ProBible

Many gays argue that the homosexual lifestyle is completely "normal" and "healthy' and have dismissed anything to the contrary as misinformation, or scare tactics. They couldn't be more wrong.

However, a recent study conducted by a homosexual group, the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA), confirms what past studies have already shown: The homosexual lifestyle carries serious health risks. Health risks cited in the study include HIV and AIDS, substance abuse, depression and anxiety, cancer, and sexually transmitted diseases.

Regarding HIV and AIDS, GLMA states in the study , "The last few years have seen the return of many unsafe sexual practices"; Regarding substance abuse, "Gay men use substances at a higher rate than the general population." Alcohol and drug abuse affects an estimated 20-30% of the gay and lesbian population – a rate that is two to three times higher than the general population. Other findings include, "Depression and anxiety affect gay men at a higher rate than in the general population.  Gays and lesbians (especially adolescents and young adults) are at a 850% higher suicide rate"; "Lesbians have higher risks for some of the gynecological cancers"; and "Sexually transmitted diseases occur in sexually active gay men at a higher rate." Homosexual men account for 65 percent of the 12,000 cases of syphilis in the United States.

The fact that homosexuals are at a greater health risk in these (and other) areas is especially unsettling when one considers that those who lead this lifestyle have the choice of leaving.

Gays have dug a deep hole for themselves by demanding that more attention be given to "the many health issues that are endemic to our community."

What would those "endemic" issues be? Well, here is their list, not mine: lower life expectancy, higher rates of substance abuse, depression, HIV/AIDS, anal cancer, and suicide, and higher rates of breast cancer and cervical cancer among lesbians.

Astonishingly, these activists admit what we have been saying for years, that "gay/bisexual men have a life expectancy 20 years less than the average man" in Canada. Even the life expectancy of lesbians, though not as severely impacted, "is still lower than the life expectancy of the general population."

Suicide rates, they admit, are anywhere from double to 13.9 times higher than the general population. By their own estimates, homosexuals comprise 30% of all suicides in Canada.

They admit that smoking rates among gays are up to three times higher, alcohol use up to seven times higher, and illicit drug use up to 19 times higher than the general population.

They themselves openly acknowledge that 76.1% of all AIDS cases since statistics were first kept occur in gay and bisexual men, and further acknowledge that the infection rate is up to 26 times higher than among the population as a whole.

When it comes to cancer of various types, they candidly admit that "gay men, lesbians and bisexual men and women are at higher risk for some cancers as a result of their sexual orientation (emphasis added)." Smoking and alcohol use puts them at elevated risk of lung and liver cancer, while their sexual activity increases their risk of anal cancer and cancers of the head, throat and neck through frequent exposure to HPV, the human papilloma virus.

From http://www.allaboutworldview.org/homosexual-health.htm

    * Lesbians have the richest concentration of risk factors for breast cancer than any subset of women in the world.
    * They have higher risks for cervical cancers.
    * They are more likely to be obese.
    * They use more tobacco, alcohol, and illicit drugs.

A study of over 1,400 lesbians found the following:

    * Lesbians experience higher rates of bacterial vaginosis and hepatitis C.
    * They have more than twice the number of male partners than heterosexual women (only 7 percent who identify themselves as lesbians never have sex with men).
    * They are 4.5 times more likely to have fifty or more male sexual partners in a lifetime.
    * They are three to four times more likely to have sex with men who are at high risk for HIV—homosexuals, bisexuals, and IV drug users.
    * They are six times more likely to • abuse drugs intravenously.

Other studies also confirm lesbian health problems.

Many homosexual activists get angry when you cite these health facts. But why would anyone get angry over facts? As Augustine said, we love the truth when it enlightens us, but we hate it when it convicts us. However, other homosexual activists acknowledge negative health effects and then use them as a reason to support their cause. This “conservative” case for same-sex marriage suggests that homosexual monogamy, encouraged by government-backed same-sex marriage, would alleviate these health problems. Andrew Sullivan writes, “A law institutionalizing gay marriage would merely reinforce a healthy social trend. It would also, in the wake of AIDS, qualify as a genuine public health measure.”

Unfortunately, health problems and life span will not improve in so-called “committed” homosexual relationships. Why not?

Homosexual Health - Reasons for Homosexual Health
There are at least four reasons. First, monogamy is not the issue—homosexual behavior is. Homosexual acts are inherently unhealthy, not just multiple-partner homosexual acts. This is especially true of male homosexuality. Does anyone really believe that it is natural and healthy to insert the penis into the rectum—the organ whose sole purpose is to expel poisons from the body? The rectum is a one-way street. It’s a sewer. It was designed that way. Labeling its abuse as an act of “love” will not change that fact.

The standard homosexual response to this is, “It’s natural for me because I desire to do it.” I don’t mean “natural” in the sense of desire, but “natural” in the sense of design. Human beings have all kinds of “natural” desires to do things that are physically destructive (e.g. smoking, getting drunk, violence, etc.), and those things often feel good. But we don’t excuse those behaviors because they come “naturally.” The human body was not designed for gay or lesbian sex. Such an act violates the natural design, and having a desire to engage in it does not change the fact that it is unnatural and physically destructive.

Second, coupled homosexuals tend to practice more oral and anal intercourse and more anal-oral sex than those without a steady partner. They also forego safe sex practices because they are “in love.” In other words, coupled homosexuals engage in more high risk sexual contact than their single counterparts. So while married men improve their health and life span by being faithful to their wives, there is no comparable benefit in homosexual couples.

Third, if AIDS will not break promiscuity in homosexuals, a government-backed marriage will not either. As AIDS is falling among heterosexuals, it is rising at an alarming rate among homosexual men (12 percent a year).

Finally, even if monogamy might reduce health problems, monogamy is the exception rather than the rule among homosexuals. The average number of sexual partners in a lifetime for a heterosexual is four, but for a homosexual it is FIFTY (50)! The vast Sex in America survey published by the University of Chicago found monogamy among heterosexuals to be 83 percent but less than 2 percent for homosexuals. Another survey had more moderate results, but still found infidelity in about 62 percent of gay couples. That led researchers in the Journal of Family Psychology to write, “The practice of sexual non-monogamy among gay couples is one variable that differentiates gay and heterosexual couples.”

Why is monogamy much more common between men and women? Could it be because men and women are designed for one another and are therefore complementary? Think about it. One of the least-mentioned aspects of this debate is how men and women complement one another. Each sex balances and moderates the other by providing what’s lacking in the other.

However, in same-sex relationships, the pairing of identicals propels them to extremes not balance. Lesbians tend to push one another to emotional extremes as evidenced by the intense demands they often put on one another, but male homosexuals experience the most damaging effects of imbalance. Instead of the sex drive of the man being balanced by the emotional needs of the woman, male homosexuals reinforce and amplify the sex drive of one another. That’s why their behavior often becomes compulsive to the point of explosive promiscuity—43 percent of homosexual men have SEVERAL HUNDRED SEXUAL PARTNERS! EACH!

In the late 1970s, A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners. The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a 101 to 500 lifetime sex partners.

Tragically, MANY of those partners are children. While male homosexuals comprise only 2–3 percent of the male population, they commit 33% of all child molestation cases. That is, about one-third of all pedophile cases are homosexual in nature—man to boy.

Now when someone connects homosexuality to pedophilia, homosexual activists are quick to deny the connection. However, the denial is for publicity reasons. In gay and academic publications and at gay “pride” parades, both which are largely unfamiliar to the general public, the gay rights movement and the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) are working together. Homosexual publications make favorable references to pedophilia, and homosexual activists and NAMBLA both want the age of consent lowered. They have friends in high places too. As an ACLU attorney, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once advocated lowering the age of consent to twelve! Current Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, marched with a leading advocate of manboy “love” in the 2001 San Francisco gay “pride” parade. (Of course, there was not a peep about this from the mainstream media.)

While homosexual activists try to deny the connection to pedophilia, most admit that homosexuals tend to be extremely promiscuous. As we have seen, reducing promiscuity is a central part of Andrew Sullivan’s argument for same-sex marriage. Yet despite making the claim that same-sex marriage could improve homosexual monogamy, Sullivan doesn’t really believe that gay monogamy is possible. Instead, he claims that homosexuals “need” multiple partners! According to Sullivan (and just about every survey), monogamy is not “flexible” enough for homosexuals. He calls monogamy a “stifling model of heterosexual normality” and thinks homosexuals have a greater “understanding for the need for extramarital outlets.”

But that’s not the worst of it. Incredibly, Sullivan believes heterosexuals could learn from the promiscuity of homosexuals. He writes “something of the gay relationship’s necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds.” In other words, instead of gays becoming more like straights, Sullivan thinks straights should become more like gays. As we’ll see later, this is what homosexuals are really after—they don’t want same-sex marriage so they can live in monogamy like most heterosexuals do—they want to tear down the standards of normalcy to the level of their own behavior. Only then will they feel validated.

In the meantime, let me point out that Sullivan is absurd to assert that the “flexibility” to engage in “extramarital outlets” could “strengthen” any marital bond, especially of a husband and wife. Certainly the last thing any family or our nation needs is for more married men and women to avail themselves of “extramarital outlets.”

Sullivan’s viewpoint on “extramarital outlets” is not surprising. It represents the strong strain of narcissism that runs through the homosexual movement and some homosexual relationships. From his perspective, homosexual relationships are all about self-gratification—they are about him and his desires. But a truly loving relationship isn’t about the narcissistic desires of the individuals in it. Love, by definition, seeks the ultimate good of the loved one by “forsaking all others.” It binds the lover to the loved one, not a nightclub full of anonymous partners. Now, Sullivan is one of the most conservative advocates of same-sex marriage you will find. If Sullivan is for “extramarital outlets,” imagine what the more radical advocates are for—the complete destruction of monogamy and natural marriage (quoted below). Actually, the “conservative” Sullivan is not far from that. By admitting that homosexuals “need” multiple partners, Sullivan is admitting that he wants to change marriage completely into something unrecognizable. Since his new definition cannot be about love, monogamy, or children, what will it be about?

Obviously, it will not be anything like natural marriage. The pairing of identicals, particularly in men, only feeds insatiable lust that leads to explosive promiscuity. But the natural balancing that takes place in a natural marriage is conducive to love, monogamy, and children. Anyone in natural marriage knows that a strong marriage requires the frequent sacrifice of your own comfort and desires for the good of your spouse and children. With loving sacrifice comes growth, maturity, and contentment.

This is the polar opposite of the average homosexual relationship where you betray your family’s trust, health, and well-being so you can indulge in the lust of an “extramarital outlet.” Since this is the kind of relationship that homosexuals like Sullivan want to extol as “marriage,” they need to call it something else. The homosexual relationship they have in mind is closer to prostitution than natural marriage. Yet even if homosexuals stopped their “extramarital outlets,” and even if same-sex marriage could reduce some of the health problems of homosexuals, those unlikely possibilities do not justify making same-sex marriage the legal equivalent of natural marriage. The unique abilities to procreate and parent children should always keep natural marriage as the only legally and socially-encouraged sexual relationship in our society.


Homosexuality Is Not A Civil Right
This pamphlet clarifies certain misconceptions about the meaning of "discrimination" (some forms of which can't-and shouldn't-be eliminated) and of "civil rights" (distinguishing those which limit government power from those which limit the rights of others). It also explains why homosexual conduct is not comparable to other characteristics usually protected by civil rights laws ("race, color, religion, sex, or national origin"). Protection against private "discrimination" has historically been offered only for characteristics that are inborn, involuntary, immutable, innocuous, and/or in the Constitution-yet none of these describe homosexual behavior.