as total of the population. Studies on homosexuality focuses for the most part on male homosexuals, as that population is more numerous. The homosexual rights groups that were created, were more male based, and defended male homosexuality. So, less research on lesbianism does mean we have much less data. However, we do want to at least briefly look at Lesbian sexuality, as opposed to the male homosexuality. There is much more rampant male homosexual activity. We have seen in the Bell study male homosexuals having hundreds of partners in their lifetime, a majority of homosexuals having more than 50 partners. However, does that promiscuity translate over to Lesbianism? Just looking at the data that was looked at in the Bell study, the answer is no. We had seen 43% of male homosexuals had over 500 partners in their lifetime, and 84% of White male homosexuals had more than 50 partners. Now, they had plenty of one-time sexual acts, and that included sexual acts with strangers. Most white male homosexuals had sex only one time with the one person. They just had plenty of one-time sexual acts with plenty of different people, strangers included. Now, Bell did study female homosexuality, Lesbianism as well. 27% of White Lesbians had less than 4 partners in their lifetime only 1 percent of males had less than 4 partners. None had more than 500 partners (43% of White Homosexual men did). One percent had between 250 & 500 and one percent had between 100 and 250 (White homosexual men had 32% total. White female homosexuals had 31% had between 5-9, 16 % between 10-14, 15% between 10 and 14, 8% between 50-99, and five percent between 50-99. So, that is still a pretty large number of sexual partners, but it is still not of the same mass quantity of sexual partners of male homosexuals. Bell distinguishes between White & Black homosexual men and white & black Lesbians:

-------------------------WHM—BHM— WHF—BHF
1-3: Half or Less-------29-------59------51-----------55
4-6: More than Half---70-------38-------12-----------5

Now that is the historical background. Now, let’s move to the image many have. Many argue that Lesbians are more faithful to their same sex partners than homosexual males, and so Lesbian sexual practices are safe, as most problems are with promiscuous males with the penis causing many health problems. Supposedly since females are not on the receiving end of males with promiscuous organs they are much healthier than the male homosexuals. We will look at that in the next section and we will find that is not true. We will see that Lesbian practices in and of themselves with Lesbian sexual practices only, lead to health problems. However, that is not this section. For now I want to look at the fidelity/infidelity of Lesbians to their partners. Although their sexual proclivities are nowhere near those of the male homosexuals, we will find it is still generally more promiscuous than female heterosexuals, and Lesbians also will put up with infidelity more than female heterosexuals.

Mass Resistance again points to another study from a National Survey of Family Growth with a link to in the footnotes:

1.3 percent of females identify as Lesbian, and 5.5% identify as Bisexual, in the study from the period 2011-2013, as opposed to a previous study, where it was 1.2 % of females 18-44, and 3.9 considered bisexual, in 2007-2010. However, even of those who identify as Lesbian, there is much more of a history of sex with heterosexuals. To say that the sexual activity is safer when females have sex with other females, we will see is not true. However, the issue is that Lesbians are much more likely to have had heterosexual relationships, and more likely to still have heterosexual relationships after identifying themselves as Lesbians: [122]
So, we see that Lesbians are more likely to be promiscuous, have sex with males, regardless whether they have mates, than heterosexual females with mates. They still identify themselves as Lesbians even after having this heterosexual sex.

The following is from the CDC, an amalgamation of studies concludes:

Most self-identified WSW (53%–97%) have had sex with men in the past and might continue this practice, with 5%–28% of WSW reporting male partners within the past year.[123]
Now 5 to 28% is a huge amount of disparity so it is hard to generalize but if you take a medium, as a median, it is that Lesbians, who identify themselves as Lesbian, in the past year, had a 16.5 percent chance of having sex with a heterosexual in the past year. That is a pretty high average. So, it is not very precise anywhere from a 1 in 20 chance to a more than 1 in 4 chance where just in the previous year, people self-identified as Lesbian, not bisexual, had heterosexual sex with a male. Even the low, one in twenty chance in the previous year, does not fit the image of the Lesbian who only wants sex with their female girlfriend. (These numbers were verified originally but the numbers have been removed for whatever reason.)

Now, again, let us look at the larger picture of Lesbians, now the range of more than one in four or one in twenty in just the previous year, is one thing, what about the range of their whole life? How many Lesbians have practiced heterosexual sex as well as Lesbian sex, but still identify as Lesbian?

Now, in this study there are a couple of interesting things. Though there is a higher rate of male homosexuality in the percentages, females will experiment much more than men in that. For example, in this very study, it shows that

Women and men aged 25–44 had lower percentages reporting any same-sex sexual contact (16.7% and 6.0%) compared with women and men aged 18–24 (19.4% and 6.6%), but the percentages were not significantly different. [124]
Now in this study page 11 it shows that 89.7%, of those who are lesbian or bisexual have heterosexual sex. This is with 3,720 sample women. But that is much less than the number of male homosexuals who have had sex with the opposite sex in their lifetime. Of male homosexuals, 67.9% had heterosexual sex. That is based on those who are those who are not ‘only attracted to the opposite sex, or mostly attracted to the opposite sex.’ Ie. Only attracted to the same sex, or Lesbians. So that means of those who are only attracted to Lesbians, in their view, still have had vaginal intercourse with an opposite partner 86.3 percent of them. It shows the fluidity of Lesbians, and that their sexual attraction when they say are attracted only to the same sex, also are open to sex with opposite sex. These people identify themselves as Lesbian, here we are not talking of those who are identified as bisexual.

The Health Hazards of Homosexuality referred to a study of a study which says that 93 percent of lesbians reported having had sex with men, and lesbians were 4.5 times more likely than heterosexual women to have had more than 50 lifetime male sex partners. I wanted to find the study itself to make sure of its accuracy. It is available online:

SEXUAL RISK BEHAVIOUR (ALL WSW) Ninety-three per cent of WSW reported previous sexual contact with a man. Interestingly, the median number of lifetime male sexual partners was significantly greater for WSW than controls (12 partners versus 6, p, WSW were significantly more likely to report more than 50 lifetime male sexual partners (9% versus 2%, OR 4.1, p<0.001). Eighty per cent of the WSW reported five or fewer female lifetime partners and 8% reported more than 10 lifetime female partners.[125]
Now, this study included a large cross section of 1408 of WSW (Lesbians) who reported to the Sydney Sexual Health Centre, a public center, from 1991 to December 1998. This was exclusive same sex activity, with no sexual contact with a male in the last 12 months. There was a control group of heterosexual women of 1423 that it was compared to.

The next study was that of 149 women who’ve had sex with women. Oxford Academic study.

Most subjects (86%) reported having had sex with a male partner, with 24% of them reporting this behavior in the preceding year (table 1). The majority (59%) had had 1 female partner during the prior year, 20% had had 2, and 21% had had ≥3. The median number of lifetime male partners was 7, as was the median lifetime number of female partners.[126]
So, 21 percent had more than 3 female partners in the previous year, and 86% have had sex in their lifetime with a member of the opposite sex, but 24% had this opposite sex behavior in the previous year!!

It was also found that they were more likely to have abortions than the control group.

We can also see from Lesbian rights organization promoting abortion rights, the right to kill the unborn as a right for Lesbians. They will even quote that lesbian young women are two to ten times more likely to become pregnant. Now the explanation of it, is that they ‘camouflage’ their lesbianism by having sex with heterosexuals. Abortion Access is an LGBT Issue, because they have to try to hide it. So, at first glance you would think that Lesbians would not care about the right to kill babies. That is what abortion is, the right to choose, means the right to choose to kill. Here is a feminist rationalization for why Lesbians care about abortion:

We cannot continue to talk about access to abortion as just a “woman’s issue” because this erases transgender, genderqueer, two-spirit, and agender individuals that may need access to abortion.

Abortion access is not just a woman’s issue. It’s a healthcare issue. It’s an economic justice issue. It’s an education issue. It’s a youth issue. It’s an LGBT issue. It is our issue.[127]

The sexual practices of Lesbians thus include heterosexual activity. This is not analysis of bisexuals. Now in a later section I will look at the medical consequences of just straight lesbian sex.

The Medical Consequences of Homosexual Sex

This section will look at the fact that homosexual sex leads to many health problems. This part will also look at the many byproducts of homosexual sex, which lead into further problems. It is important for society to consider, if society accepts the practice of homosexual sex as acceptable, what health issues will arise. As generally males are at about twice the rate of same sex attraction of females, I will concentrate on the effects on male homosexuals, but also the effect of lesbian sex as well. Now, here is a warning. I run a Catholic apologetics web site, and I normally do not venture into this area of study. My web site gives the reasons that the Catholic Church is the true church and I normally will give reasons from Scripture and tradition, why the Church is correct on this or that issue of theology. However, in order to go over this issue of homosexuality and medical consequences, I will have to describe some things normally not acceptable for a theological web site. But in order to discuss this issue fully, I will use terms I will in no other writing on my web site use. The acceptance of homosexuality has led to the things in many cases vulgar, but in order to go over this issue fully, I will at least refer to a few areas not normally found on a Christian, or Christian apologetics web site. That is because, if this issue is not addressed thoroughly, many will not consider the consequences of such activity. There are other sexual practices that are considered mainstream in the homosexual world, but are considered abhorrent by not only Christians, but many a non-Christians generally would say everything is ok, it is what they do in private, let them do what they want to do. Now, with understanding the reasoning that freedom in society gives one the normal reaction is to let them do what they want to do, we must also consider the moral implications of anything goes. Are we willing as a society to accept consequences that are degrading to the health of society? Does the government just step aside when things that cause the destruction of the health of society, for both homosexuals and heterosexuals? The government has a right to instruct people of the medical consequences of allowing such activity. The thing is now all the media and schools are saying homosexuals are born this way, and we need to accept their homosexual activity. And the long-held idea that sex is supposed to be between man and women, with the tendency towards procreation, and the idea that marriage is only supposed to be between one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation, is called hate speech. However, we need to examine whether homosexual activity is good for the health of society. Now in the book that I mentioned, Mass Resistance, there is a detailed list of homosexual practices, that are too vulgar, at least for me, to associate in my Christian web site. This is documented by homosexuals themselves and can be found on homosexual and governmental web sites. Mass Resistance points to that documentation.

However, I will only refer to the more known ‘normal’ two ways that homosexuals, male and female have sex, and the medical consequences of such activity. Now, in reference to the overall health of the homosexuals, the worse results by the extra vulgar actions will indeed play into the much higher rate of health problems.

Anal Sex

The first thing I want to look at is the normal way that homosexual males have sex: that is anal sex. It is where a penis, instead of penetrating a vagina, which it is designed for, with the natural secretions occur and it fits normally for male female intercourse, the male penis penetrates the rear of the male, or the anus of the male. The anus, is designed to be the organ of secretion. It is where the fecal matter exits the body. That organ is not a procreative matter. So, the way the body is designed, if you do not believe in God, or that he made the organs, any one will know that the anus is not a reproductive organ, and however bodies were made, via whatever made the organ the organ, one will know by natural reasoning that the natural fit that is found between the male penis and the female vagina, is not a natural fit between the male penis and the male anus.

The homosexual lobby has continued to lobby not only the APA, and other psychological organizations has successfully pushed the CDC to look away or to minimize the negative physical consequences of anal sex. First example is when Barak Obama, took over the presidency in 2009, his appointments altered an FDA warning. Now here is where C Everett Koop the Surgeon General of the Ronald Reagan Presidency, who taught the importance of abstinence and monogamy, but also would say ‘well if you do not practice that, then use condoms for protection’ in reference to homosexual sex. Now, he took heat from many religious conservatives as promoting condoms as a way to reduce sexually transmitted diseases. As a person, I will also never support sex outside the bounds of a man and woman in the bonds of marriage. However, as a health issue, as a Surgeon General, he did promote condoms as a way to reduce the transmission of sexually transmitted disease. Since the issue was dealt with by Surgeon General Koop, a statement that he made in 1988, was a part of the education, that said condoms, though helpful, was not in any way foolproof in protecting against sexually transmitted disease. Here is what Surgeon General Koop wrote, and was promoted, on its manual writings, and then after the internet became a means of communication, passed on through the internet. This was stated from 1988 to 2009 on the Food and Drugs Administration web site: Under the headings: Are condoms strong enough for anal intercourse, he wrote:

The Surgeon General (C. Everett Koop, Surgeon General 1982-1989) has said, "Condoms provide some protection, but anal intercourse is simply too dangerous to practice"

Condoms may be more likely to break during anal intercourse than during other types of sex because of the greater amount of friction and other stresses involved.

Even if the condom doesn't break, anal intercourse is very risky because it can cause tissue in the rectum to tear and bleed. These tears allow disease germs to pass more easily from one partner to the other.[128]

So, for more than 20 years, it was written for the education of people, that anal intercourse is ‘too dangerous to practice’. So, the normal means of male homosexual sex should not be practiced as it is too dangerous for the people involved. That includes whether or not they use a condom. So irrespective of politics, in the sexual realm, the normal means of male homosexual sex was called too dangerous to practice. This was for about 18 years of education, through the surgeon general of Ronald Reagan, through George Bush 1941, and two terms of Bill Clinton, and two terms of George W Bush, this was taught. Medically, anal intercourse is simply too dangerous to practice. However, with the politicization of Barak Obama entering the upper reaches of the medical community, the medical dangers of anal homosexual sex were minimized. The above citation can no longer be found on the Food and Drug Administration web site. There was absolutely no medical finding that condoms provide full protection for anal sex. Previously in 1988 Surgeon General Koop, in his writing on Understanding AIDS, a Message from the Surgeon General, C Everett Koop wrote on what was risky sex. In 1988, in the brochure he wrote on what was risky behavior:
The following behaviors are risky when performed with an infected person. You can’t tell by looking if a person is infected: Risky Behavior
Sharing drug needles and syringes.
Anal sex, with or without a condom.
Vaginal or oral sex with someone who shoots drugs or engages in anal sex.
Sex with someone you don’t know well (a pickup or prostitute) or with someone you know has several sex partners.
Unprotected sex (without a condom) with an infected person.
Not having sex.
Sex with one mutually faithful, uninfected partner
Not Shooting Drugs.
The truth that anal sex with or without a condom was too dangerous to practice was taught by the government. Now the government just made this one-way statement without giving further evaluation. Making the statement without elaboration is not giving a full education on why it is dangerous to even engage in anal sex. However, the partial education was government policy. the Homosexual lobby pushed to get rid of this truth. And this lobby did get their way. Obama, a homosexual rights activist president, appointed people who pushed to get rid of this truth. In 2009, the FDA warning that anal sex was too dangerous to practice went away. There was no scientific finding that anal sex was now safe. Because some level of truth has to be maintained to have some level of credibility, the FDA still says the following:
Condoms may be more likely to break during anal intercourse than during other types of sex because of the greater amount of friction and other stresses involved.[130]
Even in the watered-down adjustment, one can see that Condoms are in no way foolproof and can break during anal intercourse, and are more unreliable than with heterosexual sex.

A doctor notes the following problems with having anal sex. This helps to spell out why for 20 years, C Everett Koop’s words about anal sex being too dangerous with or without condoms were made public:

Anal intercourse is the sine qua non of sex for many gay men.22 Yet human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by semen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an "exit-only" passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic.

The potential for injury is exacerbated by the fact that the intestine has only a single layer of cells separating it from highly vascular tissue, that is, blood. Therefore, any organisms that are introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing a foothold for infection than they would in a vagina. The single layer tissue cannot withstand the friction associated with penile penetration, resulting in traumas that expose both participants to blood, organisms in feces, and a mixing of bodily fluids.

Furthermore, ejaculate has components that are immunosuppressive. In the course of ordinary reproductive physiology, this allows the sperm to evade the immune defenses of the female. Rectal insemination of rabbits has shown that sperm impaired the immune defenses of the recipient.23 Semen may have a similar impact on humans.24

The end result is that the fragility of the anus and rectum, along with the immunosuppressive effect of ejaculate, make anal-genital intercourse a most efficient manner of transmitting HIV and other infections. The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal intercourse is alarming:

Anal Cancer
Chlamydia trachomatis
Giardia lamblia
Herpes simplex virus
Human immunodeficiency virus
Human papilloma virus
Isospora belli
Viral hepatitis types B & C
Anal intercourse also puts men at significant risk for anal cancer. Anal cancer is the result of infection with some subtypes of human papilloma virus (HPV), which are known viral carcinogens. Data as of 1989 showed the rates of anal cancer in male homosexual practitioners to be 10 times that of heterosexual males, and growing. 30 Thus, the prevalence of anal cancer among gay men is of great concern. For those with AIDS, the rates are doubled.31

Other physical problems associated with anal intercourse are:

anal fissures
anorectal trauma
retained foreign bodies.

Ok, one can say ‘Matt, even though he’s a doctor he’s Catholic and he’s biased, so I don’t trust you.’ Well, he’s a doctor and he is noting medical facts. If other doctors want to shy away from the basic truths, that is on them for failing to note the risks. But we do see confirmation from those sympathetic to the homosexual lobby, the CDC.

But before I go there just a plain statement from the government should do. The Food and Drug Administration now proclaims:

Are condoms strong enough for anal intercourse? Condoms may be more likely to break during anal intercourse than during other types of sex because of the greater amount of friction and other stresses involved.[132]
Greater friction makes it more likely to break during anal intercourse.

The CDC basically confirms the danger of anal sex, and the dangers it presents to its adherents:

The data, presented at CDC's 2010 National STD Prevention Conference, finds that the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women. The range was 522-989 cases of new HIV diagnoses per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men and 13 per 100,000 women. The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women, the analysis says. The range was 91¬173 cases per 100,000 MSM vs. 2 per 100,000 other men and 1 per 100,000 women.[133]
The CDC also tells us the following:
Unprotected anal sex is a high-risk practice for HIV infection, with receptive anal sex having the highest risk. Unprotected anal sex also places MSM at risk for other sexually transmitted infections such as syphilis, chlamydia, and gonorrhea. Although condoms can reduce the risk for HIV transmission, they do not eliminate risk and often are not used consistently.

This report describes the results of these analyses. In all but two states, the majority of new HIV diagnoses were among MSM in 2011. Unprotected anal sex at least once in the past 12 months increased from 48% in 2005 to 57% in 2011 (p<0.001).[134]

So, we see it is not just the Catholic MD lecturing us, it is the homosexual friendly CDC telling us that homosexuals and Lesbians are 40 and 44 times as likely to come down with AIDS. Also, homosexual males and Lesbians are 46 & 71 times more likely to come down with syphilis. That is astounding. As noted among MSM, unprotected anal sex, more than 50% practiced it at least once in the past 12 months. It is astounding. It is already too dangerous to practice even with a condom, but even more dangerous without condoms.

At least according to two studies, though separated by time in 20 plus years, the rate of anal intercourse among MSM is much higher than in the 80s. With the study of 312 participants, anal intercourse was practiced by MSM at 71% rate.[135] However, as Web MD estimates in 2015 that anal intercourse was practiced at a higher rate.

An estimated 90% of men who have sex with men and as many as 5% to 10% of sexually active women engage in receptive anal intercourse. The Web MD gives further evidence of the problem.

The anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina has. Penetration can tear the tissue inside the anus, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream. This can result in the spread of sexually transmitted infections including HIV. Studies have suggested that anal exposure to HIV poses 30 times more risk for the receptive partner than vaginal exposure. Exposure to the human papillomavirus (HPV) may also lead to the development of anal warts and anal cancer. Using lubricants can help some, but doesn't completely prevent tearing.

• The tissue inside the anus is not as well protected as the skin outside the anus. Our external tissue has layers of dead cells that serve as a protective barrier against infection. The tissue inside the anus does not have this natural protection, which leaves it vulnerable to tearing and the spread of infection.

• The anus was designed to hold in feces. The anus is surrounded with a ring-like muscle, called the anal sphincter, which tightens after we defecate. When the muscle is tight, anal penetration can be painful and difficult. Repetitive anal sex may lead to weakening of the anal sphincter, making it difficult to hold in feces until you can get to the toilet. However, Kegel exercises to strengthen the sphincter may help prevent this problem or correct it.

• The anus is full of bacteria. Even if both partners do not have a sexually-transmitted infection or disease, bacteria normally in the anus can potentially infect the giving partner. Practicing vaginal sex after anal sex can also lead to vaginal and urinary tract infections. [136]

The anus is designed to hold in and expel feces. It is not a sexual instrument and the promotion of this causes problems for those who practice it. The acceptance of anal sex among homosexuals unfortunately has expanded to anal sex for heterosexuals. That not only introduces more nonprocreative sex, but leads to more disease for practicing heterosexuals.

Oral Sex

Oral sex of course is practiced by many people. Again, just as anal sex has no reproductive potential, it is antithetical to procreation, and is practiced only to provide physical pleasure but provides absolutely no possibility of procreation. Heterosexuals also practice oral sex totally destroying any possibility of procreation, but here I just want to look at the effects of oral sex among homosexuals.

Now, males who perform oral sex on males, this is what is found. Found in the book ‘Mass Resistance’, in reference to the Fenway Institute analysis:

HIV risk with oral sex is low, but the risk of other STIs is still high. Depending on the STI, it can be passed easily through sores in the mouth or on the penis, cum in the mouth, or tiny invisible cuts in the mouth or gums. Known Risks:

herpes I and II, HPV, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia

Possible Risks:

HIV & hepatitis B (giving oral sex only

Now on the receiving end where Lesbians who would be practicing their sex, on the oral end, here is the risk for them:
STIs that are passed through skin to skin contact can be gotten or given through oral sex. Although less common, HIV also can be passed from vaginal fluids to any cuts or sores in the mouth, especially if the person on the receiving end has their period. Using a latex dam is an easy way to reduce your risks. Known Risks: herpes I and II, syphilis. Possible Risks: HIV & hepatitis B (giving oral sex, if there is menstrual blood)? Unknown Risks: HPV, chlamydia, gonorrhea
Then, another practice that they have, which is very common which is too graphic to put on a religious page, also this homosexual sex pushing site says:
Gonorrhea, chlamydia and syphilis bacteria can live in your throat or anus. If the person on the receiving end has bumps, sores, or is bleeding from their anus, that could raise the giver's risk for STIs, so take a pass until they heal.

Known Risks:

hepatitis A, parasites, bacterial infections, herpes I and II, syphilis?

Unknown Risks: HPV, gonorrhea, chlamydia[137]

So, this site which promotes homosexuality, admits that the common practice of homosexuals, male and female, put people at risk for various conditions. Now they followed up each of the pronouncements on what to do to lower the risk for each category. The key thing is that they admitted that oral sex, which often many people think is something safe, is not safe. Not only the possible risk of AIDS but very possible risks of gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, herpes I and II, hepatitis. This practice not only divorces the act of sex from procreation, it is only for pleasure, but makes the other person a sexual object, while at the same time endangers the health on both those who are performing and receiving oral sex.

Mass Resistance, also notes that the CDC itself noted that oral sex would lead to some physical health problems. However, the CDC advocates male to male sex but stresses to be safer. In the midst of speaking of how to supposedly be ‘safer’, the CDC makes this admission of the danger of oral sex:

Though the risk of HIV transmission through oral sex is low, several factors may increase that risk, including sores in the mouth or vagina or on the penis, bleeding gums, oral contact with menstrual blood, and the presence of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).

Other STDs, such as syphilis, herpes, gonorrhea and chlamydia, can be transmitted during oral sex. Anilingus can also transmit hepatitis A and B, intestinal parasites like Giardia, and bacteria like E. coli. [138]

What is the conclusion on what is safest? So, we know that oral sex, again leads to many stds. It is practiced among many heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. But what is the solution, what is the best way to avoid the STDs? The CDC reported this not only in the C Everett Koop writing in the 90s but also says in the most recent update on safe practices:
Mutual monogamy means that you agree to be sexually active with only one person, who has agreed to be sexually active only with you. Being in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner is one of the most reliable ways to avoid STDs. But you must both be certain you are not infected with STDs. It is important to have an open and honest conversation with your partner.[139]
So, the conclusion from the government is that mutual monogamy is the only thing that can protect one from sexually transmitted diseases. As we have seen, the homosexual outlook is not one of mutual monogamy. Practicing homosexuals even with a ‘boyfriend’ even agree to be unfaithful to their partner, only increases the likelihood of STD transmission.

Lesbian Sexually Transmitted Diseases

In discussing this issue with same sex right advocates, it is often brought to my attention that yea, HIV and other STDs, is transmitted by male homosexuals, and that involves the use of the penis in sexually active manners, and that is the cause of STDs, however, it involves the penis as transmitting those diseases, but Lesbian activity is safe, because it does not involve the penis. When I quoted what I did earlier, that a vast majority of Lesbians have had heterosexual partners, more than those heterosexual females who have sex with males, I was told, well, they get diseases when they don’t act as Lesbians but as heterosexuals. Well, it can not be ignored that Lesbians can often continue to have sex with males, open themselves to sexually transmitted diseases receiving through heterosexual contact. But for this part, I want to look at the susceptibility of Lesbians who act exclusively as Lesbians, that sexually transmitted diseases are not only transmitted through the penis, as obviously Lesbian sexual practices, do not involve the penis. Now, we noted just above, in the study of oral sex, which is basically the normal way that sex is practiced in Lesbianism, STDS are given, as the CDC, when oral is given to the front or back of the woman. So, let us look at what Lesbians open themselves up to when they practice Lesbian sex. Now, some of this is admittedly repetitive because just above I studied oral sex, and showed the many stds that are given through oral sex, as documented by the CDC, is the way that Lesbians practice sex. We have seen the higher rate of suicide, Lesbian partner abuse, promiscuity among Lesbians (though granted, less promiscuous than male homosexuals, still is more promiscuous compared to those who are in heterosexual marriages), alcohol and drug abuse, obesity, etc. However, here I want to look at a little more what is unique to the Lesbian practice of sex what it can lead to.

Mass Resistance points to a citation from Canada’s Public Health:

Although STI transmission among WSW is strongly correlated with sexual contact with male partners, sexual transmission of HIV, syphilis, HPV, herpes simplex virus types 1 and 2 (HSV-1 and -2), Trichomonas vaginalis, Chlamydia trachomatis and HAV have been reported in WSW with no history of a male partner... Higher rates of bacterial vaginosis and hepatitis C (HCV) have been reported for WSW than for women with male sex partners only. The few studies exploring STI risk behaviours among WSW have demonstrated higher rates of sexual contact with homosexual/bisexual men; sex with HIV-infected partners; injection drug use; sex for money or drugs; and a greater number of recent partners among WSW compared to exclusively heterosexual women[140]
A whole slew of stds get transmitted with Lesbians who have absolutely no contact with men (noted as WSW women who have sex with women). Even higher rates of bacterial vaginosis and hepatitis C.

Office on Women’s Health says the following:

Bacterial vaginosis (vaj-uh-NOH-suhs) (BV). BV is more common in lesbian and bisexual women than in other women. The reason for this is unknown. BV often occurs in both members of lesbian couples.

The vagina normally has a balance of mostly "good" bacteria and fewer "harmful" bacteria. BV develops when the balance changes. With BV, there is an increase in harmful bacteria and a decrease in good bacteria.

Chlamydia (kluh-MI-dee-uh) Chlamydia is caused by bacteria. It's spread through vaginal, oral, or anal sex. It can damage the reproductive organs, such as the uterus, ovaries, and fallopian (fuh-LOH-pee-uhn) tubes. The symptoms of chlamydia are often mild — in fact, it's known as a "silent infection." Because the symptoms are mild, you can pass it to someone else without even knowing you have it.

Genital herpes. Genital herpes is an STI caused by the herpes simplex viruses type 1 (HSV-1) or type 2 (HSV-2). Most genital herpes is caused by HSV-2. HSV-1 can cause genital herpes. But it more commonly causes infections of the mouth and lips, called "fever blisters or "cold sores." You can spread oral herpes to the genitals through oral sex.

Human papillomavirus (pap-uh-LOH-muh-vahy-ruhs) (HPV). HPV can cause genital warts. If left untreated, HPV can cause abnormal changes on the cervix that can lead to cancer. Most people don't know they're infected with HPV because they don't have symptoms.

Both men and women can spread the virus to others whether or not they have any symptoms. Lesbians and bisexual women can transmit HPV through direct genital skin-to-skin contact, touching, or sex toys used with other women. Lesbians who have had sex with men are also at risk of HPV infection.

Pubic lice. Also known as crabs, pubic lice are small parasites that live in the genital areas and other areas with coarse hair. Pubic lice are spread through direct contact with the genital area. They can also be spread through sheets, towels, or clothes. Pubic lice can be treated with creams or shampoos you can buy at the drug store.

Trichomoniasis (TRIK-uh-muh-NEYE-uh-suhss) or "Trich." Trichomoniasis is caused by a parasite that can be spread during sex.[141]

So, we see Lesbian sex, just lesbian sex can cause genital herpes, chlamydia, Human Papillomavirus, Bacterial vaginosis, even public lice. So much for Lesbian sex being safe.

Next, we look at the US the Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People: Building a Foundation for Better Understanding:

For women, breast cancer is the most prevalent form of cancer in later life; in fact, age is the greatest risk factor for the disease. In the Women's Health Initiative study mentioned earlier in this chapter, Valanis and colleagues (2000) found that 14 percent of the no adult sex group and lifetime lesbians and 17.6 percent of the bisexuals reported ever having had any cancer, compared with 11.9 percent of heterosexual women. The bisexual group also had the highest rate of breast cancer (8.4 percent). In fact, all of the nonheterosexual groups had higher rates of breast cancer than the heterosexual group, but were less likely than the heterosexual group to have recently had a Pap test or mammogram. Cervical cancer was highest among bisexual women (2.1 percent) and lifetime lesbians (2.2. percent). As noted in the previous chapter, health-related behaviors of lesbian and bisexual women (smoking, obesity, drinking) theoretically contribute to higher risks for breast, ovarian, and colon cancer.[142]
So, for sure the sexual activity of Lesbians leads to negative consequences.

AIDS, the Disease of Homosexuals

Now, we have looked at AIDS some, but the cost of the disease, to our health care system, and the danger of it spreading to more people must be taken into account. Before we look at that, we should examine, who is at risk? Many argue that it is not a ‘gay’ disease, and it is homophobic to call it a ‘gay’ disease. Well, a study cited by the CDC looks at the probability of various assorted groups of catching AIDS. Currently there are 1.2 million, and according to the survey, here is the likelihood of various people getting AIDS.

We used mortality, census, and HIV surveillance data for 2010 to 2014 to calculate age-specific probabilities of an HIV diagnosis. The probabilities were applied to a hypothetical cohort of 10 million live births to estimate lifetime risk.


Lifetime risk was 1 in 68 for males and 1 in 253 for females. Lifetime risk for men was 1 in 22 for blacks, 1 in 51 for Hispanic/Latinos, and 1 in 140 for whites; and for women was 1 in 54 for blacks, 1 in 256 for Hispanic/Latinas, and 1 in 941 for whites. By risk group, the highest risk was among men who have sex with men (1 in 6) and the lowest was among male heterosexuals (1 in 524). [143]

So, AIDS is much more likely to happen to men who have sex with men. IE, male homosexual. For males as a whole it is 1 in 68 risk for AIDS. However, it is one in six for homosexuals. And of course, the 1 in 68 risk is brought higher because that includes the males who are homosexual. So, in the United States, if you are active in homosexual sex, you are at risk for AIDS. As we saw from the government itself, not only from C Everett Koop forward, it was determined that anal sex is too dangerous to practice, with or without a condom.
MSM comprise about 78% of men infected with HIV each year [12] and have a very high rate of receiving a diagnosis of HIV infection compared to males in other risk groups: 672 per 100,000 [6] compared to 49 per 100,000 male PWID (People who inject drugs) [4] and 3.6 per 100,000 male heterosexuals [5]….

In summary, an estimated 1 in 106 people living in the United States have received or will receive a diagnosis of HIV infection during their lifetime. The risk of an HIV diagnosis among MSM is nearly 88 times the risk among male heterosexuals, and black MSM have five times the risk of white MSM. Among females, the risk among blacks was 17 times that among whites, and this disparity was higher (20 times) among heterosexual females.[144]

So, the likelihood of one catching this disease is definitely attached to the sexual activity of homosexuals. Even those who inject drugs, which will account for much of the non-homosexual diagnoses of AIDS, have a much lower rate, or have a much lower likelihood of getting the AIDS infection. This goes back to the fact that those who are abstinent until heterosexual marriage, and are faithful to their opposite sex partner, will not come down with the AIDS infection.

We saw earlier in this paper, that from the 1980s to 2008, the US government said that anal intercourse, one of the means of sexual intercourse as practiced by homosexuals, is too dangerous to practice. The US government, only at the behest of Barak Obama, and the people who were wedded to the idea that homosexuality was ok, lessened the idea of the gravity of the dangers of such activity.

Truth Wins out leader, Wayne Besen, who writes about how evil and wrong are those people who believe homosexuality is wrong, and those who believe that marriage should only be between those of the opposite sex, are homophobes and haters. He attacked Pope Benedict in 2009, because he preached abstinence instead of putting condoms on, says he would probably have sex with somebody with AIDS, as long as they have condoms on. In his response to Laura Ingraham’s statement that condoms only work 80% of the time, ‘well, more like 90% effective’ thus thinks that it is okay to risk getting an AIDS, this is a leader of the homosexual rights movement. He is a person who calls those people who say that homosexuals can go abstinent, or possibly change to having a heterosexual tendency, as frauds. He calls any attempt to do so is fraudulent, in any case, he still thinks that one is okay to risk one’s life just for having sexual intimacy with someone of the same sex, it is okay if you have a 10% risk of getting an AIDS infection. He said he did have sex with a partner who had AIDS, and was proud that he had a condom that did help protect him. This is when Laura Ingraham was substituting on the O’Reilly Factor in 2009. This short video where he says that is available here:[145] It would be interesting to think that if one takes a flight 90% of the time it makes it to the next city, instead of crashing, is worth the 10% risk of getting killed. Mr. Besen apparently thinks the thrill is worth taking that risk.

HIV now has medications that can treat those with HIV so it doesn’t develop to full blown AIDS. However, the treatment is expensive, and not all are aware that they have AIDS. Here the CDC gives the rundown on HIV, those with and without treatment:

HIV Medicines Help People with HIV Live Longer The average lifespan of a person without HIV is 79 years. The average lifespan of a person with HIV diagnosed at age 20 taking current HIV medicines is 71 years. The average lifespan of a person with HIV diagnosed at age 20 not taking current HIV medicines is 32 years.

HIV care Continuum Shows Where Improvements are Needed Of the 1.2 million people living with HIV, 86% are diagnosed, 40% are engaged in care, 37% are prescribed antiretroviral medicines, and 30% are virally suppressed.[146]

The next is to look at HIV infection. Much of the media, and homosexual activists will say that HIV is not merely affecting homosexuals, it affects all sectors of society. The one thing to note, those who are married and monogamous with a heterosexual spouse have absolutely no way to get infected with HIV. With that said, in Africa, we know that HIV, and development to AIDS does happen with heterosexuals. However, our focus is on AIDS in the United States. What does the Center for Disease Control say?:
• Gay and bisexual men are more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States.

• From 2005 to 2014, HIV diagnoses decreased in the United States by 19% overall, but increased 6% among all gay and bisexual men, driven by increases among African American and Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men.

In 2014: • Gay and bisexual men accounted for 83% (29,418) of the estimated new HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13 and older and 67% of the total estimated new diagnoses in the United States.

• Gay and bisexual men continue to experience the greatest burden of HIV compared to any other group in the United States. Therefore, gay and bisexual men have an increased chance of being exposed to HIV. A 2016 analysis estimated that there are nearly 4.5 million gay and bisexual men in the United States and that 15% are living with HIV infection (11% diagnosed).

• Nearly 1 in 7 gay and bisexual men living with HIV are unaware they have it. People who don’t know they have HIV cannot get the medicines they need to stay healthy and reduce the likelihood of transmitting HIV to their partners. Therefore, they may transmit the infection to others without knowing it.

• Most gay and bisexual men acquire HIV through having anal sex with an HIV-positive person without using a condom or without taking daily medicine to prevent HIV called pre-exposure prophylaxis ( or without their partner taking medicine to treat HIV called antiretroviral therapy (ART). Anal sex is the riskiest type of sex for getting or transmitting HIV. Receptive anal sex is 13 times as risky for acquiring HIV as insertive anal sex. Using condoms, the right way every time and taking medicines to prevent or treat HIV each can reduce the risk of getting or transmitting HIV. Combining 2 or more options provides more protection from HIV and condoms also protect from some sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).

Gay and bisexual men are also at increased risk for other STDs, like syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia.[147]

Homosexual men, prone to disease, again because of anal sex. Condoms only reduce the risk of getting or transmitting. In other words, sex with an HIV positive person, one puts their life at risk. Being on the receiving end of anal sex is 13 times more dangerous.

Can Homosexuals Change?

Can Homosexuals change? Can Homosexuals become Heterosexuals? At a minimum, evidence shows it is possible for homosexuals to become abstinent. In addition, some Homosexuals can actually become heterosexuals. Scientific evidence historically shows that there is success. Historically we have seen change for homosexuality was sought by homosexuals themselves. For example, in the 1960s we see that people underwent treatment for homosexuality. Homosexuals, as we have seen, have many psychological issues, beat their love partners, even Lesbians abuse their lesbian lovers. We see that they have higher rates of suicide, drug abuse, are heavier, have alcohol abuse, etc. This can not be blamed on supposed ‘homophobia.’ No matter the rationalization, blame for a homosexual beating his lover can not reasonably be put at the feet of someone who thinks that the act of homosexuality is wrong. Society has put homosexuality on a par with heterosexuality. There are religious groups within various churches that have given the ok on homosexuality. For example, there is the group ‘Dignity’ which is ‘Catholic’, which gives the okay to homosexuality. However, the groups that give help to homosexuals who attempt to leave the lifestyle of homosexual sex, be it male to male or female, have been labeled as unrealistic, and even seen as ‘homophobic.‘ People who try to leave that lifestyle are labeled as self-haters, and are all labeled as failures. Homosexual rights organizations such as Wayne Besen, of Truth Wins Out, castigate all such organizations, such as National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). This was founded by Joseph Nicolosi, who, disagreed with the bullying of the homosexual rights movement of 1973 of the APA, which we saw earlier. He unfortunately has passed away. Science has been bullied into accepting the legitimacy of the homosexual lifestyle, against the overwhelming history of seeing homosexuality as something that can be treated. Now of course, there were abuses, we at least have heard of treating homosexuality by electric shock therapy. No Christian organization says that it is a legitimate way of treating homosexuality.

I know it is insulting for many, no doubt many homosexuals, do not want to be ‘treated.’ They want to be looked at in the same way, as a normal heterosexual, with no difference. You need to accept them, and they want public schools to teach that homosexuality is ok. Private companies, even run by people of faith, are supposed to host wedding parties that celebrate homosexual ‘marriage’. Christian bakers have been put out of business, because they would not bake wedding cakes that celebrated a homosexual ‘marriage.’ The bakers for sure served the homosexuals cake whenever they wanted cake, but that was not good enough for them, they had to bake the cake to celebrate nuptials of something that they saw was wrong. However, apparently that is not enough for the homosexual lobby. They are on the attack on those who seek to treat homosexuality as wrong. They attack people who attempt to change their activity from being an active homosexual person, to become heterosexual, or condemn even the attempt of those who see it as a sin, to at least no longer practice homosexual sex. Even those organizations who has it as their goal, to become abstinent from homosexual sex, are derided as ‘anti-gay’, and self-hateful. Freedom needs to allow such oranizations to exist.

What is Reparative Therapy?

Now, there is no doubt that there have been failures by some in the movement of Christian groups who attempted to stop their homosexual activity, and their leaders. For example, Exodus International was an organization as such, which sought to get people to go from homosexual to straight. There were prominent leaders in Exodus International, who fell back into homosexual sin. Alan Chambers who was the president of Exodus International, condemned the practice of ‘reparative therapy’. He says that it is wrong. There are people such as John Paulk, who became a spokesman for Focus on the Family, an organization run by James Dobson. He had been homosexual, married a woman, Ann Paulk, a former lesbian, had 20 years of marriage and three kids. Neither of those two ever entered Reparative therapy. They just left homosexuality supposedly, did no psychological work, had no psychological counseling to go at the root of why they had homosexual feelings. They said they were told homosexuality was ‘shameful’ evil, and to just pray, and the problem will go away. So, Exodus International did not actually promote reparative therapy, but more along the lines of ‘pray the gay away'. Now, with that said, there are people who have not undergone reparative therapy, and due to their turn to Christ, have been able to turn away from homosexuality and even develop interest in those of the opposite sex, within Christian morality. We will see that.

With that said there are people such as John Paulk, (the wife that he left for his homosexual trysts, Ann Paulk, still has not turned back to lesbianism), who failed, and fell back to homosexuality, and now condemns reparative therapy. However, I want to take a look at someone who actually went through reparative therapy, and will discuss the myths that are often portrayed of what the therapy does: His name is Jeremy Schwab, and does work with other people who’ve experienced same sex attraction. He responded to Alan Chamber’s statement on Obama’s wanting to ban reparative therapy for minors is found in the Washington Post, that is available here. Schwab describes the falsity of Chambers statement. Chambers’ method was indeed the pray away thing that did not work, did not go into a look at his childhood, or a look at what in his background might have led to same-sex attraction. Here is the Schwab response to Chambers statement:

1. Licensed Therapists have always been forbidden from attempting to "change" anyone against their will. That would be a violation of basic ethics.

2. No one has ever committed suicide due to Reparative Therapy. The individuals who have committed suicide would likely be alive today IF only they'd had access to real healing and unconditional love - which are the aim of Reparative Therapy.

3. No one has ever been “forced” to undergo Reparative Therapy. By definition, that is not possible. The therapy itself teaches self-respect and empowers individuals to stand up for themselves. You cannot “force” someone to be empowered and stand up for themselves against their will. Many people may have been forced into going to Exodus groups or talking to the church leaders and there are all kinds of those, but none of that has ever had anything to do with Reparative Therapy.

4. Reparative Therapy is not a separate modality of therapy. It uses all of the same therapy modalities of other therapists. The difference is respect for the client’s faith and identity. Reparative Therapists believe that there is more to an individual human being than a reductionist reference to their attractions. .

5. "Reparative Therapy" got its name from the premise put forth by Dr. Nicolosi that the compulsion for homosexual behavior is often a "reparative drive" - and that if we address the underlying Shame and emotional wounds, this drive will be LESS compulsive and healing can take place. It does NOT mean "repairing" a homosexual person because they are 'broken.'

6. “Reparative Therapy has brought healing and restoration - improving overall quality of life to everyone who has sincerely tried it. As a byproduct of this healing, Same-Sex Attraction usually decreases, but it is never expected or promised that it will go away entirely for everyone.

7. None of the public critics who claim to have been “harmed” or "shamed" by “Reparative Therapy” have never actually worked with a real Reparative Therapist. This includes Alan Chambers and the outspoken "former Ex-Gay leaders".[148]

Now, I do want to go over a little scientifically, what the term ‘reparative therapy’ means. It has been denigrated by the homosexual rights groups as fraudulent, but it matches some of the data that was looked at earlier. The study showed, prior to any dispute between ‘gay’ and ‘traditional marriage’, that the children who turned homosexual had issues that arose during childhood that would impact this or her outlook on sex. Doctor Elizabeth Mobley wrote a book on this issue, and I want to take some highlights from this book to show its psychological foundation. In speaking of complementarity, Dr. Mobley notes a couple of things noticed that as children, is where we get our foundation. Our psychological development takes time to develop:
The complementarity of male and female is certainly in God’s plan, but it is in God’s plan for adulthood. Men and women are not born adult. Rather we are designed to undergo a long period of physiological and psychological development before reaching maturity. Men and women are complementary-as adults. Children are in the process of attaining the mature identity that implies complementarity… It is true that ‘no-one is born a homosexual’ but no one is born a heterosexual either, and it is vital that we should do justice to the significance of pre-adult development in God’s plan.[149]
Mobley’s theory is that there is an incomplete development of the homosexual affections that tends to lead towards a sexual acting out:
Sexual sin is contrary to God’s intention, but homosexuality, although often an occasion for sexual sin, is essentially a state of incomplete development. It is the incompletion that is contrary to God’s intention here. Homosexual acts are prohibited, not because they repudiate the man-woman relationship, but because sexual expression is not appropriate to pre-adult relationships … If sexuality is understood more broadly, in terms of gender identity and not just sexual activity, the homosexual condition may well be seen against the background of male-female complementarity, in the way that has just been suggested. What is ‘fallen’ in the homosexual condition is ‘the fact that since people have a complete same-sex identity (homosexuality). The goal is the attainment of a complete same-sex identity, and, where the process of growth has been checked, the reparation drive of same-sex love is the solution to the problem of underlying deficits.‘[150]
Deliverance from the sexual expression of homosexual needs is right and proper. But It must be clear that such deliverance applies to inappropriate means of meeting such needs, not to the needs themselves. Otherwise to speak of deliverance from homosexual temptation is tantamount to saying that a child should be ‘delivered’ from its normal love-need for the parent of the same sex!![151]
Then she would say that Jesus would have never had homosexual temptation because he had a perfect Father, he had a perfect relationship with a loving Father and as such would never experience such a temptation.[152]
A homosexual who no longer engages in sexual activity may be spoken of as an ‘ex-practicing homosexual’ but no=one is an ‘ex-homosexual’ unless and unmet same= sex needs have been fulfilled. The goal is not change as such, but fulfilment – a fulfilment that would in turn imply change…Until healing is seen to involve the fulfilment of homosexual needs, and not their checking, we shall constantly be hindering rather than cooperating with God’s purposes for the homosexual.[153]
Moberly critiques those Christians who call homosexuality as rebellion against God. In fact, Romans 1 does show that in a sense it is rebellion against God. However, Moberly takes a look at the homosexual condition, as opposed to its homosexual activity, as actually being an attempt to fulfill a need that is even Godly. However, she quotes a Christian writer in being wrong when he wrote that ‘Homosexual is unnatural, against the creation of God and has accepted something that is contrary to reality. Moberly goes on to argue:
Such statements are both true and false. They are true in asserting the impropriety of homosexual activity, which is the eroticization of pre-adult psychological needs. But they are incorrect and utterly misleading if taken to imply that no legitimate needs are involved in the homosexual condition. The homosexual urge as such is entirely in accordance with the will of God and the divine intention in creation. It is neither unrealistic nor rebellious, since it belongs to the maturational process that is the will of God for human development. To condemn homosexual love, as distinct from its eroticization, is to condemn the child’s love-need for his or her parent. The needs are normal, the fact that have been left unmet in the process of growth is abnormal. Thus, it is the deficits that are against the will of God, and not the attempt to meet them. God did not intend the normal maturational process to be checked. But he did intend persons to attain adulthood through a parental attachment, and did intend that the maturational process should be resumed if interrupted.[154]
Moberly continues:
The Bible affirms the propriety of same-sex love, understood as the love-need of a child for his or her parent. When deficits occur substitute relationships for parental care are in God’s redemptive plan, just as parental relationships are in his creative plan.[155]
Unmet needs are to be met-but without eroticization. It is the sexual expression of pre-adult psychological needs that is unacceptable, and it is in this sense that one may say that God did not intend homosexuality. The needs are legitimate; the only question is of the legitimate means of fulfilling such needs when they have not been met in the ordinary process of growth.[156]
The Christian ideal of permanence in sexual relationships indicates a reason for the inappropriateness of homosexual activity. Homosexual relationships may last for only a brief length of time, or they may last for many years. However, if same-sex ambivalence were resolved and unmet needs fulfilled, the relationship would be outgrown, just as children normally outgrow their relationship of dependence on their parents. …There is no basis for permanence in the structure of the homosexual condition. Mere duration indicates only the continuing lack of resolution of same-sex deficits, or else the fact that much time is needed to make good substantial deficits. A form of marriage to sanction the homosexual relationship would be inappropriate, because the relationship is inherently self-limiting, and because marriage is not right for a relationship analogous to that between parent and child. Marriage is a heterosexual ‘institution’. As the homosexual reparative drive is itself a striving for the same-sex psychological completeness that is heterosexuality, homosexuality cannot be considered on a par with heterosexuality.[157]
Mobley points to something that those who left Exodus International for falling back into homosexual actions again didn’t seem to realize. Just marrying someone of the opposite sex without looking at the foundation of why you might be attracted to those of the same sex doesn’t cure anything:
Marriage cannot be a cure for homosexuality, since a relationship with the opposite sex cannot deal with same-sex deficits. Indeed, the practice of heterosexuality may bring unhappiness not only to the homosexual but the heterosexual partner. [158]
Homosexuality is a same-sex relational deficit, not an opposite-sex one. Thus, it is incorrect to say that… ‘Homosexual acts are not essential to the homosexual condition, and to define homosexuality in terms of its secondary eroticization must be seen as utterly misleading. Thus, too, abstinence as such is not the solution, but merely the prevention of an inappropriate acting-out of the solution. In principle, the abstinence required of the homosexual should be only temporary, pending the resolution and fulfillment of same-sex deficits. If same-sex needs were to be fully and truly met the erstwhile homosexual would have attained the psychological basis for sexual fulfilment in a heterosexual relationship.[159]
So, if the needs are truly fulfilled in the whole way, Moberly posits, then one can then orient towards a satisfying heterosexual relationship. Of course, for Christians that would be in the bonds of a heterosexual marriage.

Mobley relates:

Homosexuality is the kind of problem that needs to be solved through relationship. The solution to same-sex deficits is to be sought through the medium of one or more non-sexual relationships with member of the same sex (members of the same anatomic sex, in the case of transsexuals.) The supportive and healing relationship must be gender-specific, because of the very nature of the problem.

The same-sex relationship is to be so fulfilling that same-sex deficits remain no longer and the relationship itself is outgrown. It may be difficult at first for some Christians to accept that same-sex needs should be fulfilled, but this is necessary and it does not imply sexual activity. One will do well to remember that the capacity for same-sex love is essentially the love-need of the child for the parent, even if not consciously experienced as such.[160]

There is a same-sex deficit because of an incomplete parental, father-son relationship, or for lesbians, mother-daughter relationship. So, the attachment to someone of the same sex, in a non-sexual manner, is incumbent to get towards healing. The same-sex need must be fulfilled in order for that person to progress.

Now, we know beforehand that Homosexuality was seen as a psychological problem. We have seen the danger of homosexual sex, be it anal or oral. We have seen the high suicide rate, the partner abuse, the high rate of alcoholism, drug use, are factors that affect homosexuals in a negative manner, and can not be attributed to homophobia. We have seen these factors prevalent in countries that have accepted homosexuality as a culture, in the Netherlands and so forth. These factors have historically been seen as a part of the homosexual condition, and no doubt explains why prior to the 70s, it was seen by psychologists as something to be treated. Just using natural reasoning, one can see that homosexual sex is not natural, the place where you go to the bathroom is not designed to be on the receiving end of sex. We have seen it was acknowledged by the Surgeon General to be too dangerous. In any case, all this was seen in the past. So psychological attempts were made to help homosexuals leave their lifestyle. Of course, if one has faith in Jesus Christ, and one sees the Scriptural teachings against homosexuality there is a spiritual reason to turn away from homosexual sex. But in the past, and even on some occasions today, a non-religious psychiatry can turn one away from active homosexuality.

Earlier I mentioned the study of Bieber, in a 5-year study of 1957-1962, through many psychiatrists, of 106 homosexuals. They underwent psychological treatment, and according to their study, 27% of the homosexuals had turned exclusively heterosexual:

Of the total Homosexual sample, 74 patients had terminated psychoanalysis while 32 had not as yet completed treatment; 29 patients had become exclusively heterosexual during the course of psychoanalytic treatment. The shift from homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality for 27 percent of the H-patients is of outstanding importance since these are the most optimistic and promising results thus far reported. In the table XI-1 Exclusively homosexual 72, 30 bisexual 4 inactive. So, of the 72 14 became exclusively heterosexual,19%. Bisexual of the 30, 15, or 50%, succeeded. So 29 out of the 106 became exclusively heterosexual. [161]
So, this was 29 out of the 106 who had become heterosexual, according to this study. This was not religious psychology at all. This was an important finding. Bieber then writes:
We found that 78 per cent of the patients who became exclusively heterosexual had expressed the wish to overcome homosexuality at the outset of treatment while 42 per cent of the patients who remained homosexual had expressed this wish; the difference is significant at the .01 level. The 2 patients who had terminated as heterosexual in fewer than 150 hours of psychoanalysis also wished to become heterosexual. Thus, of the 29 patients who became heterosexual, 23 had consciously wanted to change. These data emphasize the importance of motivation in overcoming homosexuality. The wish to become heterosexual is a favorable prognostic indicator.[162]
Among the patients who treatment who terminated treatment as heterosexual, a significantly greater number respected their father in childhood. A finding is that only 11 homosexuals in the total sample both respected and admired their fathers. Of these 11 patients, 8 were included among the 29 became heterosexual, as compared to the other 3 among the 77 who did not, significant at the .01 level…Significantly more patients who shifted to heterosexuality had been reported as respecting their fathers currently.[163]
Bieber made a conclusion which shows the treatment of homosexuals in his day. This is with professional psychotherapy, with many psychologists treating them. This was Bieber’s conclusion:
The therapeutic results of our study provide reason for an optimistic outlook. Many homosexuals became exclusively heterosexual in psychoanalytic treatment. Although this change may be more easily accomplished by some than by others, in our judgment a heterosexual shift is a possibility for all homosexuals who are strongly motivated to change….

Our findings are optimistic guideposts not only for homosexuals but for the psychoanalysts who treat them. We are firmly convinced that psychoanalysts may well orient themselves to a heterosexual objective in treating homosexual patients rather than “adjust” even the more recalcitrant patient to a homosexual desire. A conviction based on a scientific fact that a heterosexual goal is achievable helps both patient and psychoanalyst to take in stride the inevitable setbacks during psychoanalysis.[164]

So, we see back then there was success in getting homosexuals out of their lifestyle, into heterosexuality without even having any religious bent. As the emphasis was on getting themselves out of homosexuality and into heterosexuality, they didn’t attempt to run numbers on who went from homosexual active people who did not convert to homosexuality, but went abstinent, even if they didn’t progress into heterosexuality per se. If abstinence from heterosexual sex resulted, that would really be a success as they would not incur the diseases and breakdowns that go with broken homosexual relationships. But no numbers were run on that aspect. But sure, this was a long time ago, but it does show that even a long time ago, if people really tried to leave homosexuality, it was possible. This was even without any religious dimension involved. Now, yes this was more than 50 years ago, but human nature has not changed. With that said, we can find some more writing on this stuff by someone who actually was behind the changing of the analysis that saying homosexuality was not a mental disorder in 1972. He also happened to treat, again, in a non-spiritual fashion, homosexuals who did want to change.

Nicholas Cummings, a psychologist, someone who supports Homosexual rights, and is indeed sensitive to their outlook, in an article from USA Today gives the following, revealing outlook on the issue:

Of the roughly 18,000 gay and lesbian patients whom we treated over 25 years through Kaiser, I believe that most had satisfactory outcomes. The majority were able to attain a happier and more stable homosexual lifestyle. Of the patients I oversaw who sought to change their orientation, hundreds were successful.

I believe that our rate of success with reorientation was relatively high because we were selective in recommending therapeutic change efforts only to those who identified themselves as highly motivated and were clinically assessed as having a high probability of success.

Patients over politics

Since then, the role of psychotherapy in sexual orientation change efforts has been politicized. Gay and lesbian rights activists appear to be convincing the public that homosexuality is one identical inherited characteristic. To my dismay, some in the organized mental health community seem to agree, including the American Psychological Association, though I don't believe that view is supported by scientific evidence.

Gays and lesbians have the right to be affirmed in their homosexuality. That's why, as a member of the APA Council of Representatives in 1975, I sponsored the resolution by which the APA stated that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and, in 1976, the resolution, which passed the council unanimously, that gays and lesbians should not be discriminated against in the workplace.

But contending that all same-sex attraction is immutable is a distortion of reality. Attempting to characterize all sexual reorientation therapy as "unethical" violates patient choice and gives an outside party a veto over patients' goals for their own treatment. A political agenda shouldn't prevent gays and lesbians who desire to change from making their own decisions.

Whatever the situation at an individual clinic, accusing professionals from across the country who provide treatment for fully informed persons seeking to change their sexual orientation of perpetrating a fraud serves only to stigmatize the professional and shame the patient.[165]

So a psychotherapist admits the idea that all same-sex attraction is immutable is a distortion of reality.

Now, we’ve seen some people from a non-religious background have some success in turning people away from homosexual conduct not using any spiritual way of doing it. We’ve seen secular psychologists talk about the success of changing homosexuals away from homosexual activity, and some have even changed to heterosexuality. That puts the lie that all such attempts fail. However, as the secular psychologists admitted, an important way of getting people to stop the practice of homosexual sex, is the spiritual way. Nonetheless, as evidenced by people as those leaders of Exodus International, normally, it is not enough just to ‘pray the gay away.’ So, the most successful at this will be to have a relationship with Jesus Christ, and follow him so that they can attain eternal life. At the same time, they must deal with the issues that made them tend towards wanting to have a sexual relationship with men. In most cases, they did not have a father who pushed the son towards masculinity. There would be an overbearing mother. They did not develop strong male friends who they pushed towards masculinity. So next I want to look at some examples of people, how they came to leave the homosexual lifestyle, and what were the things that they did to overcome their strong proclivity to have homosexual sex. We will see a few who successfully became celibate, and others who actually made the venture to not just turning away from homosexual sex, but actually achieving where the homosexual attractions went away, but they were also able to achieve heterosexuality without going back to the homosexual tendencies.

Now you will see homosexual activists say that what was said above isn’t possible. Whether it was the over 25% of the homosexuals who had left the homosexual lifestyle after psychological sessions, or the doctor who actually said he counseled many, and the homosexual attractions no longer dominated them, by a psychologist who actually promoted the change in 1973. They’ll quote psychologist after psychologist, most of whom have no clue of the science behind the treatment of homosexuals who want to change, to say that it is not possible for homosexuals to change. However, as noted by even non-religious psychologists, it is possible. Someone can believe that for your spiritual relationship with God, and the texts in both the New and Old Testament, states that homosexuality is sinful. In order for one to have that relationship with God, one can choose how they live will impact on whether they will go to heaven or hell, that definitely gives one an incentive to turn away from homosexual sex. Here I want to go over a few examples of people who left that lifestyle. Some actually not only left their homosexual life, but also made the whole transfer to heterosexuality. If there is just one person who legitimately changes, then the whole idea of its unchangeability is proven wrong. There are no doubt failures, but there are successes. If one does not necessarily change to a full heterosexuality, but instead, if a male no longer thinks of males as sexual objects, that is still a huge success. It doesn’t mean that one may not be tempted, but the thoughts no longer linger of thinking of the same sex as a sexual object. This is success, even if they do not proceed to a heterosexual relationship:

Anthony Falzarano

We have looked at Falzarano’s background some already, but want to spell out what he did to leave his homosexual urges. As Dr. Moberly noted, one can not just marry a heterosexual and thinks that cures one from homosexual temptations. Falzarano, after 9 years of living the homosexual lifestyle, because he wanted to have a family, decided that he’d do exactly that, went right into a heterosexual marriage without getting any psychological help. Here are a couple of things that he referred to in his book which showed the problems of getting no psychological help, after he was married:

I remembered one situation, during a weakened period of my life, having an opportunity to have an anonymous sexual encounter with an attractive man that I had met in a gay movie house. The temptation to fall sexually with him was severe and as I reached out my hands to touch hi, God, the Holy Spirit, spoke to me and said, ‘Do you remember our agreement?’ It scared the hell out of me. My hands quickly recoiled and I ran from the theatre that afternoon.

I also believed my repressed homosexual desires were beginning to exacerbate the situation. The sexual acting out before marriage was my way to release steam. Now that I had committed my body to the Lord and to my wife in the holiness of marriage, the demons began to taunt me. I was beginning to climb the walls so I convinced myself that masturbation, pornography and fantasy weren’t really sin, and they became my new sexual outlets. It was not a pretty picture. [166]

So Falzarano still had sexual fantasies with men, but he did not actually act it out. People like Chambers who turned to Christianity and thought it would take care of the issue without having to deal with the root of the things that would make him turn to homosexual sex. Not getting at the root of the issue leads to those temptations coming back. The first thing that helped Falzarano is a Sexaholics Anonymous ad in the Washington City Paper. That dealt with sexaholism, and getting a control of it, but still tolerated just modified sexual activity. Then he went to a Presbyterian Church in Maryland, that had a meeting of Christians that had turned away from homosexual sex, including a leader who had left homosexuality for nine years, and Protestant minister. They read Scripture then he went to a Catholic Church in Washington DC, which ultimately dealt with homosexuals who wanted to turning away from what was seen as sexual sins. Doctor Elizabeth Moberly for example spoke at this meeting, and here were some colleagues that struggled against homosexual sin, and had fellowship.[167] Many of the things that were mentioned earlier as things that contributed to his homosexual attraction were brought up and dealt with. He had an overbearing mother, a Father who was not involved at all with his activities, did not do sports. He listed a bunch of common things like that were mentioned earlier in this study.[168] One example of the healing is his relationship with his Father, which as we’ve seen, is often a big factor that contributes to the homosexual leaning:
One of the ways that He allowed me to experience important healing in my life was to have three good years of relationship with my father before he died of a heart attack at the age of 72. Those three years made up for the 30 unresponsive years that I was estranged from him. [169]
He mentioned his molestation and he had to forgive those who had molested him:
The Lord began to show me that I had to begin the process of forgiving all the male predators that had sexually molested me as a child. He began to give me a love for them instead of hatred. He showed me through his Son Jesus that I had been forgiven much and that I should not harbor anger against these people that sinned against me. He showed me that I had seen my salvation and that I should be happy that He saved me and that I should pray for my molesters’ salvation. That was very hard but by God’s grace, I was able to forgive. Forgiveness is absolutely crucial to the healing process.[170]
He had to repent of his over 400 sexual partners. He went to them for forgiveness. He then talked about having to detach from his dependence on his mother that had thwarted his masculine advancement:
I literally had to cut the spiritual apron strings that were still attached to me. I had to separate from her emotionally. This was very hard for both of us. She had been my rescuer for many years and I now had to depend on my heavenly Father to be my rescuer. I also had the opportunity to thank her for all the wonderful things that she had done for me. I really don’t think that I would have survived the early years without her maternal comforts. Unfortunately, she never let go, and to add insult to injury, I didn’t want her to let go! In order for me to come into my full masculinity this spiritual break from my mother had to take place.[171]
Remember, most of the male homosexuals had been closely intimately bonded to the mother while being detached from his father. He progressed:  
I had to move on to the next stage of healing, which I was bonding with other men. This was crucial! I was able to get along fine with women. I had done that all of my life. I now needed to bond with men without wanting to sleep with them. I needed to see them as peers. I didn’t have to envy men anymore because I was one of them all the time. I know that because my masculinity is intact, I could now see men as my equals even if they were more attractive, more intelligent or more polished. Praise God!....One of the last things I experienced that convinced me I was healed was that I was no longer “turned on” by the same sex. The physical arousal had greatly dissipated![172]
Falzarano then was a spokesman in the mid to late 90s of a group called Transformation Ministries. He spoke with Dr. Dobson, on the radio ministry. Falzarano found, and/or was involved in several ministries. He founded Transformation Ministries. He started up Parents and Friends of Ex Gays and Gays, which is still in existence. He was married and had two children, and was married for 25 years or so. At 55, unfortunately he passed away. Cause of death is called of ‘natural causes’. Perhaps, a heart attack. But he was never charged with either adultery or going back to homosexuality. As far as could be known, he was faithful to his wife, never charged with homosexual unfaithfulness.

Joseph Sciambra

Sciambra had delved into pornography starting an early age. Religiously he was brought up Catholic, but it wasn’t all that important to him. Jesus wasn’t important, the statue of Mary in the house was not seen as something important. At the age of eight, he got into pornography, through his older brother. His brother had Playboy, then Penthouse magazines. Then he advanced to pornographic movie ‘Tarzan and Jane’, in 1981 with Bo Derek, also ‘Bolero’. His pornographic wants grew at the age of 8. He was looking for new girl spreads on the pages. He was entranced by good looking women, and would compare girls to the images he had in the magazines and movies. However, when he got a little older he started noticing Boy George, with all the lip-gloss, being more beautiful than female counterparts, and he started to become attracted to the males, and then started to question his sexual identity.[173]

A couple of factors for him in his childhood, he didn’t have a strong attachment to boys, and was considered by others as ‘sissy’.

As a pre-teen, I was a thing, gangly, and artistic-leaning child. Porn tended to keep me constantly looking internally, as fantasy became my private playground. When the other boys were busily preoccupied with flag football, I often sat on the bench drawing pictures or just aimlessly doodling….They called me names: such as “gay” or “fag.” I had no idea what the words meant…I remained distant from men. I couldn’t easily connect with other males, or my own developing masculine identity.[174]
He went through a series of stages that led him to start to observing male pornography, breaking the barriers down, and eventually getting into the homosexual activity that he had struggled with. He eventually became a male homosexual pornographic movie star.

His book goes through all the stages that he went through in his journey. He lived in the Bay Area, and went into the gay capital of the world, San Francisco, like Falzarano, had lots of sexual partners. When he went there, he got into the gay culture. He performed for others, with no love, sex was just sex, and he attempted to dominate others through sex. He eventually got into the occult and magic, even met Simon Levay.

I was drawn in, not for the so it seemed normality of the practitioners, but the ritualistic allure and mystery of the unknown.[175]
He felt an evil presence. I will relate two of the episodes recounted in his book. After all of his homosexual activity that led to unhealthful throwing up, blood and so forth, he went to the hospital and he saw his mother praying. Then:
At that moment, I could feel a strong tug at my neck and a sharp pain in my shoulder. I suddenly became completely dissociated from my physical being, as if my mind and my body were two separate entities. I then noticed a large dark presence hovering over my bed. I did not see anything solidly tangible, but I knew something sinister lurked around me. There were two formless creatures, one on each side of me. I also could faintly perceive the presence of other evil beings. I do not know how I concluded that they were evil, as I stopped making any moral distinctions between such sentiments years ago. The only explanation is that this was evil unmasked. Gone was the veneer of beauty and desire. Again, I never saw them, but I knew they were there.

At the tugging at my neck became stronger, I began to realize that I was being pulled from my body, through the top of the skull. The pulling became more intense and I sensed that my head, neck, and shoulders were outside my torso. I could see my chest and legs below me, but everything was blurry as if I were looking through a haze. Then a huge empty space opened up behind the bed’s headboard. An immense open and salivating mouth breathed a stinking and moist heat upon the back of my neck. I was being pulled up and outwards, I heard a voice say ‘Open-wide.’[176]

He felt this was like a near-death experience, and in his desperation, he called out “Please God, help me please.” After he said that he was rushed back into his body. Then that experience made him rush to God in this act of desperation. He went in a search for God, and with Mary Magdalene as an example, he found hope in her, too ashamed to go directly to Christ, or even his mother. As he understood she found Christ after living the pleasures of the flesh, and she was a role model. He then went through the rosary, which has 15 decades, (now 20), which relates through Christ’s birth, death, life, and resurrection. He then went to confession.[177] He ran into a Courage meeting but who visited by a young Catholic priest. The priest preached the truth of the gospel.
Despite arriving in the middle of his talk, I quickly figured out that this was no pablum preaching from my childhood. I heard words such as the devil, Satan, demons and possession. I thought, “Who is this?” I listened intently. He continued to speak about his priestly interest in the occult and how he already helped those influenced by demonic spirits. I knew right away that I had to talk with this man after he was done…

I went up to him and also thanked him and said that his words really hit me hard as I was formerly involved with the occult….

He said that he wanted to pray over me. Once inside the room, I sat down on a chair. He then placed a purple stole over his shoulders and stood close to me so that he could set one end of the stole on my head.

.. but as the stole touched me, I immediately collapsed to the floor. I then noticed a strong pulling on my neck as if a chain or leash were being tugged upon. The force was so strong that I remember being partially dragged across the floor while my head violently bent in the other direction. Weird voices emerged from somewhere within. But I could also hear myself, in my own voice, saying, “Stop it!” What the priest was doing, I cannot recall. This went on for a few minutes, then it ended. I felt a heavy force leaving my body, then a sense of incredible peace and joy.[178]

He threw himself back into spirituality and had time to go to his parents’ house, who returned to the spiritual life. He did a lot of physical exercise to get his mind off of the temptations, solitarily at first. He then, encouraged by a priest, got control of the ‘custody of the eye.’ Keeping away from things that would tempt him. With him pornography had been his entrance to the whole thing of sexual addiction. So, stopping pornography was the big thing out of it.[179]

In hindsight he looked back on how pornography got him into that, and what his solution was:

When I was lonely, I looked at porn; when I was sad, I looked at porn; when I was frustrated, I looked at porn. It even became a reward. If I was feeling especially proud of myself, I sometimes celebrated with a porn-binge. When I grew up, and moved beyond pornography, se replaced the books and videos. The constant switching of partners, replaced the books and videos. The constant switching of partners, venues, and the intensity at which I pursued the next big catch, only further subdivided my fragile identity.[180]
His solution was a spiritual solution that helped him overcome. It was a spiritual power that he had not had:
I had to go back. I pushed through the false idols of lust and hate that I had created, and went straight to the little boy whimpering in the corner. He was me. I took his hand and led him to the house of the Holy Family. For this is where I recommend all men, go or straight, go to when they are seeking a refuge form the inner battle of lust…

But back in the little house of Nazareth, men will find the perfect models of masculinity and femininity: Joseph and Mary. At their humble home, a man can finally grow-up healthy and safe right next to the boy Jesus, loved by, and subject to, the two most perfect of human beings ever created by our Lord. The Virgin Mother will soften our hearts and mend our wounds. From Joseph, we will receive the gift of masculine compassion and confidence, reshaping us into a complete man fit to love and serve God in security and Faith.[181]

Turning to Jesus, when he attempted to recover from his addictions he had to recall his children issues:
To rejoin with Jesus also meant reconnecting with my lost and injured male identity. In a sense, I never became a man, I was still a child. I had been hurt. When I was made fun of, when I was lonely, when I hid in the closet looking at pornographic magazines, I was being slashed and cut into pieces I was frightened and I didn’t know what to do. As a child, I instinctively recoiled and pulled away. This left me shivering and guarded. I became so tightly bound that the result was isolation from the world in order to heal and protect myself from any further harm. I became stunted. I was entombed within the living crypt of porn. When I did jump head-first into the gay lifestyle, I innocently thought that the male only culture of the Castro would initiate me into masculinity. What it did was shock me into a limping sort of exuberant fragmentation.

Outwardly, I was initially horrified by the flagrantly unemotional and demented nature of gay sexuality, it was as if every pornographic fantasy and nightmare came to life, but I slowly began to love the physical freedoms, the companionship, and the acceptance. But I did not feel like a whole man. Every day in the gay life was a struggle. I was still shattered. Therefore, I put on a face of contentment, when, in reality, I was suffering.[182]

His attempt to find masculinity in a sexual way severed that relationship with Christ. So, in order to come to Christ, he had to sever that addiction to pornography.

Doctor Nicolosi, who did much work in reparative therapy, and helped many people to turn away from homosexual activity, had an impact directly on Sciambra himself. Crisis Magazine recounts Sciambra’s recollection.

Sciambra called Nicolosi. What was supposed to be 15 minutes turned into an hour, and there were more hours to come and Nicolosi didn’t charge for any of them. The heart of Sciambra’s problem and the heart of Nicolosi’s therapy were about the hidden pain that Sciambra and other gay men carry around with them. Sciambra described it this way,” I couldn’t escape the feeling that every man in my life had rejected me when I was a child. And it was that still frightened and friendless boy who needed help; except he never got it. Instead, he was told he was gay.”

Sciambra said he was always the clumsy kid who wanted to be one of the boys and in homosexuality “I decisively found a group of men who accepted me.” Even so, no man and no amount of men could fill the void that still existed deep inside. What he found in Gay World was darkness, dysfunction, and loneliness.

When Sciambra sought professional help in Gay World “one psychiatrist after another” ascribed his continuing difficulties with “unresolved internalized homophobia.” Sciambra told them he was out and proud; he had no problem with “having sex in public, in front of other people.” Then they blamed his Catholic upbringing. Sciambra said every priest he had ever discussed it with had supported his homosexual orientation. Sciambra said, “They had no answer except that I was doing gay wrong.”

What Nicolosi proposed was something different and, according to Sciambra, “radical”; an exploration of Sciambra’s past. He says, “All homosexuality accomplished was in multiplying my ghosts.” With Nicolosi he revisited “the annoying sissy boy of my youth, the lonely child I learned to hate who I had dragged around from one boyfriend to one bathhouse after another.” Sciambra says Nicolosi helped him not to be ashamed of that boy, helped to heal that boy’s wounds, and “finally to embrace that boy, and then to accept the boy was me.”

So potent and effective have been the efforts to help people resist unwanted same-sex attractions and behaviors, that stopping them has become not a cottage industry but a major industrial enterprise. Consider that if there was no call for such therapy, and if such therapy was truly unsuccessful, would Big Gay work so hard to shut it down? They are trying to ban it across the country and some of them have even gone to the UN. [183]

He developed friendships with men from Courage who also attempted to venture out of the homosexual sex lifestyle. He developed friendships with men. As Dr. Moberly noted, when one has sex with men, he is attempting to get affirmation of ones’ masculinity by the sex partner, that he did not get with his Father. His Father loved him, and supplied for him, however, he was busy at work a lot, just as Falzarano experienced. There was no closeness, just as Falzarano experienced. He had lived out this affirmation sexually, but when he was able to have non- sexual relationships with males, his masculinness was affirmed without sex being involved. That helped to greatly diminish his want for men in a sexual manner. The Catholic group ‘Courage’, contributed to his ability to diminish his sexual wants.

He now has a web page that deals with homosexual issues. He offers help and direction for those who turn to homosexuality and are not happy. Here is Joseph Sciambra Web Site. In his web site he deals with homosexuality in the church. He is dealing in the Bay Area, where there are unfortunately very liberal churches. He takes on those churches within the Catholic Church who are turning away from the traditional teaching. We see how Falzarano when he was taking somebody to turn away from homosexuality, a priest tried to caress his friend. Falzarano left the church when that happened. We will see in Janet Boynes that her lesbianism was confirmed by a priest. She had to go somewhere else to a church that taught lesbianism was wrong, even though the Catholic Church likewise teaches that lesbian activity is sinful, and must be taught so, while still showing that the homosexual person is loved by God. The Church’s representatives did not speak the truth of the Church teaching on the manner to either Boynes or Falzarano. Part of the Sciambra’s mission is to call out such people, who actually turn people away from the Church, giving a false love.

In his blog, Sciambra relates his story and encourages the church to appeal to homosexuals, but in a way consistent with her teaching. Those were not isolated situations, Sciambra has a blog as well. His blog: is available here . He has moving video, which shows the death of male pornographic stars, living a life that he had done. In other words, Dead ‘Gay’ Porn Stars Memorial, Joseph Sciambra . He also has you tube videos going over his experience Joe Sciambra you tube, also going over his conflicts with people promoting homosexuality in the church. One example, in which he was on the receiving end of mocking by Howard Stern. But he stands up for Christian teaching on the issue. Joe Sciambra on Howard Stern. He relays some bad experiences he did on the screen. Stern, his partner, and the people who called him, would mock him, but Sciambra responded with Christian charity. Stern said there were many who had monogamous same sex relationships though Sciambra said otherwise. Of course, in homosexuality, we have seen monogamy does not mean faithfulness, for the homosexual men have outside sexual relationships. Sciambra relates that what he experienced, many write him to tell him that what he experienced in San Francisco in the 90s, is what they related to. He has a Catholic book store, for his living. He helps to teach of the truth of the Catholic gospel. His ministry is ongoing.

David Morrison

Davie Morrison, we talked about earlier. Absent father, overbearing mother, turned to homosexuality. He actually became a young homosexual activist. He had this activism for years, but when he came out he says he got hooked quickly. From the age of 13-20, he had multiple homosexual partners, he would weary of one, then go on to the next one.[184] When he went to college, he joined the Gay and Lesbian Student Union and helped to defeat a Christian Student Union attempt to bar student fees from funding the Gay and Lesbian Student Union. He debated Christians and won. So, what started him thinking of going away from homosexual activism?

Ironically, working as a gay activist helped disillusion me about so much of the actively homosexual life. As hard as I wanted to believe the rhetoric I wrote, gradually the reality of what I promoted kept seeping through. It was not merely that so many were ill or dying----that produced a rage at my helplessness more than anything else. Rather, so little of this gay life came to hold any meaning for me. Over and over again I found myself thinking—whether in bed or in the gay bookstore, at dinner with gay friends, or protesting some injustice----is this all? Is this really all there is to my life? Is the most important thing really being gay? And I chided myself for having so much and feeling so ungrateful.[185]
Morrison believed in God, and as he believed in God, he looked to reconcile his belief in God, with his practicing homosexuality, with Scripture. Morrison first bought into gay Christian theology, where Scripture was interpreted as not condemning homosexuality per se, but just a specific type of homosexuality. He accepted the homosexual advocacy theology. One will nowadays find web sites that promote homosexuality which likewise tries to reconcile Scripture with the practice of homosexuality. He found ‘gay theologians’ who could do that. He ended up with a Lesbian teaching him that homosexuality as we know it was not now was not really discussed.

It is alleged that the author of Genesis 19 for example, had no knowledge of homosexuality as we understand it, so the writings in Genesis 19 don’t relate to homosexuality today:

I turned to the workbook’s discussion of Genesis 19, the chapter which had so convicted me just weeks earlier. The workbook pointed out that the rest of the Bible condemns Sodom and Gomorrah not for homosexuality but for greed and unwillingness to live by the covenant God has delivered….Rather than homosexuality, most of the rest of Scripture equates Sodom with far more universal human failings. In addition to making the name Sodom almost a code for spiritual infidelity, the prophet Ezekiel specifically laid the city’s charges before her. “Behold,” the prophet said, “this was the guilt of your sister Sodom; she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy (Ezekiel 16:49). Since Christian tradition demands Scripture first interpret itself in light of other Scripture, is it proper to contend that Genesis 19 primarily concerns homosexuality? Instead, the workbook suggested that Sodom’s real crimes were inhospitability (a tradition with a good deal more meaning in the Near East of that time than in ours) and homosexual rape akin to prison rape.[186]
Then Morrison would look at other rationalizations that ‘gay’ theologians had put to explain away what would seem to mean clear condemnation of homosexuality, and bought the arguments, but even he recognized as of that point, the rationalizations, were shaky for sure, and he still had doubts, in other words, was not entirely convinced by those arguments.[187] So, he tried going to different ‘gay churches’ to fulfill his longing for God, but still keep his homosexual activity going. He would go to Dignity Churches, which attempts to reconcile Catholic Church teaching with active homosexuality. Integrity was a similar organization within the Episcopalian Church. Here was his experience with those who promoted ‘Integrity’ and ‘Dignity’: When he went to ‘Dignity’ Masses:
All the Dignity worship services I attended, while welcoming me as a non-Catholic, lacked, ironically, the dignity that I had come to expect and appreciate in worship. I didn’t come to church to hug or be hugged, to cruise or be cruised. I didn’t come to church as a prelude to seeing the same people with whom I shared Mass at the bars a few short hours later. I came to church seeking an opportunity to deepen the connection with the God who loved me no matter what. I came for love, but all too often I got a grope instead….In short, being a Dignity Catholic or an Integrity Anglican didn’t seem to mean much when it came to how one lived life, particularly in the bedroom. I lost track of the numbers of Dignity members I met who had long reserved a spot in the “serial monogamy” parade. “Serial monogamy” came into fashion as ever-greater numbers of credible researchers linked the expanding HIV epidemic with promiscuity. Instead of having four sexual partners in a week, for example, serial monogamy suggested having four in a moth, or even two months, and thus keep oneself safer from the AIDS virus. I could see how that might help slow the spread of HIV, but I wasn’t at all sure how it stood up as a standard for Christian behavior. I recall the case of a deacon, an ordained man, who was HIV positive but who had not allowed either his ordination or HIV status to interfere with his pursuit of sexual partners.[188]
Morrison actually wrote for a publication called Malchus, at that time a ‘Gay’ Christian newsletter that promoted ‘gay Christianity’ but he felt it was superficial, and ultimately studying, he wanted to be faithful to Christ, and he wrote a letter saying that he could no longer participate in gay advocacy. He wrote that Malchus endorsed a lifestyle that was sinful, and he could no longer do that. He had started to go to Trinity Church in Northern Virginia, he had spoken to one of the leaders of the Church about his homosexual activities, and he was not condemned by him, but was told he could never approve of homosexual activity and asked him to set aside his homosexual activity at the altar of Christ, and give that up, and he would get baptized. He had been accepted, not judged, but was still told they could not approve of his homosexual activity.[189] His earlier arguments for such activity were not accepted by others in the church but they were seen through the filter of people who had their own sins, and they were all sinners, trying to overcome sin, through God’s grace, and people did not hate him for his prior activity.

What got him moving was reading the famed Christian Dietrich Bonhoeffer who suffered death in Nazi Germany, trying to hide Jews. When he saw what Bonhoeffer encountered, service to Christ or death, Bonhoeffer chose service to Christ.

Confronted with Christ, Bonhoeffer’s work made clear that a man or woman has but two possible choices: I will follow and serve or I will not. Nothing else, if discussed honestly, is possible.[190]
Then he read the passage of the rich young ruler (Mt: 19:26-28). He teetered but knew that Christ heard his cry, but he had to respond He took up Christ and died to himself after much hesitating and languishing Morrison decided to follow Christ.[191] . What happened in his relationship with his boyfriend/lover? Unlike the first two spoken of, Falzarano and Sciambra, he had a long sexual relationship with his boyfriend (not monogamously though). So, upon reading Bonhoeffer, he made the choice:
Confronted with the truth, I knew I had to choose. Love Christ and real faith demanded that I cease treating my partner, or anyone else, as an object for sexual evaluation or pleasure. God meant human beings to be so much more than that. Chastity, I came to see, made up a significant part of my Cross and Christ had called me to myself….I went to my partner of so many years and said, “I love you. Could we please not do this [have sex] any more…My decision, made unilaterally, shocked my partner and began a year long conversation about the roots and foundations of our relationship.[192]
He then decided to go the Catholic faith, as there was little support in the Episcopalian/Anglican church for chastity. Those churches hosted Dignity/Integrity socials and allowed same-sex unions. They asked him why he wanted to be celibate. On the other hand, from the opposite spectrum he had a rector said out of obedience to Christ, homosexuals needed to change their orientation to heterosexual. Speaking with others, they thought him strange, he found more support within the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has an organization called ‘Courage’, an organization that supports chastity, without necessarily mandating that the followers attempt to become heterosexual. He also accepted the worship, and the Eucharist, and the historicity of the Catholic Faith that helped him turn to Christ within the Catholic Church.[193]

He then studied the issues on the cause of homosexuality and saw beyond the APA condemnation of those organizations such as NARTH, which help people to look at the root of their homosexuality, and see the things that can cause one to turn to homosexuality. He stayed dogmatic that he did not ‘choose’ homosexuality, but came to understand that the choices he made in life earlier, put him on a course that would lead to a sexual attraction to man. As he proceeded he did get an attraction to a woman, though she was going to be engaged and she eventually got married to a man.

He developed a relationship with a man friend who was into ‘manly activities’ such as mountain biking, backpacking trips and other activities. Doing things with men, that had no sexual thought or activity that helped him to move away from the homosexual proclivity, and he cared for him, with absolutely no pretension of homosexual sex behind that, which is not anything that he had experienced before. A book he read for self-help, in psychotherapy by a Gordon Van den Aardweg had an impact on him, ‘The Battle for Normalcy’.[194]

After a long experience of self-examination, Morrison noted, yes others may not experience the healing that he has, but he notes:

I have written what has happened because it is true and because someone needs to step forward and testify to the reality of God’s power in an individual life. I can’t say why I have experienced the healing I have. I don’t know why others have not. I can’t say I believe that dramatically diminishing same-sex attractions is possible in every life or can be mandated by anyone other than the people actually living with the attraction. But I must testify that despite the complicated web of wounds both real and imagined, deep longings and insincerity, doubts, failures, and desires, Christ stepped forward with the knowledge, resources, and the wise and loving friends I need to break free. For this I am deeply grateful.[195]
So, in essence, he left the homosexual culture, chose Christ. He wrote several articles on faith in Christ, and left the homosexual subculture. He is a writer, on other issues, but has left his homosexuality, and chose Christ. He has written several articles for Catholic Answers.

Janet Boynes

Janet Boynes we looked at earlier had been sexually assaulted by a step-Father and an altar boy. She did have a mother who was very harsh with her, and was been beaten by her mother. She had sex with males at a young age. she turned to drugs, and many other things, she felt a void in her heart. Now in hindsight, this is what she said helped her turn to lesbianism:

I felt so empty inside. Nothing I tried was able to fill the void in my heart that was driving my desperate search. I wanted to make something of myself, finding a way to somehow make people love me. The type of love I had experienced in my life wasn’t enough and I knew it. I needed something more.

I tried seeking love through relationships and began experimenting with boys, but I found out that most of my boyfriends just wanted me for sex. My feelings for men were already distorted because of the abuse and neglect in my childhood. I knew that I didn’t want to be just a sexual object so I decided that a heterosexual relationship wasn’t enough for me and I began seeking women.

I tried to fill the emptiness inside of me by having relationships with women for fourteen years. During that time, I jumped from relationship to relationship, desperately hoping that the next relationship would be the last, that I would finally find what I was looking for to fill my heart.[196]

She found out that the Father she was living with, was not her biological father. She had lesbian leanings throughout and tried to cover it up when she met and got engaged to a male. She is black, her engaged person was white. There were unfortunately some prejudicial vibes coming from his mother, who didn’t like interracial coupling. When she was engaged, she had a sexual relationship with someone she originally wanted to talk to about God, her first lesbian sexual relationship, and because of that sex, broke off the engagement to him.[197] Then she went from lesbian relationship to lesbian relationship, ultimately, she had 14 years where she had sex with various women. She’d have various meetings of people who she thought was urging her back to Christianity and away from Lesbianism. She knew from her conscience that something was wrong with female to female sex, but when she was thinking about stopping it, she’d go back to it. One person who she had a sexual encounter and was actually thinking of marrying that person even though same sex marriage was illegal, in the 1990s. Her mate at the time was Haley, and here is Boynes’ rendition of her meeting a priest with her mate:
Haley’s mother was a devout Catholic and because of her advice, we made an appointment to see a priest at the Basilica in Minneapolis. As we began taking with him in his office, we noticed that the priest was very feminine and we guessed that he was probably gay. We told him about how Haley’s parents were displeased with our lifestyle choice and about how we both eventually wanted to marry men, but we also wanted to make things work with each other. I told him that I was scared about the consequences of our lifestyle and that I couldn’t go to bed some nights because I was so afraid. What we were really looking for was for the priest to tell us whether or not what we were doing was wrong.

“Don’t worry anymore,” the priest told us as our session ended. “You aren’t doing anything wrong. After talking with you both and seeing how much you love each other, I believe that there is no sin in the way you are choosing to live your lives.”

We left the Basilica feeling validated in our lifestyle and I was less afraid that I was going to hell for being a lesbian. We went on with our lives the way we had before.[198]

So, the priest did absolutely nothing to dissuade Boynes and her mate, from the lesbian sexual relationship and actually encouraged her. Of course, though the Catholic Church does not say that homosexual persons, as persons, are wrong, the acting out of same sex sexual activity is condemned, so the priest definitely did not pass on the teaching of the Church.

Boynes was the boyish, male person to the more effeminate mate Haley. Though the priest blessing of the relationship was there, she ultimately still retained a conscious, which still told her that same sex relations were wrong. She actually thought of having a sex change to a man, so her relationship would be more ‘normal’ but ultimately decided against it because she wasn’t sure she wanted to stop being female.

So, what changed Boynes? She had been lesbian, and exclusively lesbian, for 14 years. She met a woman shopping. Now Boynes had ‘accepted her Lord and Savior’ Jesus Christ, about 20 years before this point in time. In any case, she met someone who encouraged her to go to her Assemblies of God church, which did not accept homosexuality. But that person did not talk down to her when she confessed to her lesbian activity. She was in a lesbian relationship with someone named Carrie. Now in the past in her lesbian relationships went rocky she’d fill it with a different Lesbian affair, this time she started reading Scriptures and bible studies. She met a person who she told about her lesbian activity tendencies, and since she had encouraged to change it, the Pastor would let her speak, give a testimony, when of course she hadn’t even properly dealt with her Lesbian leanings.

So, after the talk someone from her bible study told her, Jenny, she needed to break off her relationship with her lesbian girlfriend. If she wanted to talk about leaving the lesbian relationship, she was told, she needed to break off that relationship. She confessed it. After she gave the talk, Jenny took her in with her household. Jenny did have some spats with Boynes who was still emotionally attached to Carrie:

I still couldn’t believe they had invited me into their home to live with their children and be a part of their family I learned from how men and women should treat each other, the importance of spending time with your family and about family values. I also learned how to forgive. In a very real way, my experience at Mike and Jenny’s house was like a second childhood for me. It helped heal and restore me from so many wounds I had suffered in my first childhood.[199]
In that bible study which she attended, she learned to develop relationships with women in a way she had never experienced. Whereas she developed relationships with women as a lesbian, the sex still surrounded that relationship. But when she started going to the bible study at the Assembly of God Church, something developed that had not developed in her relationships with lesbians:
For the first time in years, I worked with women in a non-sexual manner and they were able to teach me so much. I learned about my identity as a woman, how to dress like a woman, how to walk like a woman, even how to put on make-up...

The Bible study I attended wasn’t specifically designed for people to come out of homosexuality, but it didn’t matter. Those women loved me like a sister and a daughter. They prayed for me—they accepted me for who I was.[ 200]

That first year, where she lived with a heterosexual family had a major healing effect on her. She saw a husband and wife in love with each other, and kids, noticed of course their fights, but how a family life responded, totally different from what she termed the horrors of her childhood:
Piece by piece, I saw the shattered fragments of my self-image, my sexuality, and my spiritually restored and healed. Even though it lasted only a year, staying with a Christian family was a second childhood for me. It didn’t erase all my bad memories, but it showed me how things were supposed to be. During that year, I was able to experience real family love and it made a difference in my life.[ 201]
Now does that mean she no longer has any temptations at all in reference to wanting sex with women? She began her journey away from homosexuality in 1998 after 14 years of lesbian sexual activity. She is writing this book in 2008:
I still have thoughts about the homosexual lifestyle from time to time, but I no longer have any desire to return to it. My thoughts and desires have changed since I returned to a relationship with Jesus Christ. My hope for my personal life is now to one day have a husband, and my desire, instead of returning to the homosexual lifestyle is to help those who are struggling with the same things that I struggled with for so long.[202]
A lot of the rest of the book is advice on how to deal with homosexuality, advice for parents, dealing with homosexual rights as compared to civil rights of blacks, and taking on assorted questions such as that.

She created her own ministry, Janet Boynes Ministries. When I talked to her over the phone, she said she has no temptations to return to that lifestyle. That site offers help to those who have been homosexual, and offers help in achieving freedom to what she calls the enslavement to homosexual wants. She offers the ability to leave homosexuality. She met with President Bush, who said she was a beautiful person, in 2006. And she contrasted that statement to her remembering when she had short hair and dressed in men’s clothes.

In the close of the book she writes what she has progressed to:

In 2006, Janet Boynes Ministries became an official non-profit organization, and I can tell you that it is a lot of work. We also launched our Web site and hope to use it to coordinate our ministry. By God’s grace, we hope to continue ministering to individuals who wish to leave the homosexual lifestyle and I pray we will also be able to teach churches about homosexuality and be able to help them set up their own ministries to the homosexual community.[203]
Her ministry is available here Janet Boynes Ministries. She has people who help her to run her ministry. Her goal is to reach out to people who have same sex attractions. It is clear that it is not a full proof solution because people have free will, and if someone turns back into same sex activity, it is that person’s choice. She does not do reparative therapy, like some of the others experienced above, but seeks to point people to Jesus Christ, and turn away from that sin. Although she doesn’t do reparative therapy, part of her work does involve getting a woman to becoming a woman, or a man becoming a man, and develop relationships with people of the same sex in a nonsexual manner, something that she experienced herself, as have Falzarono, Sciambra, and Morrison successfully. Just as the above three turned to Christ, so did she. The spiritual transformation is the basis for the turning away from same-sex sin.

She confirmed to me, that despite being in the lesbian life for 14 years, and in that life, she no longer has a want for going back to that activity. She understands that would be turning her back on God, and she in no way wants to do that. She no longer is tempted by that. She would be interested in meeting a male, and entering holy matrimony, but as of yet, she has not yet met that person. She said to me that she has received death threats from those opposing her ministry. But her offer of help to those who have same sex attraction goes on. Here is one example:

I knew what I should be doing, and that was serving God. Gay rights were on the rise. Society was making it very easy for me to just be open and expressive about the love I was feeling for this woman. But I knew something wasn't right. I had no peace so I started searching online for help because I knew I couldn't do it alone. I first found an online counselor who encouraged me to seek out a ministry that I could get involved with. During that search, I stumbled across Janet Boynes' book, Called Out. So much of what I was feeling, Janet expressed in her book. I finally felt like someone understood my ups and downs and my struggle. I boldly reached out to her ministry and was greeted with a response within 1/2 hour. I experienced love, encouragement and a host of support from her team. What I came to realize was that this would be a process and freedom wouldn't happen overnight. However, I was willing to fight for my healing and my freedom from lesbianism. I immersed myself in JBM's monthly support group where I started my journey of healing. Now, I am the leader for the group I was attending at Janet Boynes Ministries, and this group ministers to women who struggle with homosexuality and same sex attraction.[204]
When she spoke to me she speculated to me that anywhere from 70 to 90% of Lesbians have been abused, like her. Elicia the one above, acknowledged in her writing that she was too abused. She tries to guide people out of that lifestyle, into Christ. However, Boynes also did relay to me that doing her ministry, she has actually had death threats from homosexual activists. Homosexual activists denigrate people who reach out in ministry to homosexuals. She offers help to people who want help. In a free society, death threats for someone offering help that they see as help, is not acceptable.

But I Could See that He/She was Going to be Gay since He/She was a Kid!

An argument that is often found, and I have had people tell me, ‘well, I could tell from the beginning, when the kid was very young, that the kid was going to be gay. He clearly had signs of being a homosexual long before the kid could even think about sex.’ That is because in some cases boys had effeminate leanings that one could not miss. In many of those circumstances, when one shows such symptoms, in more cases than not, that person later on in life will be a homosexual male, or a lesbian female. For example, I mentioned earlier when I was a kid, there was a person who was very effeminate, at a very early age, and he was called many demeaning things, as he displayed his feminineness, even as a young boy. He was no doubt denigrated by quite a few people, specifically because he was homosexual. Now, this person, ended up going to San Francisco, acted out his homosexuality, got AIDS and died. As of that point in time, AIDS treatment was just to delay death for some period. It was before the better medicines that came out, that are current now. However, what I found out, was his mother was very close to him, and dressed him as a girl and gave him dolls. She told him she wanted to have a girl, and treated him as such. The father was distant, fitting the image we found in so many cases. The person was never encouraged to get into boy activities, was encouraged to be artistic, and the femininity was encouraged by his mother. If that is encouraged, having no friends who were male in which they did boy activities, it is no surprise that he ended up homosexual.

Now, Dr. Nicolosi did treatment of children whose parents were worried about children becoming homosexual. In many cases they displayed feminine characteristics and that worried the parents, that they could become homosexual. I will go over one example of progress. In many cases, what one suspects, if there is nothing done at an early age to get boys to get into boy activities with boy friends in a nonsexual manner it can progress to male homosexuality. The same with girls who have boyish tendencies and are not encouraged to have girls as non-sexual friends, can develop into lesbian sexuality. All four of the ones studied had these issues and the boys were not encouraged in boyish activities and Boynes was boyish and did not develop female activities. They became same-sex attracted.

Here is one example that Dr. Nicolosi went to the treatment of a boy who was showing effeminate signs at a young age, and how the initial parenting seemed to lead to his feminization:

I remember coming from work when Trevor was about three, and he would be playing with his sister and wearing my sister Lucy’s shoes. My sister thought it was cute, but I never remember thinking so… Around the time he watched Cinderella: I don’t remember if he started to pretend he was wearing a dress before or after he saw the movie, but around that time he started putting on his sister’s nightgown and making believe it was a dress. Again, my mother and my sister Lucy saw no harm in this and never stopped him from doing it…

Then he started drawing alot. That was fine, but he always drew pictures of a girl in a beautiful gown with a bow on her head. He loved Minnie Mouse but never bothered with Mickey. If he watched the Muppets, it was Miss Piggy that made him smile.

The mother said ‘I felt like Trevor was my “soul mate,” and I said as much to my husband, Jim… My ego soared when he preferred to be with me instead of his daddy, which was all the time. We were so perfectly in tune with one another that I could tell him anything. He and I were truly soul mates.

I remember him playing with his sister’s Minnie Mouse purse and the two of them playing with her dolls. By then, I was really becoming concerned, and one night I prayed to God for an answer. I knew that my mother-in-law and sister thought I was ridiculous. “He’ll outgrow it,” they assured me.

Two months before he was five, I noticed that Trevor was much more feminine than either my daughter or me….He was always watching those cartoons, mostly cartoons with feminine characters. He would never watch anything like He-Man. I didn’t see any harm in Star Wars, until I saw Trevor in the dining room putting a triangular toy on his head trying to pretend he was Princess Leia.
By now his voice was high-pitched---a singsong kind of voice, a forced feminine voice. And he had begun to cry a lot.

Ok, so this is the background for the boy before the mother took him to Nicolosi. Nowadays if this kind of thing happened, most likely many would say she is a transgender, and ‘she’ is a female in man’s body so leave her be. There are many who would encourage her femaleness, and not to worry that he is showing feminine tendencies. Many would be like her mother and sister that either thought he’d grow out of it or nowadays he is actually a girl so let ‘her’ be. Those were observations that she made in her diary of Trevor. Father distant, an admitted very close mother, and a boy who started to turn feminine. Also in there was that he was scared of boys, and only wanted to play with girls, and he didn’t have any inkling for any kind of ‘boy’ sports. So, she brought him to Nicolosi at a young age.

Dr. N. was very supportive, but he agreed that we had a serious problem. What amazed me was that he was able to describe Trevor’s personality before I did. He knew from experience with other clients that Trevor was afraid of getting hurt physically and therefore did not like rough play, that he was not very coordinated in sports, and that he absolutely loved fantasy.[206]
Nicolosi asked about the boy’s relationship with the father. He spent little or no time with him in doing any physical activities, the father complained about the boy not wanting to see him, but when he saw him, he would just sit down and watch TV, the father never encouraged him to be physical, play any boy games, or do any physical, boy activity. So, the mother relates Nicolosi’s order of importance of treatment:
Dr. N told me that Trevor’s treatment must primarily focus on improving the relationship between Trevor and his father. He indicated that my husband would have to break down his son’s “defensive detachment” by being especially loving with Trevor. At every opportunity he had to work with our son, pointing out male/female differences and gently discouraging the feminine behavior. It was very important that he never yell at Trevor, because our son was so easily hurt. He should be especially patient with him, more so than with our other kids, and whenever he did become really angry, rather than letting him see that he was angry or frustrated with him, Jim should simply walk away.

We were both supposed to reinforce Trevor’s maleness and masculine behavior, explain the anatomical differences between boys and girls, and basically puncture Trevor’s feminine fantasies with love, bringing him back to reality. Trevor simply go on pretending to be a girl.[207]

Trying to get his father involved, though it was the mother who worked hard to get his father involved are a couple of things she got the father to do:
My husband was to wrestle with him every night, to help overcome his fears of rough-and-tumble play with other males. It was also important that my husband make it appear that Trevor was having some success at outwrestling his father. Part of the problem was that Trevor did not feel he measured up, that he was as good as other boys…

I had to get my husband more emotionally connected with his son. I began to suggest weekend activities for the two of them, which included hiking, roller-skating, and bowling. I bought toys for my son, but I asked the husband to give them to him…

Trying to get Trevor to be unafraid of playing with the “real” boys was my goal. I picked out boys who I thought were the most masculine boys at his birthday party and, based on what he told me about them, made friends with their moms and invited the boys over. Trevor did not feel especially comfortable with them in the beginning, but each day their play time got better. He is now active on the school playground with these boys, and I encouraged him every time he plays with them.[208]

Now, the mother seemed to be much more interested in doing this rather than the Father. She pushed the father and the father only did the improvements of hugging and kissing him, at her behest. He was told not to shame the boy. She noted significantly that this was hard work involved;
It is not easy, and I can understand why parents don’t follow through with this treatment. It was especially hard in the beginning, because that’s when I really did feel that I might be hurting his feelings. But seeing him now accepted by his friends, happy at school and eager to go there, unafraid of being around other boys and eager to play with them, receiving invitations to so many of the other boys’ birthday parties, I have no regrets.[209]
The mother was doing a lot of the pushing and the husband, though he wanted the end, of making the boy, more of a boy, with male characteristics. He did not have the same rigor as the mother. Accordingly, there were ups and downs. On some occasions, the boy would come back and evince signs of masculinity, but then there would be occasional falling back into feminine characteristics. She would find those falling back to feminine characteristics when something negative happened between the child and the father. Ups and downs led to progress though. It was like two steps forward one step back, sometimes it would seem the other way, however, in the long run there was progress for the boy.[210]

Then in conclusion, Dr. Nicolosi followed up and got the following comments from the mother.

Ten years after Trevor first started therapy I called his mother for a follow-up interview Trevor had just turned 16 years old, and she reported that although he’s not super macho like his cousins are,” the effeminacy is, much to her relief, “now gone”. Continuing with her story, she told me, “When he was very young, he was extremely insecure. He still has his insecurities, but I would say that today, he has a sense of a male self. I would predict now that someday he’ll marry and have kids.[211]
The father, who didn’t have a strong father himself, did not do a lot of the work, and she resents that her husband only did stuff with the son at her urging. So, she had some resentment towards his lack of pushing by her husbands’ reticence to help:
So at every opportunity in our home, I myself, do what I can to quietly reinforce the male image. I will call Trevor “fellah” and “young man,” “my boy”. I have always referred to him with a male emphasis. I have to. I hate to sound like I’m back in the “old times,” but with my son’s gender confusion, I had an obligation to enforce clear gender-role differences.[212]
So, in conclusion we see that there are indeed some ways to change the overall outlook of people. We’ve seen some similarities in the background. Although there have been diverse backgrounds, there have been some similarities. There have been those brought up who were rich, those who have been brought up poor, we’ve seen some who were overly promiscuous, like Falzarano, and Sciambra, and others less such as Morrison. The lesbian Boynes had sex with other women, but tied into that were relationships. In these examples, as we’ve noticed in the studies, even conducted by homosexual advocates, there was no sexual exclusivity, faithfulness, in these same-sex sexual relationships. However, in these cases, there was an emptiness for all of them, and as they could not find satisfaction in their lives, and these people sought to turn away from the homosexual activity. They all proclaimed the grace given by Jesus. However, they had to totally change their routines and it took a lot of work to turn away from the routines that would lead to homosexual activity. And they did.

We did find earlier that through psychological counseling, without even a directly spiritual outlook, as in the study by Bieber, even without directly appealing to a spiritual outlook, and in getting and reinforcing the maleness characteristic outlook, with counseling, it was possible for some to turn away from an active homosexual lifestyle. We’ve seen that through the study by Bieber, when technically homosexuality was still seen as a psychological disorder. But also, even a doctor, who was happy to support homosexual rights, in reference for those who wanted psychological counseling to turn away from active homosexual activity, was askance at those people who were pushing to ban psychologists from helping homosexuals to turn away from homosexual activity. As we’ve seen, this same secular psychologist actually helped people to turn away from an active homosexual lifestyle, he said it would be hard work, but it is possible, and can be done. We saw in Bieber’s study that some, if they really wanted to work at it, could turn from the active homosexual lifestyle to heterosexuality.

In this section, we have looked at some people who were active homosexuals, and have either at a minimum at least stopped their homosexual activity, and some developed heterosexual interests, within the bounds of a morally Christian life. We will see others become fully heterosexual in some other cases, later on. However, just as the secular psychologists that at the time said it took a lot of work by the homosexual in order to get rid of being bound to the homosexual desires, there are others, who we’ve looked at, such as Boynes, Morrison, Falzarano, and Sciambra, it took a lot of work for them to get it so the homosexual desires would be lessened, and in some cases, expunged. But it was God that gave them the grace that would enable them to do so. What these four had, as an extra incentive to turn away from the active homosexual lifestyle, was a desire to have a relationship with God. Scripture surely identifies that those who live an active homosexual lifestyle, will not inherit the kingdom of God, (1 Cor. 6:9-11). These people had various backgrounds, but they noticed the Scriptural warning against homosexual activity. Others, such as Sciambra and Morrison, also noted that it was both Scripture, and tradition that identifies homosexual activity as against God’s will. All wanted a relationship with God, and saw that this homosexual activity severs that relationship. Morrison read the theologians that defended a Scriptural understanding that said that homosexual activity, per se, was not condemned, but only the type of homosexual activity that was abusive was condemned. That was not convincing to him. However, as we’ve seen, it is not quite enough to want to turn away from such activity if they don’t deal with the reasons that are at the root of them turning to homosexual activity.

As noted, there were several people, including those who actually were spokesmen for Focus on the Family, that got married to heterosexuals, and were even speaking of them turning away from that activity into heterosexuality, that did not undergo Reparative therapy. They failed, went back to homosexual activity, and denigrated Reparative therapy even when they themselves did not go through it. These examples show through experience, it is possible for those who have experienced homosexual intercourse to change it so they are no longer controlled by those homosexual urges. Some have been able to actually not only diminish the homosexual urge, but do away with it, such as Falzarano. Boynes said she is not even tempted. Others, such as Sciambra and Morrison, are much happier, though not in the position of necessarily getting to the point of marrying those of the opposite sex, have greatly diminished homosexual urges. Also, we have seen that for those who say one can see from the beginning that one is going to be homosexual because one is effeminate as a kid, with some encouraging of boyish activities for boys, it is possible to change them. The child who was effeminate, with some pushing by the parents, at the end of treatment, became masculine and as a teenager, was now more interested in girls. In all these circumstances, they needed to develop as men or women, as men or women, or for the young child, as young boys.

The Comparison to Religion, Blacks, and Civil Rights

In many cases, when we say that homosexuality is wrong and should not be promoted as acceptable behavior in society and people with religious conviction should not be forced to provide services that validate their homosexual activity, we are told that Christians are denying civil rights to homosexuals. If a Church school finds a Catholic teacher is homosexual, should not be allowed to teach Catholic students, the Church is seeing as denying them civil rights. It is referred to as an equivalent to denying serving food to blacks in the 1960s. Also, homosexual advocating web sites will also say, well, back in the segregation days, people gave a religious justification for separating blacks from whites. The first thing is that that was not the main justification. I am not a legal scholar, or really anything legally, and am not able to give legal justifications for or against homosexuality. The one thing I do want to go through, and earlier in this paper I have gone over this, is the whole premise that was accepted by the Supreme Court, that laid the foundation for the ruling.

The US Supreme Court Obergefell ruling accepted the born that way idea, without noting any scientific evidence. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion simply declared homosexuality and “sexual orientation” to be “immutable”. I will highlight the two lines and a little of the background to these statements. Here is what the Supreme Court said in 2015:

1) The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.[2] The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex....

The petitioners acknowledge this history but contend that these cases cannot end there. Were their intent to demean the revered idea and reality of marriage, the petitioners’ claims would be of a different order. But that is neither their purpose nor their submission. To the contrary, it is the enduring importance of marriage that underlies the petitioners’ contentions. This, they say, is their whole point. Far from seeking to devalue marriage, the petitioners seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities. And their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment. And their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment. For much of the 20th century, moreover, homosexuality was treated as an illness. When the American Psychiatric Association published the first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1952, homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder, a position adhered to until 1973. Only in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable. See Brief for American Psychological Association et al. as Amici Curiae 7–17.[213]

So, all the arguments around this are peripheral. The talk about the rights are built on a premise. The premise is that one is born that way. All the other arguments that are built around it in the whole supreme court discourse entered in, and agreed to by Justice Kennedy, who was the pivoting justice who helped to decide this case as it was decided 5-4 with the majority ultimately believing that homosexuality was immutable. He also gave the majority opinion. Of course, if one’s orientation is that it is immutable, if one is made in such a way that those who are homosexual, by their nature, is designed to have sex with someone of the same sex, then who can hold them accountable? (Of course it would make no sense though because as we’ve seen sex in the same-sex way, both male and female, is not a natural fit, and leads to massive sexually transmitted disease). One can say, well, even if one is born that way, one still is not forced to act on it, because it is not helpful to either their spirituality or health. In many cases, one would need a spiritual upbringing, through faith, one can still obtain celibacy, even if one is ordered to the homosexual lifestyle. However, within a free society, if one is born in an immutable way homosexual, in a sense, one can not force any religious views on them to maintain celibacy if one is ordered, by their nature, to have homosexual sex. So, if it is immutable, in one sense the Supreme Court’s reasoning is not unreasonable. In fact, in relation to civil rights, if one is immutable as far as sexual orientation, as far as their sexuality, there is some similarity to one being born black. Those who are black were discriminated just because of their color, they were denied the right to eat at a restaurant, because they were black, they were denied lodging in a hotel, because this hotel only catered to whites. In some sense, if one is born with an immutable sexual orientation, it would not be right to deny one the right to marry.

The premise that is behind this ruling, tagged in this huge decision, takes for granted that a homosexual’s orientation is immutable. However, the only reference in this citation in reference to immutability indeed needs to be looked at. Now, because this paper is extraordinarily long, I will not start quoting from there. I took a look at the brief that APA filed with the supreme court in reference to this case. This supposedly is the basis for the Supreme Court saying that homosexuality is immutable.

Anybody is welcome to take a look at that brief. Here is the link to the brief of the APA in support of the plaintiffs:[214] The Supreme Court referenced this brief as a reason for homosexuality being immutable. I invite anybody to read this brief, between pages 7-17. Page 7 it mentions sexual orientation is based on relationships. Who one has a relationship is a part of their identity. Then it refers to many homosexuals have stable relationships, not noting as Homosexual researches have noted, that promiscuity is much more rampant, even among those who have supposed monogamous relationships. The study in San Francisco in 2010, which says that few were monogamous was available to the Supreme Court, and was ignored. It then mentions that psychologically they are the same as heterosexual, empirically, though the Court refused to note that homosexuals have a much higher rate of suicide, drug abuse, sexual assault, etc. Those studies are available via the CDC, and apparently they don’t fit the APA’s agenda. Of course, there are emotional attachments, one has attachment to a friend, one has an attachment to a mother, but as we’ve seen in this study, those with such attachments also cheat on that person, and as a given, they will accept infidelity. Then it goes on to say the benefits of marriage are better than if one is unmarried. Then it goes into the fact that stability in marriage will be an incentive in homosexual marriages in reference to children.

It says unhappiness leads to bad things for children. Of course, if their parents are more likely to be unfaithful, more likely to abuse the spouse, having two mothers, missing a mother, or two fathers, missing a mother, the children missing a mother and a father, that was totally ignored by the majority. Children role models for both male and female are gone from this union. The last couple of pages talk about how the availability of marriage will provide stability to children. That may indeed be an argument, however, though the Supreme Court refers to this brief in reference to immutability, this brief says absolutely nothing about how a homosexual, be it male or female, ‘orientation’ is immutable. Obviously, the Supreme Court when it attempts to document the reasons for the decision, in many cases will make many referrals to buttress the argument. But you would think at least if they make a reference, the reference would at least infer something about the immutability of the homosexual ‘orientation.’ There is nothing in the reference that says anything about immutability.

Another thing is noted by Amy Contrada, who I referred to previously. The APA had statements on its website which indeed noted that the homosexual orientation is fluid, and is not immutable. It was even in existence while the Supreme Court made its ruling. Contrada noted that after the Supreme Court made its ruling, the statement has been removed. Here is Contrada’s take on the ruling:

There’s a big problem with the Court’s “immutable” claim: The homosexual-affirming American Psychiatric Association (as recently as June 2015) stated that “sexual orientation” is not innate, but is fluid, developing or changing over time. People are not “born that way” (as “gay,” lesbian, or bisexual); and there is no science to back up the belief that they are. Here is the APA statement:

"Some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime. Individuals maybe become aware at different points in their lives that they are heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual. … No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. … Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality." [215]

Contrada notes that that statement was removed, that there is no specific, biological basis for the Supreme Court belief that it is immutable. Of course, we have seen cases where the orientation has indeed been changed, even including non-religious means. Some have transformed fully away from homosexual urges/desires, and have married happily (Falzarano). Others have been able to greatly reduce those desires, and are much happier, and the urges reduced dramatically, and in some cases, eliminated. We have even seen, through the Bieber study, to see a fairly decent percentage, even through purely psychological counseling, to turn away from homosexuality and even turn to heterosexuality, in full measure. Though many do have a religious reason for staying away from homosexual sex. Just as any heterosexual person, even if one has heterosexual desires, are able to control it so they do not have sex.

In many cases, when we say that homosexuality should not be seen as acceptable behavior in society and people with religious conviction should not be forced to provide services that validate their homosexual activity (like a homosexual wedding), we are told that Christians are denying civil rights to homosexuals. If a Church school says a Catholic teacher is found out to be homosexual, should not be allowed to teach Catholic students, the Church is seeing as denying them civil rights. It is referred to as an equivalent to denying serving food to blacks in the 1960s. Also, gay web sites will also say, well, back in the segregation days, people gave a religious justification for separating blacks from whites.

Since the issue is civil rights, it would be a good idea on the issue to look at the icon of the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King. Would he see homosexual rights as the equivalent of civil rights for American blacks? He had a person who had homosexual feelings ask him what advice would he give him. Did he say, act on those feelings because that is the way you are, and let’s combine our civil rights struggles together? He was asked this in an Ebony Magazine article:

Question: My problem is different from the ones most people have. I am a boy, but I feel about boys the way I ought to feel about girls. I don’t want my parents to know about me. What can I do? Is there any place where I can go for help?

Answer: Your problem is not at all an uncommon one. However, it does require careful attention. The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired. Your reasons for adopting this habit have now been consciously suppressed or unconsciously repressed. Therefore, it is necessary to deal with this problem by getting back to some of the experiences and circumstances that lead to the habit. In order to do this I would suggest that you see a good psychiatrist who can assist you in bringing to the forefront of conscience all of those experiences and circumstances that lead to the habit. You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.[216]

So, we see the Reverend/Doctor almost sounding like Dr. Joseph Nicolosi. One needs to speak to a psychologist, to see what happened to make him come out with homosexual feelings. There must be a self-examination of ones’ childhood. Now, he recognizes this homosexual urging as a problem, and one must deal with that problem. You want to find the ‘solution’, according to Doctor/Reverend King, which is obviously a way to get out of those homosexual urges. There is a problem that needs a solution. Get to the solution, Reverend/Doctor King advises the young boy. Nowadays, saying that, Reverend/Doctor King would be termed bigoted.

The liberal Huffington Post makes the argument that conservatives making arguments against having to serve practicing homosexuals which in some sense validates their sexual activity (like having to cater a homosexual wedding) is the equivalent to not serving blacks in the restaurant.

Just like Indiana, Lankford and Forbes’ home states (and two dozen more) just introduced bills that would allow businesses to refuse services to LGBTs by claiming “religious freedom.” Every homophobic politician in the country is jumping onto the “religious freedom” bandwagon with pockets full of “turn away the gays” bills that would restrict LGBT access to services, housing, jobs, and safety.

Sound familiar? You don’t have to look far in American history to find cases of discrimination being defended as “religious freedom.” Supporters of slavery, segregation, and interracial marriage bans all invoked Biblical defenses.

In 1946, Mississippi Governor Theodore Bilbo wrote, “[p]urity of race is a gift of God ... And God, in his infinite wisdom, has so ordained it that when man destroys his racial purity, it can never be redeemed.”

One of Bilbo’s gubernatorial successors added that “the good Lord was the original segregationist.”

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court went even further: “[t]he natural law which forbids [racial intermarriage] and that social amalgamation which leads to a corruption of races, is as clearly divine as that which imparted to [the races] different natures.”[217]

The arguments had nothing to do with religious freedom. Sure, the court made ignorant statements. There was no biblical basis for this, there is no ‘natural law’ that says that people of different races must be separated from each other. In the New Testament as Paul writes in Gal 3:28:
There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
There are no differences between Gentiles and Jews. We see in Acts 2 the mention of all the people hearing the gospel in their own language, including not only those from Mesopotamia, Egypt, Libya, (Africa) Romans, Proselytes, Cretans, those from Asia, Arabs, with no distinction (Acts 2:8-11). No distinction between Africans, Romans, Asians, Arabs. No segregation among Christians in Acts 2. In any case, though the Judge may have mentioned ‘Natural Law’ in this case, the judge did not say that the issue was religious liberty. Even though there may have been some religious connotations that inferred that view, there was no argument dealing with religious liberty. Now, there is no doubt that in one case, there were some racists who did use the ‘religious liberty’ excuse to justify segregation, but that was not a central issue in most cases: that if you provided equal treatment of blacks and whites, you are denying religious liberty. States rights were the predominant issue. As we all know, it was people practicing religion, the faith of Christians that propelled getting freedom for blacks, to get rid of unjust segregation. Rev. Martin Luther King’s Christianity, was religious at its roots, and much of those who supported desegregation were those who were Christian based. The roots of getting rid of desegregation, as well as its precursor, slavery, the movement starting to overthrow it was started by Wilberforce in England, was Christian based. All people are equal, and do not deserve to be treated differently based on the color of their skin. Making laws based on color, is not the same thing as someone who wants to have sex with the same sex. Through natural law, one can determine it is wrong. One who has a practice that is more likely for one to end with disease, be it either male or female same sex activity. One that leads to more suicide, alcohol abuse, partner abuse, is not something equivalent of an identity of the rights of Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, etc.

It is usually white liberals, often with guilt feelings about what their fathers and mother did to black Americans, who equate the treating of blacks to homosexuals. However, Black Americans themselves do not equate, civil rights of blacks to those of homosexuals. A poll, done in 2017, show Black Americans see themselves in stark contrast between rights for people who are born black, and homosexuals. They for the most part believe that homosexuality is not something one is born with. They do not equate them as equal. 55% see homosexual rights as different from black civil rights, only 28% see it as similar.[218]

Now of course they do elect people who will see it as equivalent but at least they do not speak on behalf of their people.

Now with the discussion of homosexuality, there are indeed more problems that blacks will experience. There is more poverty among blacks, as Doctor Walter Williams documents, family stability had traditionally been more stable among black populations till around 1940:

The Census Bureau pegs the poverty rate among blacks at 35 percent and among whites at 13 percent. The illegitimacy rate among blacks is 72 percent, and among whites it's 30 percent. A statistic that one doesn't hear much about is that the poverty rate among black married families has been in the single digits for more than two decades, currently at 8 percent. For married white families, it's 5 percent. Now the politically incorrect questions: Whose fault is it to have children without the benefit of marriage and risk a life of dependency? Do people have free will, or are they governed by instincts?

There may be some pinhead sociologists who blame the weak black family structure on racial discrimination. But why was the black illegitimacy rate only 14 percent in 1940, and why, as Dr. Thomas Sowell reports, do we find that census data "going back a hundred years, when blacks were just one generation out of slavery ... showed that a slightly higher percentage of black adults had married than white adults. This fact remained true in every census from 1890 to 1940"? Is anyone willing to advance the argument that the reason the illegitimacy rate among blacks was lower and marriage rates higher in earlier periods was there was less racial discrimination and greater opportunity? [219]

The main point I want to highlight is the fact that traditionally, going back to even when there was rampant discrimination against blacks, prior to 1940, blacks had a higher rate of legitimacy, which meant fathers were there more for their children, than whites. However, as the welfare state grew, from the 1940s with Roosevelt’s new deal programs, through the war on Poverty that was started by Johnson, illegitimacy unfortunately skyrocketed for blacks. Now, one can see if one has a married father and a mother, blacks are less likely to be in poverty even than when a non-married white mother and a father has children. No matter the reason, however, and it is not my intention to go any further in this paper on exactly what is the cause of the black family disintegration, it is just that the effect of the breakup of the family, is that 72 percent of the children will not have a married father and a mother. Having a married mother and a father, as we have seen, is much more likely to give stability to that family. How that ties into the homosexual issue, is that in many cases, boys with no married fathers, are more likely to turn to homosexuality.

The percentage of homosexuals in the United States, has gone up recently. There are varying numbers in different polls/studies. Although a study by the CDC, with 34,000, it was only 1.6 % homosexual with approximately 0.7% being bisexual. National Health Statistics Report, July 23, 2014, there is no breakdown of that by race. In my recent study of the issue, that was the general idea, 2 % males, females 1%. That CDC study is available here:[220] However, in that poll, there was no breakdown by race. There was another study done. In any case though the percentage was 3.4 percent overall of the population identified as homosexual. This is a huge poll of 120,000 people done by Gallup. October 18, 2012, Blacks were at 4.6 % of the population as homosexual, as opposed to 3.2 % of whites. Now the activists are in many cases white, and indeed white homosexuals are the advocates for homosexuality, but Blacks are at a higher rate of, almost 50% higher rate.[221] If there was no difference because of missing fathers or so, then you would expect the ratio to be about the same. However, with a much higher rate of not having a married father and mother at the child’s home, that exactly fits the scenario of not having a strong, loving father, is one of the factors that leads to homosexuality.

How does this homosexuality among Black Americans affect their health? A couple of CDC studies show a devastatingly bad outcomes for Black Americans:

At the end of 2013, 498,400 African Americans were living with HIV (40% of everyone living with HIV in the US), and 1 in 8 did not know they were infected…
In 2015, 48% (8,702) of those diagnosed with AIDS in the United States were African Americans.
So apparently, though Black Americans are 12% of the population, they account for 40% of those who are currently diagnosed with AIDS, and almost half of the new diagnoses are also Black Americans. A majority of those with new infections of AIDS, of course are homosexual.

HIV has been devastating to the black community, but most importantly the black homosexual community:

Gay and bisexual men continue to be most affected by the HIV epidemic in the U.S. At current rates, 1 in 6 MSM will be diagnosed with HIV in their lifetime, including 1 in 2 black MSM, 1 in 4 Latino MSM, and 1 in 11 white MSM.

African Americans are by far the most affected racial or ethnic group with a lifetime HIV risk of 1 in 20 for men (compared to 1 in 132 for whites) and 1 in 48 for women (compared to 1 in 880 for whites).[223]

Amazingly, every other black homosexual is infected with HIV. Although 1 out of 11 whites get diagnosed with HIV and that is an exceedingly high number, it is nowhere near as devastating as 1 out of 2 black Americans.

Syphilis is another disease that is more prevalent among homosexuals among black Americans. The CDC notes the following

In 2010, rates of P&S syphilis among men were highest among non-Hispanic black men (28.2 cases per 100,000 population), followed by Hispanic (8.5 cases per 100,000 population), American Indians/ Alaska Natives (4.3 cases per 100,000 population), non-Hispanic white (4.0 cases per 100,000 population), and Asian/Pacific Islander (2.6 per 100,000 population) men (Figure S).

According to information reported in 44 states and the District of Columbia, 67% of P&S syphilis cases are among MSM[224]

Two-thirds of those who acquire syphilis are homosexuals (MSM) when according to one poll, they only account for 3.2 percent of the population (the other, even less than that). Of that, Black men have syphilis at a higher rate that is seven times that of white men, and about four times that of Hispanics as well. Active homosexuality among Blacks has gotten them to deadly diseases, and that has not served Blacks at all. Of course, part of the problem in some cases, is because blacks are more likely to be uninsured, but still as we’ve seen throughout this study, homosexual sex has been called by the Government ‘too dangerous to practice’ until an Obama appointed person removed that designation.

We’ve already seen that those who practice homosexual sex are so much more prone to all the different types of stds such as gonorrhea, syphilis, herpes, etc. As blacks are, according to the one poll at least, almost a 50% higher rate of being homosexual than whites, they become much more prone to not only HIV, it also makes them more prone to the other STDs.

Also, they are more prone to intimate partner violence in the homosexual communities. I referred to this study a little earlier, but here want to look at the focus on those of the minority status. Of course, the numbers will be included with Hispanics, and there is no breakdown exclusively on blacks, but here is what the Anti-Violence Report notes:

LGBTQ people of color were more likely to report experiencing physical violence, discrimination, threats or intimidation, and harassment as a result of IPV. LGBTQ people of color were also more likely to experience IPV incidents in public spaces. LGBTQ people of color were 1.6 times more likely to experience physical violence, 2.2 times more likely to experience discrimination, 1.9 times more likely to experience threats or intimidation, and 1.6 times more likely to experience harassment within IPV relationships. In addition, LGBTQ and HIV-affected people of color were more likely to experience IPV incidents in streets or public spaces.

LGBTQ Black/African American survivors were more likely to experience physical violence and harassment as a result of IPV. Black/African American survivors were 1.5 times more likely to experience physical violence as compared to other survivors and 1.4 times more likely to experience harassment in IPV relationships.[225]

So, we see black homosexuals are more likely to experience physical violence than whites. Blacks turning to homosexuality is devastating the community. Now, it does note that blacks, as blacks, do still experience discrimination.

Now, going back to the civil rights issue, many blacks are insulted by the comparison to those who choose to have sex with men. Without the married father and mother to raise them, they are more exposed to turning homosexual, as borne out by the 50% higher rate of homosexuality. Indeed, as we’ve looked at Janet Boynes, she was molested as a youngster, she had no real father figure, and her mother beat her. As we’ve seen, Lesbians are more likely to be sexually assaulted as youngsters. But Boynes makes a couple of notations that helped to show the difference between the treatment of homosexuals in the 50s & 60s, and those of blacks in achieving civil rights:

I was born black. I became a lesbian. They are not the same. I did not choose the color of my skin. I did choose to enter a lesbian relationship and to live a homosexual lifestyle for fourteen years. I also chose to leave that lifestyle, but I cannot choose to stop being black. There is a difference. The color of my skin is an immutable quality of my being while my lesbianism was a deliberate series of actions resulting in a lifestyle choice.

Gays and lesbians have never been forced to ride at the back of the bus or to eat at separate restaurants. They didn’t attend separate schools. They have never been made slaves or been considered by law as less than human. The African-American church needs to stand up for itself on this issue because, even though I am a former lesbian, as an African American I am insulted that the homosexual community would even attempt to compare gay rights to civil rights.[226]

Boynes notes a couple of more things. In her book she asked herself: Can you really leave homosexuality?
Yes, a thousand times yes, it is possible to leave homosexuality! I tell everyone I can about the change God’s love brought about in my life. I believe my testimony will give hope to many who are considering or struggling with homosexuality.[227]
On prejudice she herself experienced
I have suffered far more discrimination for being a black woman than I ever did for being a butch lesbian….

The desire for the legitimization of a lifestyle does not equal a struggle for existence and equal rights. Homosexual rights are not, nor should they be considered as, a civil rights struggle.[228]

This look at the issue is agreed upon by churches within the Black American community.
The black Detroit pastors are outraged over Friedman’s ruling and have positioned themselves to voice their opposition in the U.S. Court of Appeals….

The pastors, in particular, are offended by the comparison of marriage redefinition to black civil rights struggles.

“To state that marriage redefinition is in any way similar to the civil rights movement is intellectually empty, dishonest and manufactured,” says minister Stacy Swimp, founder of Revive Alive Missional Ministry. “When has anyone from the LGBT demographic ever been publicly lynched, specifically excluded from moving into neighborhoods, prohibited from sitting on a jury and denied the right to sue others because of their sexual preferences?”….

“We will not follow men who would rather believe a lie than the truth. We cannot and we will not endorse anyone who blatantly blasphemies the Word of God and leads people in the wrong direction”, states the Rev. Dr. Randolph Thomas, senior pastor of Greater Bethlehem Church and president of the Westside Minister’s Alliance.[229]

The Pastors were in support of marriage only being limited to man and women. They were outraged too, and were in agreement with the people who said that that was not equivalent to the struggle that blacks endured, and in fact still endure, to some extent.

There are other striking examples of those who have left the homosexual lifestyle, and have become heterosexual. The one current common thing is, is that in many of the cases, there was abuse. We’ve already looked at Janet Boynes, she was molested, did not have a father, and her mother was abusive. A couple of more examples from the Black American Community:

Darryl Foster is currently a pastor. Like Boynes, he did not have a Father who lived with him. He saw his father a couple of times, but he was not with him growing up. Brought up by a mother. He has a book, but the online version of his book is available. Unlike Boynes, he was brought up in a church. His grandparents were loving on the occasion they would come to the house, and his grandfather was a preacher, in the Church of God in Christ. His Father, however, also being a preacher, he only met briefly at the age of 7, and moved on, so his father basically abandoned him. He met him briefly again at the age of 13. Foster, p. 13. He hated his father. He went on welfare while his mother worked hard. He was one of five boys, and 2 girls. Now he writes about feeling a void with his father not there. He cried, became more effeminate, and eventually got called a sissy. He said with the absence of his father, he felt a longing to be held by his father, and in it, he eventually got that need sexualized. He again, just as the other males, was not athletic and was never picked for sports teams, though he longed to play sports. He was told because he was a ‘sissy’’, you don’t play those games, pp. 11-13. So, he never got along with the boys, as he was left out. His own brother told him to play ‘with the other girls’. Even though he starting having homosexual feelings, he remembers being taught that homosexuality was wrong. Now, he did have feminine tendencies. There as a boy, from the Church, went after him for three years, and he attempted to molest him. He fought him off, but had mixed feeling. Also at 17, a married pastor attempted to molest him, and he fought him off. He even went through an experience of seeking ‘deliverance’ from Homosexual temptations by God, and thought it did work. Foster, p. 29. It didn’t work. He ended up going to school, then went to gay clubs, had sexual relationships for the first time at age 19, but then with school issues, he ended up going to the military, as his brothers had. Though at the time, homosexuals were not allowed in the military, he maintained contact with other homosexuals who hid their homosexuality. He despised women. He got sexual partners, some of them married, others who were not, but he made no commitment to any of them. Foster, p. 51. He said he had 11 years of uninhibited sex with males. In public parks, restaurants, etc.. Foster, p. 53. He used them and discarded them at will… He married a lesbian to divert the military from thinking he was a homosexual, a marriage of convenience. Foster, p. 60. That marriage ended quickly.[230] He finally just repented after about 11 years. It was a huge change. He did marry and has a child. As this is a very long paper, here is what he said if one is getting out of homosexuality, one must do this:

1.Get rid of anything in your immediate surroundings that remind you of your past.
2 Change your travel patterns when out so that you don’t go by places that over sexually explicit material.
3 Get involved in a church that teaches and lives the Bible.
4 Deal with the underlying, root issues that cause you to do what you do.
5. BE ACCOUNTABLE to someone in authority if possible.
6. Watch out for doubletalk.
7. Be honest with God. Foster, He had actually made a commitment to lifelong celibacy, in accordance with God’s Word. But then he did meet a woman and married her.
He now has his own ministry to Black Americans, Witness Ministries‘. Mr. Foster has a ministry to reach:, ‘to help African Americans struggling against homosexuality to find freedom in Christ.’ Now it says it provides counseling, training and discipleship for those who have sexual sin issues. If you don’t have the time to read, but interested in hearing a testimony it is available here: From Homosexual to New Creation - Darryl Foster. He married in 1992, just a short time after he left the military. His is another ministry that reaches out to homosexuals.

One part of the online book I want to refer to as he refers to other blacks who have left the homosexual lifestyle:

Is God calling other ex-homosexuals? Yes, I believe He is. He called Pastor Donnie McClurkin (read his book “Eternal Victim/Eternal Victor!”). Down in Miami, He called Miriam Passmore out of 20 years as a lesbian “stud” and “drag king” performer. God called worship leader and songwriter Dennis Jernigan who now fathers 9 children. He called Chris Johnson, Sr.* out of the lifestyle and even with HIV, God blessed him with a beautiful wife and three wonderful children. These men and women, along with many others, are in ministry to meet the needs of brothers and sisters who are falling through the religious cracks.[232]
So, in the midst of his book he notates several people who’ve turned their life around from homosexuality, some have married, others have not. The ones noted, at least in my search, did not fall back into homosexuality. All representatives of these type, who have testified have come out of that lifestyle, are a target by the anti-ex-gay groups. They attack each of them, say they have psychological issues and are hateful, will spread rumors about them, but have not actually uncovered any of them going back to homosexual activity. The one rumored to have, McClurkin, has been rumored to have done so, but with no actual support. These others are exactly witnesses that one can change, and is not bound to be in a lifestyle that will cause disease, and separate their soul from a relationship with God.

Charlene Cothran gives a testimony to leaving the lesbian lifestyle. According to her testimony she actually was a gay rights advocate, specifically for lesbians. She felt that she was used as a front to give a racial front to show that lesbians are black too. She helped to write a magazine, Venus Magazine, which at that time, promoted lesbian/gay activities and rights. She was an advocate for gay partnership rights. However, when her mother died, she faced mortality, and eventually turned to Christ. Now, she was prompted to be ‘born again’, say a salvation prayer and turn her life around. (Catholics do not say that born again is saying a salvation prayer, but would still affirm a person repenting of ones’ sins and turning one’s life around). Charlene Cothran - Gay Activist Finds Christ. She changed in approximately 2006 with no hint of returning to homosexuality. She is not married but happily celibate. She helps to pastor a church, and a ministry The Evidence Ministry.

Jackie Hill Perry was a rapper, turned away from homosexuality. She is now a Christian rapper/poet. She was molested by a cousin at 5. Ex-gay hip-hop artist Jackie Hill-Perry never dreamed a new life was possible She was brought up by a mother, no mention of a father. She was sexually abused as a child. Went into porn early. At a young age, she was interested in girls and went into lesbianism. She broke up with a girl. She went to church, left the relationship. She turned her life around, came to Christ, and got married. She got married and she has a child named Eden. Another witness.

Donnie McClurkin, mentioned above, is also an exgay, was abused as a child, but recovered, and became a gospel singer. He preaches against the homosexual lifestyle and because of that, the homosexual lobby criticized him for doing so. In fact, with pressure, Obama disinvited gospel singer McClurkin to singing at a concert for him.

Although in these cases, there is not a hint of technically reparative therapy, some are married, with no hint of sexual infidelity. If they not married, they have been celibate. There is a web site called Truth Wins Out that attacks all reparative therapy as fraudulent, and blasts even those who don’t technically go through reparative therapy, but still insist they are faithful to God, and do not want to go back to a life that leads to disease, drugs, and suicide. Truth wins out calls all the work that people do, including going for celibacy, as anti-gay. However, in the ones mentioned in this paper, there has not been something showing that these people have gone back to homosexual activity, and stayed in it. Sure, some people in other ministries have ‘fallen off the wagon.’ Just as alcoholics and drug addicts can do the same. So, the main thing is that one can not become ex-black, according to Truth Wins Out activists. Now, the thing is homosexuality action is something that one does. However, the color of one’s skin, whether one is black, brown, white, is the color of the skin, and is the genetic makeup of the person. Our racial component is who our parents are. If one is black, or an African-American, that person is black, or African-American. That will never change. However, what one does sexually is something that one decides to do. It is an activity. A black person will always be black, no matter what. Michael Jackson took stuff to try to change him, but he stayed black. However, no one can tell us that Janet Boynes, Terry Foster, Jackie Hill Perry, Charlene Cothran, etc. whether they married or not, whether they were tempted to same-sex attraction or not, did not experience a change. They did. They are different from what they were before.

With that said, income inequality, which does exist between blacks and whites for example, does not exist between homosexuals and heterosexuals. US News notes a study on homosexuals and heterosexuals in 2013:

The Williams Institute, a think tank at UCLA that focuses on LGBT issues, has dissected Census data from 2005 through 2011 to create a detailed picture of the demographics of men and women who live with people of the same sex. Women who are in same-sex couples and in the labor force tend to make far more money than similar women in heterosexual couples, while men in gay couples tend to make slightly less than their heterosexual counterparts. Among same-sex couples with both partners in the labor force, median household income is significantly higher ($94,000) than among heterosexual couples ($86,000). That's likely due to a number of factors, but education is likely one of them, says Gary Gates, a distinguished scholar at the Williams institute and the study's author. Around 46 percent of people in same-sex couples have college degrees, compared to under one-third of people in heterosexual couples. That higher level of education also likely contributes to higher incomes for same-sex households.[233]
So, we see at least in two sections, employment and educations, things that are foundational to how people live their lives, there is little to no discrimination. Just as one is told in any employment, that one is not allowed to treat any homosexual any differently than Blacks or Latinos, and that is the way that it should be, in reference to secular jobs. So, Lesbians make a lot more money than their heterosexual counterparts, while Homosexual males, make just a tad less than heterosexual males. But combining heterosexuals and homosexuals, the overall population, same sex people make more money than their heterosexual counterparts. Blacks, or African Americans have no such comparison in their favor. They make less. In education, where the professors, and the student population is of the liberal bent for sure, there are many a ‘gay’ clubs, and promotion of the homosexual culture. There is no shaming of homosexuals in college. Christian views are not too frequent in college, and are often belittled. Christians are more likely to get mocked, than homosexuals, and unlike homosexuals, they do not have a higher rate of drug abuse, suicide, sexual disease, partner abuse, than the general population.


I have done a study of a lot of different aspects of this homosexual issue, and how this relates to the society as a whole. First, I went over the fact that marriage is foundational to a society. I did refer to Jesus as laying a foundation of marriage, when he said that man would be with woman, and that bond should never be broken. Procreation was at the heart of Jesus words, when we look at the backdrop of his referral to Genesis. However, yes, that is Jesus teaching and people who do not accept Christianity may poopoo that, but Jesus formula of one man and one woman, making children, and parenting those children, is good for society. Children are relegated as unessential in a homosexual marriage by definition because when a same-sex person has sex, there is no possibility of a child. For children to come in a same-sex marriage, one of two things has to come to pass. Either they come from a broken-up marriage, which is bad, or if they do invitro fertilization, the means to get that baby, as documented in studies that we looked at, it results in the destruction of human life. Also, children, we know from common sense, that a married mother and father is better for a child. In the first comprehensive study of the effects of children being brought up by same sex parents, as opposed to heterosexual parents, the results were much worse.

Now, we saw that the APA changed homosexuality from a disorder in 1973 to ‘normal’. However, there was no scientific discovery that made that change in the APA. As admitted by homosexual activists themselves, they bullied the APA to change its assessment of homosexuality. Since then, the APA has stayed on that train, and excluded opposing views. However, there has been no study to say that one is born this way. I looked at an amalgamation of studies which showed that genetics is not a determiner of one’s attraction. Now, this is not saying that there is no biological influence, but regardless if there is a biological influence, there are a huge variety of factors, including, either/or, sometimes both/and, child abuse, gender identity issues, and a bad relationship with the same sex parent, that factors into how one comes to be attracted to those of the same sex. I looked at that. I showed examples of those who were homosexuals and all had those issues in common. Others may have only one of them. I looked at a 50 year old study, just prior to the change of the APA designation of homosexuals, and those things that I looked at, were common in those ones who had become homosexual.

Then I looked at issues that are experienced by homosexuals. They are more likely to commit suicide, abuse one other both sexually and physically, and are more likely even to commit murder on their partner. They are more likely to take drugs and be alcoholic, and even have eating disorder issues. This is proven by a whole slew of studies, and even admitted to by them. A homophobe can not make one drink, a homophobe does not make one ingest harmful drugs into their system. In today’s society everyone is told to not to belittle homosexuals. One should not belittle a homosexual because he is homosexual. Now in the study of those who did become homosexual, as children they were in fact belittled as sissies, and so forth. I recalled my neighbor being tagged as a sissy. No one deserves to be labeled that. Nowadays however, one is much less likely to be labeled that. The schools seem to be saying that homosexual activity is ok. In most cases, the problem with, the 46 times the higher rate of acquiring venereal disease, the high rate of AIDS, use of drugs, abusive relationships, alcohol, high suicide rates, is a fact of life, but is ignored or downplayed by those who educate children in public schools. If they are experiencing all of these issues, that does indeed tell us that there is a psychological issue at the heart of being homosexual, that can not be blamed on homophobes.

Then I looked at all the fact that in a marriage, one thing that is paramount in marriage, is sexual exclusivity with the other person. It is to be expected in a heterosexual marriage that one will be faithful to the other person. It is not to say that heterosexuals are perfect, adultery of course does happen. But faithfulness is expected. Now, it is not to ignore that some homosexual couples may last for a long time, though in many cases there are short term relationships with people going from one sexual relationship to another sexual relationship. But from a study in 1978 from the Kinsey Institute, to a study produced in 2010, which analyzed 566 male homosexuals, it shows that couples were not committed to sexual exclusivity. Monogamy in name only. Also, as noted, the homosexual practices, even limited to the ‘normal’ way of same-sex practices, are dangerous, to not only males, but females as well. Even among those who had long lasting relationships, the same-sex lifestyle, opened up to promiscuity outside their relationship. We saw a government sponsored study showed that homosexuals are 46 times more likely to be infected with sexually transmitted diseases. Also, we saw that anal sex, the normal way that same sex males have sex, has been identified by the government with or without condoms, as ‘too dangerous’ to practice. Why put on equal terms, a practice that is not only spiritually devastating, but ‘too dangerous’ for one to practice.

I have examined several witnesses, white and black, Protestant and Catholic, who had a variety of experiences, upper class and lower class. They had turned to same-sex activity, they found it did not bring them happiness. I’ve looked at books and recounted people who have turned to Christ. I looked at Falzarano, Boynes, Sciambra and Morrison, and gave other shorter examples of other people who also left the homosexual lifestyle. Falzarano became heterosexual and married for 25 years before passing away. Parenting issues were involved in all of them when they had turned to homosexuality. They all turned away from homosexuality and to Christ, and using various ways, started to develop same-sex friendships in a non-sexual way. Some used Reparative therapy, in the mold mentioned by Elizabeth Moberly and Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, which I examined to some extent, others did not technically do so, but in their recovery, they still developed non-sexual same-sex relationships. Some went to organizations that helped people with same-sex attractions, like Courage, that helped them to deal with, and turn away from same-sex attractions. They have changed their outlook, they no longer practice same-sex sex. They are happy not to practice it any more. They have found in Jesus Christ, freedom, from what they considered bondage to an activity that they did not bring them happiness. Some are happy to be celibate. Christ is their foundation, but they had to work at it, through the work of God’s grace, to turn away from the temptations. In our examination, Falazarano, as well as others, married and have not fallen back into homosexual activity. As noted most of those who did fall back into homosexuality did not avail themselves to the reparative therapy that was offered by Nicolosi and others. Those who have succeeded are not denying themselves anything, but they have found, in Christ, a freedom they had never had, when they had been practicing same-sex activity.

Now, there are no doubt many homosexuals, who will say that they are happy with their same-sex attractions, and they are happy with their outlook. However, even with AMA and APA saying what that what they do is normal, it is not. There still are more likely to turn to drugs, commit suicide, or psychologically and/or physically abuse their mate. No homophobe can make a homosexual inject drugs or abuse their mate. There are many sexual practices that are too risqué to recount on a Christian web site. There are too many societal issues that are created by the acceptance of homosexual activity. Society, for Societies own good, and for the upbringing of children, should not put homosexual coupling and term it marriage, and should not promote it. I have shown that the reasoning put forth by the Supreme Court was based on a false premise: That homosexuality was immutable. The APA itself did not even argue that it was immutable in their own brief that the Court referred to. I provided a link to the brief and it did not say what the Supreme Court said. The reasoning was faulty. Also, as Janet Boynes noted, she was an ex-gay, as well as Darryl Foster, as well as Christian Johnson, and others, who turned away from homosexuality, but they never became ex-black. One is immutable the other is not. These examples of people turning away from homosexuality, are real, not frauds. No practicing homosexual, who is supposedly happy with their homosexuality, can label what these people have experienced, as fraudulent. They can not speak for them.

Although I have not touched on religious freedom, a couple of tidbits show that the promotion of homosexuality does curtail religious freedom, besides the well-known baker case that goes at the heart of this issue. Christians believe that homosexuality is sin. Christianity believes that the only ones that can mate are male and female. Who can date and who can marry is at the root of what Christians believe in. However, Christian Match has been forced to make their service available for homosexuals. This is even worse than the baker case, since at the root of the whole organization is who it can and can not mate. The organization was forced to pay $450,000 in fees and $9000 to the two plaintiffs.[234] . Christian organizations are actually being forced to arrange for sin. Also, we see even Jewish organizations that do reparative theory to help homosexuals to turn away from homosexual activity are being sued and bankrupted.[235] For a free society that is taking away freedom of religion. Those who are pushing for homosexual rights, apparently are happy to take away people practicing their religious faith.

We can say that homosexuality is a many faceted issue. However, Christians should say the way that we show love to homosexuals is not to say that what they are doing is ok. Society has plenty of reasons to not promote this activity that leads to death and disease, and unhappiness for the people themselves, who end up on drugs, and commit many acts which are bad for themselves and society. The Supreme Court’s rationalization for homosexual marriage was at the core, wrong because homosexuality is not immutable. Christians need to offer hope for the homosexual for freedom in Christ. Organizations like Courage, and the other organizations that offer help to homosexuals to help them turn to Christ who can give them the power to stay to the biblical teaching. Liberty in Christ can lead to a happiness that can never be found in a lifestyle that is at odds with their own nature. Christians are not to mock and degrade those, as many have done in the past, but offer love, a tough love, and help them to develop non-sexual relationships with those of the same sex. Help them get into the grace that can only be found in Christ. The church needs to offer help for such people, not to encourage them in the sin that leads to separation from God, but the grace that leads to eternal joy.

[1] David Morrison, Beyond Gay:, Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, Huntington, IN, 1999, p. 101.

[2] St. Charles Borromeo, Catholic ChurchCatechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. Article 7, Sacrament of Matrimony, 1646, 1660-1665.

[3] Maggie Gallager, John Corvino Debating Same Sex Marriage Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, 2012, p. 109.

[4] Gallagher, p. 115.

[5] Gallagher, pp. 115-116.

[6] Corvino, Debating Same Sex Marriage, p. 43.

[7] Corvino, pp. 46-47

[8] Andrew Hough, The Telegraph, 1.7 million human embryos created for IVF thrown away, December 31, 2012.

[9] Assisted Reproductive Technology Success Rates, 2004 National Summary and Fertility and Clinic Reports. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, December 2006.

[10] Christine Kim, Impact of Same-Sex Parenting on Children: Evaluating the Research , The Heritage Foundation, June 19, 2012

[11] Mark Regnerus, How Different are the Adult Children of Parents who have Same-Sex Relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study Social Science Research 41: 752-770. Social Science Research, July, 2012, p. 761.

[12] Corvino, p. 23.

[13] Gallagher, p. 121.

[14] Mass Resistance, The Health Hazards of Homosexuality: What the Medical and Psychological Research Reveals, North Charleston, SC, 2017, p. 23, quoting Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, After the Ball; How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s, Doubleday, 1989, Penguin paperback, 1990, p.184.

[15] American Psychological Association Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality, 2008

[16] Religious Tolerance: Statements by Professional Associations 1998 to 2010.

[17] Ryan Sorba, Homosexual Activists Intimidate American Psychiatric Association into Removing Homosexuality from List of Disorders Conservative Colloquim, 10/1/2007.

[18] Father John Harvey, The Truth about Homosexuality: The Cry of the Faithful, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1996, pp. 64-65.

[19] Mass Resistance, p. 24, quoting from a web site from the APA that they later took down with no explanation. “LGBT – Sexual Orientation” 2015, http//webarchive.orgweb/20150812010551 APA page was last captured on Internet Archive on Aug. 12, 2015, and removed from the APA site sometime after. This was shortly after the Supreme Court Obergefell “same-sex marriage” ruling (June 2015). Amy Contrada, Gay Psychiatry American Psychiatric Association Removes Statement Conflicting with Supreme Court’s Claim in “Gay Marriage” Ruling that Homosexuality Is Immutable , August 31, 2015

[20] Mass Resistance, p. 26 referring to Andre Van Mol, MD The Negative Health Consequences of same-sex sexual behavior, July 27, 2011

[21] Mass Resistance, p. 23, Footnote 16 Scrutinizing Immutability: Research on Sexual Orientation and U.S. Legal Advocacy for Sexual Minorities. The Journal of Sex Research, Mar. 17, 2016.

[22] Lawrence S. Mayer, M.B., M.S., Ph.D. Paul R. McHugh, M.D. Sexuality and Gender Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences The New Atlantis, a Journal of Technology & Society , Number 50-Fall 2016, pp. 7-8

[23] Mayer, McHugh, p. 30

[24] Mayer, McHugh, p. 33.

[25] Mass Resistance, refers to p. 23 Marie E. Tomeo, Donald I. Templer, Susan Anderson, Debra Kotler. Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescence Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons,., Archives of Sexual Behavior October 2001, Volume 30, Issue 5, pp 535–541.

[26] Mass Resistance, p. 31, quoting from J Bradford, Ryan C Rothblum ED, National Lesbian Health Care Survey: implications for mental health care. National Institute of Health

[27] SB Austin, Jun HJ In Mass Resistance, p. 67, footnote 44 refers to Disparities in Child Abuse Victimization in Lesbian, Bisexual, and heterosexual women in the Nurses’ Health Study II National Institues of Health, May, 2008.

[28] Mark Friedman A Meta-Analysis of Disparities in Childhood Sexual Abuse, Parental Physical Abuse, and Peer Victimization Among Sexual Minority and Sexual Nonminority Individuals AJPH, A Publication of the American Public Health Association,: October 20, 2011.

[29] Janet Boynes, Called Out: A former Lesbian’s Discovery of Freedom, Creation House, Lake Mary, Fl, 2008, pp. 6-7.

[30] Anthony Falzarano, And Such were Some of You: One man’s walk out of the Gay Lifestyle Xulon Press, 2009, pp. 20-21.

[31] Falzarano, ibid., p. 25.

[32] Falzarano, ibid., p. 27.

[33] Joseph Nicolosi, A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality, Inter-Varsity Press, Downers Gove, Illinois, 2002, p. 75, referred to the book Rock Hudson and Sara Davidson, Rock Hudson: His Story (New York: William Morrow, 1986), p. 130.

[34] Michael BrownYes, Childhood Sexual Abuse Often Does Contribute to HomosexualityThe Stream, February 23, 2017.

[35] Evelyn Schlatter and Robert Steinback, 10 Anti-gay Myths Debunked Southern Poverty Law Center, 2010 Winter Issue, February 27. 2011.

[36] Elizabeth Moberly, Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic, (James Clarke & Co, Cambridge, England, p. 17<

[37] Moberly, p. 18.

[38] Morrison, op. cit, pp. 28-29.

[39] Morrison, p. 29.

[40] Joseph Sciambra, The Gay Question: A Problem with Fathers

[41] Nicolosi, p. 61.

[42] Harvey, p. 326.

[43] Harvey, p. 326.

[44] Nicolosi, op. cit, pp. 64-65.

[45] Irving Bieber, Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study, Basic Books, Inc, New York, New York, 1962, pp. 28-29.

[46] Bieber, p. 86. Table IV-1

[47] Bieber, ibid., p. 114.

[48] Bieber, ibid., p. 114-115.

[49] Bieber, ibid., p. 114-115

[50] Bieber, ibid., p. 116.

[51] Bieber, p. 44, Table III-1

[52] Bieber, p. 54, 55, 56

[53] Bieber, p. 59-60

[54] Bieber, p. 60.

[55] Bieber, p. 60.

[56] Bieber, pp. 72-73.

[57] Bieber, p. 310-311

[58] Bieber, p. 137.

[59] David McWhirter, Andrew Mattion, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop, Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, p. 172

[60] McWhirter, p. 173.

[61] McWhirter, p. 173, 174.

[62] McWhirter, p. 172.

[63] Morrison, pp. 29-30.

[64] Joseph Sciambra, Swallowed by Satan: How our Lord Jesus Christ saved me from pornography, Homosexuality, and the Occult. , SOS Publishing, with Next Century Publishing, 2013, p. 20.

[65] Falzarano, pp. 24-25

[66] Bieber, p. 101.

[67] Mass Resistance, p. 62, refers Ron de Graaf, Theo G. M. Sandfort, Margreet ten Have , Suicidality and Sexual Orientation: Differences Between Men and Women in a General Population-Based Sample From The Netherlands, Archives of Sexual Behavior, June 2006, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp 253–262

[68] Ben Johnson Relationship problems, not family rejection, leading cause of higher gay suicides: studyLifesite News, May 30, 2014. This study is actually available online here: Delaney Michael Skerrett PhD, Kairi Kõlves PhD and• Diego De Leo MD, PhD, DSc, FRANZCP Suicides among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender populations in Australia: An analysis of the Queensland Suicide Register Asia-Pacific Psychiatry, Volume 6, Issue 4, pages 440–446, December 2014.

[69] Sweden Passes New Gay Marriage Law , The Local, April 2, 2009.

[70] Björkenstam C Suicide in married couples in Sweden: Is the risk greater in same-sex couples?

[71] Stephen T. Russell and Jessica N. Fish, Mental Health in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Youth US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health

[72] Alan Bell, Martin Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity among Men and Women, Institute of Sex Researech, Simon and Schuster, New York, New York, 1978, P. 450, Table 21.12.

[73] Bell, pp. 201-202

[74] Michael King, Joanna Semlyen A systematic review of mental disorder, suicide, and deliberate self harm in lesbian, gay and bisexual people BMC Psychiatry, August 2008.

[75] Apu Chakraborty, Sally McManus, Terry S. Brugha, Pa Mental health of the non-heterosexual population of England The British Journal of Psychiatry Jan 2011

[76] Ann Haas Adults Collecting Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Data in Suicide and Other Violent Deaths: A Step Towards Identifying and Addressing LGBT Mortality Disparities .…. Researchgate, March 2015.

[77] Mass Resistance, p. 64 refers to Sharon McConville, Eating disorders in the Gay and Lesbian Community, from Eating Disorder Hope page. June 25, 2013

[78] Sharon McConville, Eating disorders in the Gay and Lesbian Community, from Eating Disorder Hope page. June 25, 2013.

[79] Mass Resistance, pp. 64-65, points to Kollin Lore, Eating Disorders an Epidemic Among Homosexual Men, Liberty Voice, (Pink News) 3/2/2014.

[80] Ulrike Boehmer, PhD Overweight and Obesity in Sexual-Minority Women: Evidence From Population-Based Data. , US National Library of Medicine June 2007.

[81] Mass Resistance, p. 65, refers to: CB Struble, Overweight and obesity in lesbian and bisexual college women US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health.

[82] Mass Resistance, p. 72, refers to Elaine Zahnd, Nearly Four Million California Adults Are Victims of Intimate Partner Violence, UCLA Policy Research Brief, April 2010

[83] Author Emily Waters, others, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Intimate Partner Violence, 2015, National Coalition of anti-violence Programs, 2016

[84] Osman Ahmed, Chai Jindasurat Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and HIV-Affected Intimate Partner Violence in 2013, National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, 2014, p. 26. .

[85] Ahmed, ibid., p. 15.

[86] Ahmed, p. 11

[87] Ahmed, p. 45

[88] Gregory L. Greenwood, PhD, MPH, Battering Victimization Among a Probability-Based Sample of Men Who Have Sex With Men, American Journal of Public Health, Dec. 2002, Vol. 92, No. 12, 1967.

[89] Dr. Kim Bartholomew, Katherine Regan, Patterns of Abuse in Male Same-Sex Relationships Violence and Victims, Volume 23, Number 5, 2008, 617.

[90] Barthomolew, 627.

[91] Barthomolew, p. 618.

[92] Mass Resistance, p. 75 points to, Mikel L. Walters, Jieru Chen, Matthew Breiding, The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Findings on Victimization by Sexual Orientation, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, January 2013, p. 18

[93] Walters, p. 22.

[94] Walters, p. 29.

[95] Walters, p. 23.

[96] Patricia Tjaden, Nancy Thoennes, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings from the National Violence against Women Survey, US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, July 2000, p. 30.

[97] Taylor N.T. Brown and Jody L. Herman Intimate Partner Violence and Sexual Abuse among LGBT People: A Review of Existing Research, The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, November 2015

[98] Mass Resistance, p. 140 , Sexual orientation and adolescent substance use: a meta-analysis and methodological review US National Library of Medicines, National Institute of Health, April, 2008

[99] Mass Resistance, p. 149, points to another CDC study: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Gay and Bisexual Men’s Health:Substance Use, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Feb 29, 2016.

[100] Jerome Hunt, Why the Gay and Transgender population experiences higher rates of substance-use/Center for American Progress ,March 9, 2012

[101] Sarah Morrison, Drug Use ‘Seven Times Higher’ among gays: Two-year survey uncovers 'problematic substance abuse' among LGBT community Independent Company, September 22, 2012. [102] Philip A. Yeon, MD, MPH&TM and Helmut Albrecht, MD, Crystal Meth and HIV/AIDS: The Perfect StormNEJM Journal Watch, December 3, 2007.

[103] Mass Resistance, p. 145 refers to Dale O'Leary , The Syndemic of AIDS and STDS among MSM National Institutes of Health , February, 2014.

[104] Sharon Worcester, Drug Use among Gay Men Pervasive, Clinical Psychiatry News Clinical Psychiatry News, 2005.

[105] Bell, p. 85, references Table 7, p. 308.

[106] Bell, Table 7, p. 308.

[107] Bell, p. 85.

[109] Bell, p. 86

[109] Bell, p. 83.

[110] Mass Resistance, p. 96,

[111] Paul Van de Ven, Pamela Rodden, June Crawford and Susan Kippax A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men Author(s): The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 34, No. 4 (1997), pp. 349-360.

[112] Colleen C. Hoff , Couples Lynae A. Darbes • Deepalika Chakravarty • Sean C. Beougher • Torsten B. Neilands, Partner-Provided Social Support Influences Choice of Risk Reduction Strategies in Gay Male Couples Springer, as reported to US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Jan 11., 2011

[114] David McWhirter, Andrew Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1984, p. 252.

[114] McWhirter, p. 254.

[115] McWhirter, p. 254.

[116] McWhirter, p. 285.

[117] Torsten Neilands Development and validation of the Sexual Agreement Investment Scale The Journal of Sex Research, Volume 47, 2010,.

[118] Maria Xiridou, The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam, AIDS, an official International AIDS Society Journal, May 2, 2003, Volume 17, Issue 7, pp. 1029-1038.

[119]Xiridou, ibid..

[120] SC Kramer, Factors associated with sexual risk behaviors with non-steady partners and lack of recent HIV testing among German men who have sex with men in steady relationships: results from a cross-sectional internet survey, National Institute of Health, July 24, 2015. Kollin Lore, Eating Disorders an Epidemic Among Homosexual Men, Liberty Voice, (Pink News) 3/2/2014.

[121] Bell, Table 7, p. 309.

[122] Mass Resistance, p. 404. From, Casey E. Copen, Ph.D.; Anjani Chandra, Sexual Behavior, Sexual Attraction, and Sexual Orientation Among Adults Aged 18–44 in the United States: Data From the 2011–2013 National Survey of Family Growth

[123] CDC 2015 Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines, Special Populations

[124] Sexual Behavior, Sexual Attraction, and Sexual Orientation among adults aged 18-44 in the united states: data from the 2011-2013 national survey of family growth

[125] Katherine Fethers, Caron Marks, Adrian Mindel, Claudia S Estcourt , Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women Sydney Sexual Health Centre, Sydney Hospital, Australia, 2000, p. 347

[126] Jeanne M. Marrazzo Laura A. Koutsky Kathleen L. Stine, Genital Human Papillomavirus Infection in Women Who Have Sex with Women The Journal of Infectious Diseases, Volume 178, Issue 6, 1 December 1998, Oxford Acamedic, Pages 1604–1609.

[127] Lauren Paulk, Abortion Access Is an LGBT IssueNational Center for Lesbian Rights, October 1, 2013.

[128] US Food and Drug Administration, Condoms and Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Brochure, December 1990.

[129] C Everett Koop, CDC, Understanding AIDS, a Message from the Surgeon General, , US Department of Health and Human Services, 1988.

[130] Male Condoms and Sexually Transmitted Diseases, US Food and Drug Administration page updated 10/24/2016.

[131] John R Diggs Jr. MD, The Health Risks of Gay Sex, Catholic Education Resource Center, Corporate Resource Center, 2002.

[132] Condoms and Sexually Transmitted Diseases U.S. Food and Drug Administration , 01/08/2018

[133] CDC Analysis Provides New Look at Disproportionate Impact of HIV and Syphilis Among U.S. Gay and Bisexual Men Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at 4:30pm EST.

[134] CDC HIV Testing and Risk Behaviors Among Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men — United StatesWeekly, November 29, 2013.

[135] McWhirter, op. cit., p. 277, table 44.

[136] Ann Haas Adults Collecting Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Data in Suicide and Other Violent Deaths: A Step Towards Identifying and Addressing LGBT Mortality Disparities .…. Researchgate, March 2015.

[137] Mass Resistance, p. 203, refers to The Fenway Institute Safer Sex, 2008.

[138] Oral Sex and HIV Risk , Center for Disease Control, HIV Risk and Prevention, Page last reviewed: July 8, 2016.<

[139] Mass Resistance, p. 202 How You Can Prevent Sexually Transmitted Diseases , CDC , January 2016.

[140] Mass Resistance page 446 Canadian Guidelines on Sexually Transmitted Infections – Specific Populations – Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM) / Women Who Have Sex with Women (WSW), Government of Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada, 2/1/2013

[141] Office on Women’s Health, US Department of Health & Human Services Lesbian and Bisexual Health July 16, 2012

[142] The Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People. Building a Foundation for Better Understanding Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health Issues and Research Gaps and Opportunities National Academy of Sciences, Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2011.

[143] Kristen Hess, Lifetime risk of a diagnosis of HIV infection in the United States, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, February 27, 2016, American College of Epidemiology, Atlanta, GA, April 2017, Volume 27, Issue 4, Pages 238–243.

[144] Kristin Magaldi, HIV/AIDS Treatments Improve Survival, But The Death Toll Is Still Too HighMedical Daily, June 4, 2015.

[145] Wayne Besen on the O'Reilly Factor (2009) .

[146] Apu Chakraborty, Sally McManus, Terry S. Brugha, Pa Mental health of the non-heterosexual population of England The British Journal of Psychiatry Jan 201 HIV Care Saves Lives infographic Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, November 25, 2014.

[147] HIV Among Gay and Bisexual Men, Center for Disease Control, updated, July 17, 2017.

[148] Jeremy Schwab, My Journey, Response to Alan Chamber's statement on Obama's ban Friday, April 10, 2015

[149] Elizabeth Moberly, Homosexuality: a new Christian Ethic, James Clarke & Co, Cambridge, 1983, p, 28.

[150] Moberly, p.29.

[151] Moberly, p. 31

[152] Moberly, p. 31-32.

[153] Moberly p. 31-32..

[154] Moberly, 33.

[155] Moberly, p. 34-35.

[156] Moberly, p. 36.

[157] Moberly, p. 37.

[158] Moberly, p. 38.

[159] Moberly, pp. 38-39.

[160] Moberly, p. 42.

[161] Bieber, p. 278.

[162] Bieber, ibid, p. 283.

[163] Bieber, p. 285.

[164] Bieber, p. 318-319.

[165] Nicholas Cummings, Sexual reorientation Therapy not Unethical, USA Today, Published, July 30, 2013.

[166] Falzarano, pp. 71, 72.

[167] Falzarano, p. 75.

[168] Falzarano, p. 84.

[169] Falzarano, p. 87.

[170] Falzarano, p. 89.

[171] Falzarano, p. 89, 90.

[172] Falzarano, pp. 90-91.

[173] Sciambra, pp. 15-18.

[174] Sciambra 22.

[175] Sciambra, p. 53.

[176] Sciambra, p. 107.

[177] Sciambra, pp. 108-110.

[178] Sciambra, p. 125.

[179] Sciambra, p. 135.

[180] Sciambra, p. 163.

[181] Sciambra, pp. 162-163

[182] Sciambra, pp. 162-163.

[183] Austin Ruse, Joseph Nicolosi: The Man Who Would Heal All the Wounded Boys, Crisis Magazine, March 24, 2017.

[184] Morrison, pp. 35-39.

[185] Morrison, p. 40.

[186] Morrison, pp. 47-48

[187] Morrison, p. 50.

[188] Morrison, pp. 57-58.

[189] Morrison, pp. 57-59.

[190] Morrison, p. 71.

[191] Morrison, pp. 71-75.

[192] Morrison, p. 76.

[193] Morrison, pp. 77-80.

[194] Morrison pp. 91-95.

[195] Morrison, p. 101.

[196] Boynes, pp. 72-73.

[197] (Boynes), p. 21, 23.

[198] Boynes, pp. 62-63.

[199] Boynes, pp. 63-64.

[200] Boynes, pp. 88-89.

[201] Boynes, pp. 89-90.

[202] Boynes, p. 87.

[203] Boynes, p. 197.

[204] Elicia B From Janet Boynes Ministries web site.

[205] Nicolosi, pp. 215-217.

[206] Nicolosi, p. 218.

[207] Nicolosi, p. 219.

[208] Nicolosi, pp. 220-221.

[209] Nicolosi, p. 222.

[210] Nicolosi, pp. 222-234.

[211] Nicolosi, p. 235.

[212] Nicolosi, p. 236.

[203] Obergefell v. Hodges Argued April 28, 2015—Decided June 26, 2015,

[214] Paul Smith, Brief of the American Psychological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, and Ohio Psychological Association as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees , May 1, 2014.

[215] Amy Contrada, Gay Psychiatry American Psychiatric Association Removes Statement Conflicting with Supreme Court’s Claim in “Gay Marriage” Ruling that Homosexuality Is Immutable , August 31, 2015.

[216] Americans for Truth: Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Saw Homosexuality as a ‘Problem’ that Could Be ‘Solved’, Hawaii Free Press quoting Ebony, January, 1958.

[217] Matt Baumes, Blast From the Past: States Using ‘Religious Freedom’ to Justify Segregation Huffington Post From the Past: States Using ‘Religious Freedom’ to Justify Segregation, Blast 3/26/2015.

[218] Zogby Analytics Nationwide Poll of African American Adults , 2013.

[219] Walter E Williams, Dependency, Not Poverty Creators.com, February, 2014.

[220] Brian Ward, Sexual Orientation and Health among US Adults, National Health Interview Survey, 2013, Number 77, July 15, 2014

[221] Gary Gates, and Frank Newport, Special Report: 3.4% of U.S. Adults Identify as LGBT, Inaugural Gallup findings based on more than 120,000 interviews. Gallup Daily Tracking, June 1-Sept. 30, 2012, October 18, 2012.

[222] CDC, HIV Among African Americans, CDC, OCTOBER 26, 2017

[223] Mass Resistance, p. 300. CDC, Lifetime Risk of HIV Diagnosis, February 23, 2016

[224] General Herpes – CDC Herpes – CDC Fact Sheet (Detailed) p. 34

[225] Osman Ahmed, Chai Jindasurat Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and HIV-Affected Intimate Partner Violence in 2013, National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, 2014, p. 11.

[226] Boynes, p. 163

[227] Boynes, p. 188.

[228] Boynes, pp. 165-166.

[229] Gay Rights Don’t Compare to Civils Rights, say 100 African-American Pastors, tfdf.org/blog September 11, 2014

[230] Darryl L. Foster, Touching a Dead Man: One Man’s Explosive Story of Deliverance from Homosexuality, September 2002

[231] Foster, pp. 81-83.

[232] Foster, p. 75.

[233] Danielle Kurtzleben, Gay Couples More Educated, Higher-Income Than Heterosexual Couples , US News, March 1, 2013.

[234] Werner & Wright vs. Spark Networks, Inc. , Superior Court of the State of Califonia County of Los Angeles, Wall Street Journal, April 10, 2015..

[235] Dustin Siggins, Jewish Counselors forced out of business for helping people avoid homosexual behavior , LifeSite News,US News, January 5, 2016.


Bell, Alan, and Weinberg, Martin, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity among Men and Women, Institute of Sex Researech, Simon and Schuster, New York, New York, 1978, 231 pages.

Bieber, Irving, Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study, Basic Books, Inc, New York, New York, 1962, 319 pages.

Boynes, Janet, Called Out: A former Lesbian’s Discovery of Freedom, Creation House, Lake Mary, Fl, 2008, 201 pages.

Falzarano, Anthony, And Such were Some of You: One man’s walk out of the Gay Lifestyle Xulon Press, 2009, 224 pages.

Gallagher, Maggie, and Corvino, John, Debating Same Sex Marriage Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, 2012, 226 pages.

Harvey, John, Father, The Truth about Homosexuality: The Cry of the Faithful, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1996, 377 pages.

Mass Resistance, The Health Hazards of Homosexuality: What the Medical and Psychological Research Reveals, Mass Resistance, Waltham, Massachusetts, 2017, executive Director, Brian Camenker, 2017, 498 pages.

McWhirter, David, and Mattson, Andrew, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop, Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, p. 172

Moberly, Elizabeth, Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic, James Clarke & Co, Cambridge, England, 1983, reprinted, 2001, 51 pages.

Morrison, David, Beyond Gay:, Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, Huntington, IN, 1999, 285 pages.

Nicolosi, Joseph, A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality, Inter-Varsity Press, Downers Gove, Illinois, 2002, 241 pages.

Sciambra, Joseph, Swallowed by Satan: How our Lord Jesus Christ saved me from pornography, Homosexuality, and the Occult., SOS Publishing, with Next Century Publishing, 2013, p. 20.

Resources for Those Struggling with Same-Sex Attractions

The following are ministries/eduational sites, that deal with those who have same-sex attractions. For those who want to help people minister to homosexuals, to help them in their struggles with same-sex attractions, these are some of the places to go. In many cases those ministries that need financial help, please provide help. I usually focus my focus to Catholic Ministries, and they are highlighted down below, but since homosexuality and homosexual sin has impacted many churches, I will give referrals also to places that minister to homosexuals from a Protestant perspective. These places that ask for need financial help, please support. They are like John the Baptist, crying in the Wilderness. They are way underfunded compared to the well-financed homosexual lobbies. As some of these sites will not promote all things that I will spiritually agree with, I do agree with all these ministries, there is a need to minister to homosexuals, and help them get out of a lifestyle that leads to disease, and spiritual bondage, and point to freedom in Jesus Christ.
Courage: A Roman Catholic Apostolate Father John Harvey founded this apostolate in order to address the needs of Catholics who struggle with same sex attractions. This was in response to the needs of many Catholics who struggle with homosexuality. Joseph Sciambra, and David Morrison found Courage as a great help to them in their spiritual journey.

Encourage Ministry: A Roman Catholic Apostolate This is fro support for those who have children/friends with same-sex attraction. Here is a statement: EnCourage is a Roman Catholic apostolate for parents, friends and family members of loved ones with same¬sex attractions. EnCourage is a faithful witness to Catholic teaching on sexual morality which meets the needs of its members with charity and compassion.

Joseph Sciambra web site. He deals with issues of homosexuality in the church and challenges liberal Catholic Churches that tolerate and even promote homosexuality. He details the errors of those pushing homosexuality in the church and goes over many homosexual issue and gives the Christian response. He has a moving video, which shows the death of male pornographic stars, living a life that he had. He titles it: Dead ‘Gay’ Porn Stars Memorial, Joseph Sciambra . His book, which I heavily referenced in this paper is available on his web site: Swallowed by Satan: How Our Lord Jesus Christ Saved Me From Homosexuality, Pornography, and the Occult. .

Janet Boynes Ministries I wrote about Janet Boynes her experience and how she left lesbianism. This is her ministry. Her book that I referenced is available here Called Out: A former Lesbian’s Discovery of Freedom . She also has written other books dealing with Scripture and sex and homosexuality and Lesbianism. She has other people that help her in ministering to males and females who are same-sex attracted. Her witness is a powerful witness of God’s grace in action.

Joseph Nicolosi web site Doctor Joseph Nicolosi was a founding member of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality. He was a pioneer in doing reparative work in helping homosexuals to diminish the same sex attraction. He has unfortunately passed away but educational material is available here. We looked at Elizabeth Moberly’ description of Reparative therapy, his work is putting that work into action. The book I referenced ‘A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality’ is revised and updated in 2017.

Alliance for Therapeutics Choice and Scientific Integrity. This was the organization that was founded by Doctor Nicolosi, originally National Association, for Research and Treatment of Homosexuality. It helps provide Reparative Therapy for those struggling with Same-Sex Attractions. Technically it is not religious in nature, deals with people through therapeutic methods, but does cooperate with religious organizations.

Parents and Friends of Ex Gays and Gays. One of the people who I cited here was Anthony Falzarano. He helped to found this ministry. This web site is for parents of gays and ex-gays. It is also an educational web site on the issue. Here is a statement on the site:” Ex-gays are everywhere, yet too often this community is excluded from the conversation about same-sex attraction in pop culture and the public square. Ex-gays are mocked, excluded from public forums, or simply told they don’t exist! People deserve to know the truth about the many men, women, and children who have made a decision to change their lives. And PFOX offers a place for help, a place for truth and a voice in the conversation.”

My Journey with Same-Sex Blogspot, by Jeremy Schwab. I quoted Jeremy Schwab in his speaking about how Reparative Therapy helped him. This blog goes over several issues. Also is a link to another organization, Catholic based. Joel 2:25 International Schwab runs this site, which is Catholic based, fully believes in Jesus Christ, and encourages those with same-sex attraction to get help here.

Living Hope Ministries This is Protestant based, outreach for same-sex attractions, male and female. Here is from its web site: The largest, world-wide online support groups for men, women, families and friends impacted by same sex attraction.

Restored Hope Network The Executive Directoris Ann Paulk. When Exodus International closed down, this organization came out of this. Paulk says this organization is much more accountable than the previous Exodus International with accountable leadership.” Restored Hope is an inter-denominational membership governed network dedicated to restoring hope to those broken by sexual and relational sin, especially those impacted by homosexuality. We proclaim that Jesus Christ has life-changing power for all who submit to Christ as Lord; we also seek to equip His church to impart that transformation.” There are plenty of testimonies online.

Witnesses for the World. This is a ministry founded by Darryl Foster, referred to in the last section. A former Homosexual who married, turned to Christ. Its mission:” Witness Ministries was founded in February 1996 to help African Americans struggling against homosexuality to find freedom through and in Jesus Christ. Since that time, it has expanded its reach and scope to include all who seek freedom from from sexual sin by providing counseling, training, discipleship and events for the families, friends and loved ones of individuals struggling with the devastating effects of same sex activity.

Mass Resistance This is the web site that produced the much referred to by me in this presentation by me, the book, The Health Hazards of Homosexuality: What the Medical and Psychological Research Reveals. This book goes into great depth and has much more than what I presented in this paper. The Web Site documents the work that the organization, Mass Resistance is doing across the country to defend the rights of parents and their children against homosexual activism.

Cardinal Ratzinger, Letter To The Bishops Of The Catholic Church On The Pastoral Care Of Homosexual Persons This was the letter penned in 1986 by then Cardinal Ratzinger, for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,October 1, 1986. This is what was the foundation that led to the development of Courage, founded by Father John Harvey.

To all visitors Grace of Christ to you!

Page created by: Matt1618.
Send email with questions or comments on this writing to Matt1618 matt16182@yahoo.com


Return to Miscellaneous Page


Return to Matt's Catholic Apologetics Page

A Study of Homosexuality, all its Repercussions, and Marriage...by Matt1618... This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author.

Work completed on Sunday, January 28, 2018