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.