There are many people who have strong feelings about the LGBT lifestyle and gay marriage one way or the other. Some support it as yet another step in fighting ignorant prejudice. Others think it is the enemy of the family, the basic unit of society. Some see it as religion interfering in government. Others are very worried that governments are supporting something that will harm lives and the structure of society.

We'll look at several important aspects of this issue in this article:

  • All people deserve to be treated equally, whether we agree with them or not. This is fully biblical (Exodus 23:9, Matthew 23:8, Galatians 3:28, and many others, etc.) But, marriage is between different sexes. Plagiarizing and conflating that term with a relationship between same sexes is not ethical. Let them invent their own term for it, maybe "parriage", and have fair benefits, etc. 
  • Should we let emotions or facts determine our position?
  • What’s the scientific medical evidence about homosexuality in health, psychology and family, it’s effect on society and others?
  • Is talking about research and evidence, including from gay and secular sources, hate speech or life speech, esp. when research shows that gay lifestyles cause the loss of up to 20-30 years of life and other problems?
  • Gay groups agree their lifestyle causes diseases.
  • Are gay relationships a marriage? Why do even gay people agree it isn't? What rights should gay relationships have?
  • Is homosexuality really natural and should we condone things as right just because they are natural across the board?
  • How does homosexuality cause diseases?
  • Is it possible for homosexuals to change? What are the facts?
  • What effects did homosexuality have on ancient societies and women?
  • Is homosexual parenting something we should promote?
  • What does the Bible say about homosexuality?
  • How did homosexuals brainwash Americans to ignore science (and bully news sources, government leaders, scientists and others to largely repress facts and dupe the public)?
  • What position should governments take on this? Should they promote things that are known to be harmful?




For those who don't have time, here's a short summary of the evidence below. (I'm always open to changing with more evidence).

1) FOLLOW FACTS, NOT EMOTIONS FOR DECISIONS: Each person has temptations of some type to do things that are harmful: to smoke, to do drugs, to commit adultery, to eat unhealthy food, to avoid exercise, to be unfaithful to their spouses, to lie for some benefit and more. But, when we are making decisions about what education should inform people about and what laws to make we should do our best follow the objective facts of science with no censorship as well as we can, while preserving free choice that doesn't cause damage to innocent people. We should also strongly encourage people to make individual choices based on facts, not just feelings, as well.

As you will see, the science is very strong in showing that the gay lifestyle is harmful to many lives and that must be recognized. But there are some other things that are more destructive than the gay lifestyle as well (economic injustice and hunger for example kills many millions at young ages every year, a problem quite a bit more serious than gay issues. See: There are also people with real challenges and difficulties in this area and we can't just blithely say they don't exist or that they can easily change. Change IS possible and VERY beneficial in so many cases (see a section below on that documenting 100s that have changed). But, there are some very deep issues in this topic like many big issues and sympathy for those with harmful attractions is very important, just as we want sympathy for things that we are tempted to do that are harmful.


2) ALL DESERVE RESPECT AND HUMAN RIGHTS: Gay people deserve the full respect as human beings that is accorded to others, whether smokers, vegetarians, drug users/addicts, scientists, street cleaners, minorities, doctors or others. Even if a person's desires are healthy or harmful to themselves, this cannot change their rights as human beings. Gays should have the rights to give their earned benefits to others, have who they love visit them in hospitals and other reasonable rights. They should also be protected from bullying, discrimination, etc. as others are.

2) SEPARATE TERMS FOR GAY RELATIONSHIPS & MARRIAGE: Gay people can create their own term for their relationship and all reasonable rights of marriage that apply to it can be given. But, they cannot commit theft and plagiarize the marriage term for themselves, nor conflate the 2 relationships. Marriage is a term limited exclusively to heterosexual relationships. Why?

a) Marriage was an institution given by God and for all history it has been an institution for a relationship between people of 2 different sexes, not 2 people of 1 sex. There is no justification for stealing and conflating this institution with gay relationships.

b)Marriage can naturally produce children. Gay relationships can't do that (not even artificially at present).

c) Psychologists all know that mothers mother and fathers father. They have distinctly different roles, but both vitally important. Some loss can be compensated for, but 2 fathers or 2 mothers can never fully replace the 2 roles of a father and mother in a family. Children need role models of both sexes to develop properly. Gay marriages categorically do not provide this.

d) Marriage is very beneficial for health. Gay marriage is known to be harmful to physical health (gays lose up to 20 years of life) to mental health and others. See the next section and others on this page and this link for a short summary of some facts from the American College of Pediatrics:


3) PROMOTE FACTS, NOT PROPAGANDA: We know from vast scientific research that heterosexual marriages are very beneficial to society (when good marriage principles are followed.). Gay marriages are harmful to health (even when the best principles are followed). We also don't have any evidence that anyone is born homosexual, and much evidence against that (even from leading homosexual scientists).

Scientists, historians, governments, schools, churches, media and others have a responsibility to make everyone aware of the facts, dangers and risks of the gay lifestyle and what is lost by following that lifestyle. They should not be crippled or punished for doing so, as has sometimes been the case. Media has been used a great deal to make people ignore the science in this area. It should be used to BACK UP science, not ignore it.

Realize that a lot of claims made about the homosexual lifestyle and gay marriage issue are not based on scientific facts. There has been a major effort to subvert science, even in major scientific organizations. This is documented some here:

A journalist asked a question to Ravi Zacharias:

"Q: You people [Christians] will talk against racism an awful lot and I respect that, but then when it comes to the homosexual, you discriminate against the homosexual. I see that double standard.

A: (Ravi points out how this is comparing an idea to a person, a false comparisonm and then says) The reason we are against racism is because a person's race is sacred. One's ethnicity is sacred. You cannot violate it... The reasons we react against the issue of homosexuality the way we do, is because sexuality is sacred. You cannot violate it. How do you sacralize one and descralize the other"

He continues to explain how we can no more justify the desire for homosexuality than we can justify the real desires of many men (and women) to have affairs or a myriad of other harmful desires. Just because we have a desire does not make it good or healthy, whether it's the desire to eat fattening /sugary food or smoke, greed, torturing someone else or homosexuality.

As Ravi simply says, "A disposition or proclivity does not justify expressing that disposition. That goes across the board for all sexuality." He give the example of the renowned prof. Henri Nouwen of Harvard who had a disposition to be a homosexual, but refused to followed it, just as many faithful men and women refuse to in their marriages.)

God has given freedom of choice, and so we should do the same. But we cannot and should not promote as positive choices those that God, science and history have shown to be destructive. We must make people aware of these dangers as much as possible.


Marriage is only between different sexes and gays shouldn't plagiarize it.
Gays should make their own term, maybe "parriage".


First, I support equality for all human beings and so does my church. This article reports about how a major Seventh Day Adventist university town (my church, where both my brother and parents live) was the first in their state to vote to give benefits to same sex families.

I agree with that and it's good that they supported equal treatment for those we disagree with (and my dad, a retired pastor, lives there and actually talked to the mayor there, a Baptist who voted against the benefits, who was a bit confused about how SDAs could support it). That's a concept that Christians and esp. SDAs have LONG fought for, more than almost other worldview. While we may or may not disagree with someone's lifestyle choices (and I disagree strongly with the homosexual lifestyle for medical, scientific, social, biblical reasons, etc.) that can not ever be used as an excuse to treat those we disagree with unjustly or as 2nd class citizens.

But, while it's important to support equality for people, it's not ethical, moral, wise or beneficial in any way to conflate heterosexual marriage with gay relationships. They are just not even close to the same thing, never have been, never can be and never will be. It should be patently obvious to any casual observer that:
1) Marriage is a relationship between people of OPPOSITE sexes, while the gay relationship is between people of the SAME sex.
2) Marriages can biologically produce children. Gay relationships can't.
3) Vast scientific research shows that marriages are very conducive to human health, while research by Oxford, UCLA, the CDC, Mayo and others show that gay relationships can cause the loss of up to 20 years of life.
See references for this below

Gay people need to find their own term for their relationship, not plagiarize a term that refers to something completely different. Again, we should treat gay people with equality, but theft is not something to condone. Invent your own term for your relationships and don't conflate things that have very little if anything in common. My uncle, another retired pastor, suggests calling it "pairriage". It isn't, never has been and never can be the same as marriage. PERIOD.



Many people claim that those who criticize the practice of homosexuality are engaging in hate speech. Is this really true? Is it hate speech to criticize drug use or smoking which destroy so many lives? If not, then why is it considered hate speech to have concern for the scientific facts about homosexuality which is at least as dangerous if not more so? If God called lying an abomination because it harms people so much, doesn’t it make sense that He would speak strongly against something that kills people and on average reduces their lives by ~10-20 years plus many other harmful effects?

When pro-gay researchers admit that the practice is harmful to health and pro-gay groups are suing governments for increased benefits due to known risks of that lifestyle as you will see below...why are so many people completely unaware of the scientifically documented facts on this issue? It's very difficult to get more credible in terms of truth than when people on both sides agree that the lifestyle is harmful and there’s really no honesty in claiming otherwise.  Far from hate speech, telling the facts about the dangers of the homosexual lifestyle is one of the most important life speeches that exists. 

I have friends who are homosexual that I respect and care about, a couple who are very creative. I care about them and it's precisely because I do, that we need to know the facts as accurately as possible so we can have the fullest and best life possible. It is on facts that we should make judgements, not emotions.

Consider these scientific facts (and many more are below and in the links):

  • Oxford University's International Journal of Epidemiology reports: "Life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality continues, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871."

  • Does homosexual activity shorten life?
    Psychol Rep. 1998 Dec;83(3 Pt 1):847-66.
    Previous estimates from obituaries and pre-1994 sex surveys suggested that the median age of death for homosexuals is less than 50 yr. Four contemporary databases were used to test that estimate:
    (1) obituaries in the homosexual press from 1993 through 1997 reflected treatment success for those with AIDS but suggested a median age of death less than 50 years;
    (2) two large random sexuality surveys in 1994--one in the USA and the other in Britain--yielded results consistent with a median age of death for homosexuals of less than 50 years;
    (3) the median age of those ever married in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway was about 50 years, while that of the ever homosexually partnered was about 40 yr; further, the married were about 5 times more apt to be old and 4 times less apt to be widowed young; and
    (4) intravenous drug abusers and homosexuals taking HIV tests in Colorado had almost identical age distributions.

    The four lines of evidence were consistent with previous findings suggesting that homosexual activity may be associated with a lifespan shortened by 20 to 30 years.

    This peer reviewed paper is also available here:

    Dr. Cameron did research from data in Canada, Denmark and Norway on the consequences of homosexuality (starting on page 5 of the above paper).  He found that in Denmark, the country with the longest history of gay marriage, for 1990-2002, married heterosexual men died at a median age of 74yrs., while the 561 partnered gays died at an average age of 51.

    In Norway, married heterosexual men died at an average age of 77 and the 31 gays at 52 yrs. In Denmark, married women died at an average age of 78 yrs. compared to 56 yrs. for the 91 lesbians. In Norway, women married to men died at an average age of 81. v. 56 for the 6 lesbians.

    "The consistency of reduced lifespan for those engaging in homosexuality is significant," said Dr. Cameron. "The same pattern of early death turned up whether we looked at obituaries in the U.S. or deaths in marriage. Given the greatly reduced lifespan for homosexuals, school children should be strongly and consistently warned about the dangers of homosexuality even more so than smoking. &

  • "CDC estimates that MSM account for just 2% of the US population, but accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections in 2009." (good chart here)

  • Here’s a report from Dr. John Diggs:
    “Back in the early 1980s, while working at Beth Israel Hospital, I vividly remember seeing healthy young gay men dying of a mysterious disease that researchers only later identified as a sexually transmitted disease--AIDS.

    Over the years, I've seen many patients with that diagnosis die. As a physician, it is my duty to assess behaviors for their impact on health and well-being. When something is beneficial, such as exercise, good nutrition, or adequate sleep, it is my duty to recommend it. Likewise, when something is harmful, such as smoking, overeating, alcohol or drug abuse, it is my duty to discourage it....As a physician, it is my duty to inform patients of the health risks of gay sex, and to discourage them from indulging in harmful behavior.”

    "The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal sex is alarming:
    Anal Cancer,
    Chlamydia trachomatis,
    Giardia lamblia,
    Herpes simplex virus,
    Human immunodeficiency virus,
    Human papilloma virus,
    Isospora belli,
    Viral hepatitis types B & C,
    Syphilis 29
    and others).

    Sexual transmission of some of these diseases is so rare in the exclusively heterosexual population as to be virtually unknown.

    In 1999, King County, Washington (Seattle), reported that 85 percent of syphilis cases were among self-identified homosexual practitioners.30

    A 1988 CDC survey identified 21 percent of all Hepatitis B cases as being homosexually transmitted while 18 percent were heterosexually transmitted.32

    Since homosexuals comprise such a small percent of the population (only 1-3 percent), they have significantly higher rate of infection than heterosexuals. Data as of 1989 showed rates of anal cancer in male homosexual practitioners to be 10 times that of heterosexual males, and growing. 34

    29 Anne Rompala, "Sexually Transmitted Causes of Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Homosexual Men," Medical Clinics of North America, 74(6): 1633-1645 (November 1990); "Anal Health for Men and Women," LGBTHealthChannel,; "Safer Sex (MSM) for Men who Have Sex with Men," LGBTHealthChannel,
    30 "Resurgent Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Disease Among Men Who Have Sex with Men--King County, Washington, 1997-1999," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC, 48 (35): 773-777 (September 10,1999).
    32 "Changing Patters of Groups at High Risk for Hepatitis Be in the United States," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC, 37(28): 429-432, p. 437 (July 22, 1988). Hepatitis B and C are viral diseases of the liver.
    34 Mads Melbye, Charles Rabkin, et all., "Changing patterns of anal cancer incidence in the United States, 1940-1989," American Jounral of Epidemiology, 139: 772-780, p. 779, Table 2 (1994).

The American College of Pediatricians has a page documenting many serious scientific concerns with the practice of homosexuality here:

Unfortunately, some medical organizations, influenced by political correctness, have misrepresented science in order to affirm unhealthy lifestyles as normal behavior. See documentation of how they have been pressured by ideological groups to obscure scientific facts, which harms people, here:

Dr. John Diggs has compiled over ~200 scientific references on the grave risks associated with homosexuality in a very objective report here:. I highly recommended reading it all.

"The Health Risk of Gay Sex" by Dr. John Diggs

See also:

Why Isn’t Homosexuality Considered A Disorder On The Basis Of Its Medical Consequences?


And there is more research listed in other sections below as well.

Unfortunately in this discussion, some people are so set in their opinions, that no amount of evidence will move them. Senator Moynihan once wryly said in frustration about people like this. “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts”.

For those of you with a more emotional bent, I suggest you read these two links to understand the emotional pain and trauma of people who contracted diseases from this practice of homosexuality. We should make decisions based on science, but some don’t like to do that. For those who make decisions based on emotions, these links should help you see that this is also an emotional issue. The first video is of a young gay man who died at 31 of HIV, something that happens FAR more to homosexuals than any other group.

Read also the anguish that gay people go through when their partners die very young here.

Which do you think is ACTUALLY more compassionate:
A) To believe the assertions against vast science of biased organization (gay groups, the APA, some government agencies) that intentionally disregard 100s and 100s of rigorous scientific studies and reports by Mayo Clinic, CDC, UCLA School of Public Health, Oxford and so many others about the harmful results of the gay lifestyle or

B ) To be REALLY compassionate and tell gays and lesbians that their lives are in danger from these practices as even pro-gay and lesbians scientists and spokesmen also agree.

Has there been any case where following biases and prejudices regardless of facts has been helpful to society? Has it ever really advanced human rights, extended lives, improved freedom? Is there anything positive to be gained from ignoring evidence? The record of history is quite conclusive that it is not. Only harm to humanity can be done by following our emotions and prejudiced agendas above facts.

Many people on both sides are genuinely concerned and acting out of compassion and a sense of ethics and if we don’t recognize this truth on both sides, it will likely cause a deadlock and feelings that we are misunderstood, etc. which will only make the impasse worse and make it more difficult to recognize and follow the evidence to whatever conclusion it leads. Kathryn Schulz has a humorous presentation "On Being Wrong" where she explains how we often incorrectly think about people who differ from us:
"How are you going to explain all of those people who disagree with you? It turns out, most of us explain those people the same way, by resorting to a series of unfortunate assumptions.
1) The first thing we usually do when someone disagrees with us is we just assume they're ignorant. They don't have access to the same information that we do, and when we generously share that information with them, they're going to see the light and come on over to our team. (Sometimes this one can be true, but sometimes it isn't.)
2) When that doesn't work, when it turns out those people have all the same facts that we do and they still disagree with us, then we move on to a second assumption, which is that they're idiots. (Laughter) They have all the right pieces of the puzzle, and they are too moronic to put them together correctly. And when that doesn't work, when it turns out that people who disagree with us have all the same facts we do and are actually pretty smart, then we move on to a third assumption:
3) they know the truth, and they are deliberately distorting it for their own malevolent purposes. So this is a catastrophe.

This attachment to our own rightness keeps us from preventing mistakes when we absolutely need to and causes us to treat each other terribly.

You can see this problem in how conservatives thinking about liberals and how liberals think about conservatives. You can see it in how creationists and Darwinians argue with each other, on both sides of global warming and most other controversies. It is sometimes true that people just don't have the same information, and need to learn about evidence outside their view. Consensus means nothing when it contradicts evidence or when the authorities are ignorant of crucial evidence and have not followed a principle of objectivity given in the Bible and even by Darwin--we must look at a significant amount of evidence on both sides fairly:

  • "When a king sits in judgment, he weighs all the evidence, distinguishing the bad from the good." Proverbs 20:8
  • “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question" Charles Darwin, 1859, Introduction to Origin of Species, p. 2

Unfortunately, for a lot of people, major decisions are made on emotions, not facts. And even for those who care about evidence, it may take a lot of time and other factors to influence them to change to follow them. But, this is by far the most harmful way to make decisions. Al Gore talks about what happened to his sister when she ignored science, followed emotions and her tragic death from lung cancer at a young age. It was only when this happened that his father finally took the science seriously and quit growing tobacco.

The question here is, how many tragedies do we need to experience before we take the evidence from many sources seriously.

  • =======================================

    “Why do we need to say HIV is a gay disease? Because we continue to get infected at an alarming rate, we continue to get sick, and we continue to die,” says Darrel Cummings, Chief of Staff at the Center. In Los Angeles, he says, gay and bi men make up less than 7% of the population, but they account for more than 75% of the county’s people living with HIV/AIDS.” They have a poster stating, "HIV is a Gay Disease. Own it. End it." See it here:

    Matt Foreman, the outgoing executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), made this statement on February 8, during his “State of the Movement” speech at the National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change in Detroit, Michigan. Addressing 2,000 homosexual activists and their allies at the conference, Foreman noted the high rates of HIV among African-American men who have sex with men (MSM), stating:
    “Internally, when these numbers come out, the ‘established’ gay community seems to have a collective shrug as if this isn’t our problem. Folks, with 70 percent of the people in this country living with HIV being gay or bi, we cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease. We have to own that and face up to that.”

    “Research shows that people with same-sex partners may have a higher risk of contracting certain conditions, for instance lesbians may have a higher risk of breast cancer and gay men are at higher risk of HIV…Research shows that lesbians tend to drink more than straight women, and that gay men and lesbians generally take more drugs and are more likely to smoke than heterosexuals.”

    Who gets HIV?
    Anyone can get HIV if they have unprotected sex, but gay men are one of the highest risk groups.

    Between the Lines, Michigan's statewide "gay" newspaper, reports the risk of anal cancer "soars" by nearly 4,000% for men who have sex with men. "The rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive." Between the Lines admits there's no such thing as "safe sex" to prevent this "soaring" cancer risk: "A condom offers only limited protection."

    A pro-gay group in Canada sued the government agency, Health Canada and in their complaint explicitly admitted the health dangers that their lifestyle causes.
    “We are gay, lesbian or bisexual (GLB) Canadians who believe that the GLB population does not receive equitable levels of programming supports based on needs…

    The health status of GLB Canadians is among the poorest of any population in Canada. While the number of studies on the life expectancy of GLB people is limited, what research exists consistently indicates that the life expectancy of GLB people is substantially lower than that of the general population….

    It has been estimated that gay/bisexual men have a life expectancy 20 years less than the average man in Canada. In their book Caring For Lesbian and Gay People—A Clinical Guide, authors Dr. Allan Peterkin and Dr. Cathy Risdon suggest that the life expectancy of gay/bisexual men in Canada is 55 years….

    GLB people commit suicide at rates that range from a low of twice as often, to a high of 13.9 times more often, than the general population. Gay and bisexual men (referred to as men who have sex with men [MSM] by the epidemiologists) comprise 76.1% of the AIDS cases since statistics were first kept and 45% of the new HIV infections each year. The GLB community has borne the brunt of the HIV/AIDS epidemic…

    Gay men, lesbians and bisexual men and women are at higher risk for some cancers as a result of their sexual orientation.”

    Summarizing the whole complaint BY GAY ACTIVISTS:
    • The life expectancy for gay and bisexual men is 20 years less than the average Canadian man;
    • GLB people commit suicide at rates ranging from twice as often to almost 14 times more than the general population;
    • GLBs have smoking rates ranging from 1.3 to three times higher than average;
    • GLBs become alcoholics at a rate 1.4 to seven times higher than the general population;
    • GLBs use illicit drugs at a rate from 1.6 to 19 times higher than other Canadians;
    • GLBs experience depression at rates ranging from 1.8 to three times higher than average;
    • Homosexual men comprise 76% of AIDS cases and 45% of all new HIV infections;
    • GLB populations are at a higher risk of lung and liver cancer;
    • Homosexual and bisexual men suffer a higher rate of anal cancer than heterosexual men;
    • Lesbians report a higher rate of breast cancer;
    • GLBs experience verbal and physical abuse at a greater rate than most Canadians. rights complaint.pdf


    Matt Barber of Concerned Women for America says, "It’s criminally reckless for the National Education Association and liberal educators to put political correctness and a deceptive political agenda above the lives, health and well-being of America’s children. The evidence is there for all to see. ‘Gayness’ is not about ‘who you are,’ it’s about ‘what you do.’

    Some organizations such as the APA try to claim that homosexuality is normal and there is nothing harmful about it.  They do this directly due to propaganda tactics and incredible pressure for the homosexual lobby. But, here is the type of “increased risk” that the APA and many organizations water down because of political concerns.

    UCLA School of Public Health:
    MSM (men having sex with men) have 130 times higher death rates from HIV than heterosexuals)
    “RESULTS: Compared with heterosexual men, MSM (men having sex with men) evidenced greater all-cause mortality. Approximately 13% of MSM died from HIV-related causes compared with 0.1% of men reporting only female partners. However, mortality risk from non-HIV-related causes, including suicide, was not elevated among MSM.
    “Sexual orientation and mortality among US men aged 17 to 59 years: results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III.”
    A 130 times higher chance of contracting AIDS is an astronomical difference scientifically speaking and even this alone shows your APA president to be a blatant liar of the worst order.

    The Mayo Clinic writes:
    “All men/women have certain health risks. Men who have sex with men and women who have sex with women face an INCREASED risk of specific health concerns, however.” (emphasis added)

    Between 2001 and 2006, male-to-male sex was the largest HIV transmission category in the US, and the only one associated with an increasing number of HIV/AIDS diagnoses, according to a report from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.The increase was highest among boys and men between the ages of 13 and 24 years who had sex with other males, particularly among ethnic minorities. SOURCE: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, June 27, 2008.

    The Medical Institute of Sexual Health reports [Executive Summary, "Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality," 1999]:

    - "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices."
    - "Women who have sex with women are at significantly increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer than are heterosexual women."
    - "Domestic violence is...probably more common among homosexuals than among heterosexuals."
    - "Significantly higher percentages of homosexual men and women abuse drugs, alcohol and tobacco than do heterosexuals."

    “Of the 1285 gay, lesbian and bisexual respondents who took part, 556 (43%) had mental disorder as defined by the revised Clinical Interview Schedule (CIS - R). Out of the whole sample, 361 (31%) had attempted suicide.”

    “A forty-eight page study to be published two weeks from now in the peer-reviewed journal, Psychological Reports, compares extensive and newly released Center for Disease Control (CDC) data, concluding that homosexuals are far more likely to engage in illegal and socially dangerous behaviour than heterosexuals. In fact, according to the study, homosexuals are over 107% more likely to have been booked for illegal activity than heterosexuals...Here’s the CDC, staunchly homosexual,” collecting data which proves the dangerous nature of homosexuality.

    Increasing HIV testing among MSM is critical in light of a study of MSM aged 15--29 years in six U.S. cities, which reported that the proportion of unrecognized HIV infection was as high as 77%

    The PHAC report reveals that 51 per cent of those infected with HIV continue to be men who engage in homosexual activity. Despite the high percentage, however, the Canadian government has continued to resist informing the public of the health risks of homosexual activity, instead pushing homosexuality as a normative and a healthy lifestyle.

    A male homosexual was the teacher most apt to have sex with his pupils in a study encompassing 7 countries. Overall, 43% of teachers who made the news for having sex with their pupils over the last 27 years engaged in homosexuality. Homosexual teachers violated 1,925 (56%) of the 3,457 pupil-victims...Prior studies included two polls of superintendents (homosexuals were 27% and 29% of perpetrators), convictions in 10 states (homosexuals were 32% of perpetrators), a poll of principals (35% of complaints were about homosexual teachers), and adults reporting on their experiences as students (23% of reports involved homosexuality). It's unusual to get such consistency from method-to-method, much less country-to-country." Empirical Journal of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior

    See also:

    I apologize that this will be a little graphic, but it is necessary for understanding of why homosexuality causes many diseases:
    “Male homosexual behaviour is not simply either ‘active’ or ‘passive,’ since penile-anal, mouth-penile, and hand-anal sexual contact is usual for both partners, and mouth-anal contact is not infrequent. . . . Mouth-anal contact is the reason for the relatively high incidence of diseases caused by bowel pathogens in male homosexuals. Trauma may encourage the entry of micro-organisms and thus lead to primary syphilitic lesions occurring in the anogenital area. . . .In addition to sodomy, trauma may be caused by foreign bodies, including stimulators of various kinds, penile adornments, and prostheses.”
    R. R. Wilcox, “Sexual Behaviour and Sexually Transmitted Disease Patterns in Male Homosexuals,” British Journal of Venereal Diseases, 57(3): 167-169, 167 (1981).

    “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.” John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D.

    Because of these facts, homosexuality causes tears in the body and bleeding and other problems which allow disease agents to easily enter the bloodstream (very different from male-female sex). There are quite a number of scientific studies that confirm that homosexuality is quite dangerous and reduces life by decades. A couple studies found that the average age at death for homosexuals and lesbians is ~42 and 44 respectively.

  • ================================================



  • Let me be clear. I think that gays should have the rights to give their benefits to someone they love, to decide who inherits their money, to visit their lover in the hospital, etc. and other things that any human being should have a right to do. But, A gay relationship will never be the same as a marriage and it is wrong for them to distort, cloud and steal an institution that has been only between a man and woman for the purpose of creating a family. Gays can invent their own term for something that just isn't and never will be a marriage. My uncle, a conservative pastor, suggests that we should call it "parriage".  That is something I would respect as legitimate and fair, or some term that gays wish to choose. But to conflate it as marriage is just not ethical. There are too many vast differences to justify equating the 2 relationships.

    There are also a good number of gays that are against calling their relationships a marriage as well, since it just isn't and never will be the same thing for patently obvious reasons. Here are a couple.
    Living in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal, this is one of the hazards of being gay. Everyone expects you to be pro-gay marriage, and I can’t say that I am.

    Don’t get me wrong. I think Sam should have inheritance/pension/social security rights, be my healthcare proxy, get the tax breaks, be eligible for citizenship, etc., etc., exactly like heterosexual married couples. What I’m against is the use of the word “marriage,” and I think we would have achieved equal rights by now, on a national level, if so much breath hadn’t been wasted and the right-wing gotten its knickers in a twist over the nomenclature.

    I’d go so far as to say that “gay marriage” (not even as an issue but as a matter of semantics) helped cost John Kerry the presidential election that brought us for more years of squandered opportunity and global goodwill, along with gross mismanagement, that characterized the Bush administration. So why do they insist on calling it marriage?

    It’s demonstrably not the same thing as a marriage between a man and a woman. It’s two guys or two girls, and no matter how much Mendelssohn and matching white outfits you dress it up in, the religious and social significance of a gay wedding ceremony simply isn’t the same. We’re not going to procreate as a couple (until science catches up), and while the desire to demonstrate commitment might be laudable, the religious traditions that have accommodated same-sex couples have had to do some fairly major contortions to do so (which is probably healthy for them but neither here nor there). So the promise part is nice. Otherwise, “gay marriage” is beside the point. And for precisely that reason, I find it cringe-worthy to watch gay couples aping the rituals of a heterosexual wedding ceremony.

    …We could call it a “floogle,” or any other word you’d care to make up. The argument that this would create a ”separate but equal” scenario is specious; simply make the legal wording exactly the same as civil marriage, and who really cares?

    In short, I understand the sentiment, and I appreciate the desire for an acknowledgement that my relationship is the equal of any other. But Sam and I don’t even know what to call each other. “Boyfriend” sounds trite. “Partner” sounds like a business arrangement. Significant other, better half, lover, all unwieldy or awkward. Out of frustration and facetiousness, I usually refer to him as “my de facto husband-type-person.”

    So if we don’t know what to call each other, why harp on what to call the relationship? We know what we mean to each other. We both want what the world grants straight couples after they exchange vows. And someday we’ll commemorate our commitment somehow, which will probably involve a fairly major party. But if it wasn’t called “marriage,” neither of us would care, and for the gay people who do, you’d probably get what you want sooner if you weren’t so hung up on that one word.

    Also see: (and many links at the end of the page)


    Many people think that homosexuality is natural. First of all, whether something is natural does not make it right. Some animals rape other animals. Many animals kill other animals. Male lions will even eat their own babies at times. There is cannibalism in nature. If we look at human beings, plenty of guys and some women too have natural feelings to be playboys/playgirls and have affairs. Should we just across the board condone everything that is natural? If we can do it in the case of homosexuality, why not in the other cases? What principle should we follow in this area? No scientist or thinking person would deny that some natural things are destructive and should not be just unthinkingly approved because it happens in nature. Should we change the principle in the case of homosexuality if it is found to be problematic?

    One of the essences of Christianity is to help us to overcome what we feel is natural since it is sometimes destructive. With strong willpower and with God's help we can reject those destructive natural feelings and conquer them to do what is right. 80 years of research shows that religion improves self control significantly & this is also a major factor in producing many kinds of success that others don't enjoy. 
    “Researchers around the world have repeatedly found that devoutly religious people tend to do better in school, live longer, have more satisfying marriages & be generally happier."
    See also:

    But, there is much evidence that homosexuality is not even natural as many claim. It is much more something that people adopt due to others reasons, such as the Greeks cultural influence mentioned below and others.

    In a 1989 USA Today article, San Francisco State University professor of psychology John DeCecco, and the former editor of the 25-volume, Journal of Homosexuality, stated, "The idea that people are born into one type of sexual behavior is entirely foolish". He stated that homosexuality is "a behavior, not a condition," and something that some people can and do change, just like they sometimes change other tastes and personality traits." Kim Painter, A Biological Theory for Sexual Preference, USA Today, 1 January 1989, p. 4D

    In his 1980 work “Overcoming Homosexuality”, Dr, Robert Kronemeyer with 25+ years experience in counseling homosexuality writes: "With rare exceptions, homosexuality is neither inherited nor the result of some glandular disturbance or the scrambling of genes or chromosomes. Homosexuals are made, not born 'that way.' I firmly believe that homosexuality is a learned response to early painful experiences and that it can be unlearned. For those homosexuals who are unhappy with their life and find effective therapy, it is 'curable.'”

    Some research about what causes homosexuality suggests that it is more likely for adopted brothers to be both be homosexuals than for biological brothers. This is a strong argument that homosexuality is not genetically caused. This research caused the journal Science to report "this . . . suggests that there is no genetic component, but rather an environmental component shared in families" .

    Dr. Neil Whitehead is a research scientist and biochemist from New Zealand. Dr. Whitehead and his wife Briar Whitehead coauthored a book with entitled My Genes Made Me Do it - a scientific look at sexual orientation which provides evidence that homosexuality isn’t genetically determined and that they are "not born that way". It also lists abundant documentation that homosexuality can become satisfied heterosexuals.

    Dr. Whitehead and Briar Whitehead state in their aforementioned book the following: regarding various cultures:

    “If homosexuality were significantly influenced by genes, it would appear in every culture, but in twenty-nine of seventy-nine cultures surveyed by Ford and Beach in 1952, homosexuality was rare or absent. It was very rare in the Siriono, even though there were no prohibitions on homosexual relationships in that culture. The researcher observed only one man displaying slight homosexual traits but apparently not sexually involved with another man. Homosexuality appears to be rare among Orthodox Jews [Orthodox Judaism forbids homosexuality], so much so that learned rabbis, the interpreters of Jewish law, usually allowed men to sleep in the same bed, because likelihood of sexual contact was considered negligible. Kinsey also found very low homosexual incidence among Orthodox Jews...

    This evidence comes from missionaries who commonly spend 25 years of their lives living in one culture, far more than almost any anthropologist....Overall they can be considered as reliable witnesses. For example, in contrast to groups like the Sambia in the New Guinea highlands, where homosexuality was compulsory, only about 2-3 percent of Western Dani (also in the New Guinea highlands) practiced it. However, in another group of Dani who were genetically related, homosexuality was totally unknown. Missionaries report that when they were translating the Bible into Dani for this group, their tribal assistants, who knew their own culture intimately, were nonplused by references to homosexuality in Romans 1; they did not understand the concept. Another missionary, with the same group for 25 years, overheard many jests and sexually ribald exchanges among the men, but never a single mention of homosexuality in all that time. When Dani went to help with missionary work among the Sambia, they were astounded at some of the homosexual practices they saw for the first time. Although it is always difficult for a foreigner to be completely sure whether a rare and stigmatized behavior exists, it is certainly true that if three such different experiences of homosexuality can occur in groups of people so closely related genetically, genetically enforced homosexuality is an impossibility.[21]My Genes Made Me Do it - a scientific look at sexual orientation by Dr Neil Whitehead and Briar Whitehead - Chapter 6, available at:

    An article came out in May, 2013 on this:

    Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

    “At best genetics is a minor factor,” says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.


    Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions.  If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay.

    “Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,” Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. “If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.”

    Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. “No-one is born gay,” he notes. “The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.”

    Dr. Whitehead believes same-sex attraction (SSA) is caused by “non-shared factors,”  things happening to one twin but not the other, or a personal response to an event by one of the twins and not the other.

    For example, one twin might have exposure to pornography or sexual abuse, but not the other.  One twin may interpret and respond to their family or classroom environment differently than the other. “These individual and idiosyncratic responses to random events and to common environmental factors predominate,” he says.

    The first very large, reliable study of identical twins was conducted in Australia in 1991, followed by a large U.S. study about 1997. Then Australia and the U.S. conducted more twin studies in 2000, followed by several studies in Scandinavia, according to Dr. Whitehead.

    “Twin registers are the foundation of modern twin studies. They are now very large, and exist in many countries. A gigantic European twin register with a projected 600,000 members is being organized, but one of the largest in use is in Australia, with more than 25,000 twins on the books.”

    A significant twin study among adolescents shows an even weaker genetic correlation. In 2002 Bearman and Brueckner studied tens of thousands of adolescent students in the U.S.  The same-sex attraction concordance between identical twins was only 7.7% for males and 5.3% for females—lower than the 11% and 14% in the Australian study by Bailey et al conducted in 2000.

    In the identical twin studies, Dr. Whitehead has been struck by how fluid and changeable sexual identity can be.

    “Neutral academic surveys show there is substantial change. About half of the homosexual/bisexual population (in a non-therapeutic environment) moves towards heterosexuality over a lifetime. About 3% of the present heterosexual population once firmly believed themselves to be homosexual or bisexual.”

    “Sexual orientation is not set in concrete,” he notes.

    Even more remarkable, most of the changes occur without counseling or therapy. “These changes are not therapeutically induced, but happen ‘naturally’ in life, some very quickly,” Dr. Whitehead observes. “Most changes in sexual orientation are towards exclusive heterosexuality.”

    Numbers of people who have changed towards exclusive heterosexuality are greater than current numbers of bisexuals and homosexuals combined. In other words, ex-gays outnumber actual gays.

    The fluidity is even more pronounced among adolescents, as Bearman and Brueckner’s study demonstrated. “They found that from 16 to 17-years-old, if a person had a romantic attraction to the same sex, almost all had switched one year later.”

    “The authors were pro-gay and they commented that the only stability was among the heterosexuals, who stayed the same year after year. Adolescents are a special case—generally changing their attractions from year to year.”

    Still, many misconceptions persist in the popular culture. Namely, that homosexuality is genetic – so hard-wired into one’s identity that it can’t be changed. “The academics who work in the field are not happy with the portrayals by the media on the subject,” Dr. Whitehead notes. “But they prefer to stick with their academic research and not get involved in the activist side.”

    Also see this link which makes the point in the new field of epigenetics that shows that genes can be influenced by lifestyle habits (and other things can influence them too). This is a possible way that genetics influence homosexuality, but doesn't mean it's natural, let alone healthy (we know it's very damaging to health, destroying up to 20 years of life as even gay groups have admitted above):

    "It has long been known that identical twins develop differences that result from environment. And in recent years, it has also been shown that some of their differences can spring from unique changes in what are known as epigenetic factors, the chemical markers that attach to genes and affect how they are expressed — in some cases by slowing or shutting the genes off, and in others by increasing their output.

    These epigenetic changes — which accumulate over a lifetime and can arise from things like diet and tobacco smoke — have been implicated in the development of cancer and behavioral traits like fearfulness and confidence, among other things. Epigenetic markers vary widely from one person to another, but identical twins were still considered genetically identical because epigenetics influence only the expression of a gene and not the underlying sequence of the gene itself.

    “When we started this study, people were expecting that only epigenetics would differ greatly between twins,” said Jan Dumanski, a professor of genetics at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and an author of the study. “But what we found are changes on the genetic level, the DNA sequence itself.”

    Also, there are some things that people really are born with, such as FAS (fetal alcohol syndrome). That doesn't make them good or beneficial at all. People have a number of tendencies that they are born with that need to be overcome if they are to have the best life. The most important one to overcome is sin that degrades both quality and quantity of human life in many areas.

    There are several factors such as absent fathers or problems in the relationship with the father, sexual abuse, possibly genetic interference and others that seem to affect homosexuality. Quite often, the problem is that the person has not had sufficient love from a male figure and this influences them to seek to satisfy this lack inappropriately through the harmful practice of homosexuality. My father has a Ph.D. in couseling and has stated that nearly all of the homosexuals that he has talked with in depth had sigificant relational problems with their fathers. These links have much more detailed information on this topic.

    There are at least 48 scientific studies and 3,000 documented cases of people that have successfully changed from homosexual to heterosexual lifestyles.

    Many have stopped being homosexual and become happy heterosexuals. I just read this recently:
    “My Ex-Gay Friend” A homosexual activist becomes a heterosexual Christian.

    Recently, the former lesbian activist Charlen Cothran left homosexuality and converted her pro-homosexuality magazine to one that helps homosexuals find freedom and deliverance through faith in Jesus Christ.

    Lesbian activist Yvette Cantu Schneider also became a Christian and left homosexuality.

    An article about the couple Anne Heche and Ellen Degeneres said that Heche had decided to go back to heterosexuality. Heche married a man on Sept. 1, 2001.
    "Fomer Lesbian Anne Heche Engaged to Cameraman,", June 1, 2001 reprinted at,
    " The Facts: Anne Heceh, " Eonline.msn, April 1, 2002,,128,31319,00.html

    Sinead O'Connor came out as a lesbian. But, then she got married to British Press Association reporter Nick Sommerlad.
    "Sinead O'Connor to Marry a Man," Reuters, June 27, 2000,

    New Study Confirms Homosexuality Can Be Overcome
    Findings Indicate that Those Who Want to Change Sexual Orientation Can Be Successful

    ENCINO, Calif.--May 17, 1997--Nearly 25 years after the American Psychiatric Association officially removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic Manual, labeling it a lifestyle choice rather than a psychological disorder, a California-based association of psychiatrists and psychologists has proven that homosexuals can change their orientation through intense therapy and a strong desire to change.

    The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) released the results of a two-year study this week in conjunction with its annual meeting of licensed psychologists and psychotherapists, social workers, family counselors, clergy and related professionals. The study was conducted among nearly 860 individuals struggling to overcome homosexuality and more than 200 psychologists and therapists who treat them. The survey was sponsored by NARTH; its data was tabulated by professionals at Brigham Young University.

    "This research proves, once and for all, that the propaganda being spread by the gay lobby in this country has been without any basis in fact, and I suspect they've known it all along," said Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, a psychologist and executive director of NARTH. "We should stop telling young people and others struggling with homosexuality that they're stuck with it. Instead we should say, 'If you want to change, you can, like so many others who have.'"

    The survey was conducted among individuals who were previously thought to be non-existent as a population; this study demonstrates that such individuals do exist.

    Among the study's significant findings is a documented shift in respondents' sexual orientation, as well s the frequency and intensity of their homosexual thoughts and actions. Specifically, the survey indicated:

    Before treatment, 68 percent of respondents perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entirely homosexual, with another 22 percent stating they were more homosexual than heterosexual. After treatment, only 13 percent perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entirely homosexual, while 33 percent described themselves as either exclusively or almost entirely heterosexual.

    Although 83 percent of respondents indicated that they entered therapy primarily because of homosexuality, 99 percent of those who participated in the survey said they now believe treatment to change homosexuality can be effective and valuable.

    As a group, those surveyed reported statistically significant decreases following treatment in the frequency and intensity of their homosexual thoughts, in the frequency of masturbation to gay pornography, and in the frequency of their homosexual behavior with a partner. Respondents also indicated that, as a result of treatment and sexual orientation changes, they were also improving psychologically and interpersonally.

    Of the psychotherapists surveyed, 82 percent said they believe therapy can help change unwanted homosexuality. They further indicated that on average, one-third to one-half of their patients had adopted a primarily heterosexual orientation.

    And more than 95 percent of the psychotherapists said they either strongly agreed or somewhat agreed with the statement that homosexual patients may be capable of changing to a heterosexual orientation.

    At the time of the survey, 63 percent of participants indicated that they were still in treatment, having spent an average of three and one-third years (or 42 sessions) in therapy up to that point. Of the primarily Caucasian sample, 78 percent were men, 22 percent were women, with an average age of 37. Over half of the participants had never been married, and approximately one-third were married. Almost 90 percent of survey's respondents had a college education.

    "Clearly this research validates homosexuality as a psychological condition, rather than a genetic or hereditary one," said Nicolosi, calling previous studies of the brain and genetic material the work of gay political activists. "As a result," he continued, "we must not turn our backs on those individuals who want to find a way out of homosexuality."

    A qualitative portion of the survey confirmed Nicolosi's statements. Comments provided by respondents included:

    "When I realized that homosexuality was a trap," one man stated, "I turned to others for help. My therapist and our relationship provided a model for appropriate male-to-male, nonsexual relationships, and taught me about appropriate touching, bonding and expression of needs."

    Another man wrote: "I had been involved in compulsive behavior several times a week for eight years, from the time I left home and began living on my own. I had occasional physical encounters as well. Since joining a therapy group, I've had no recurrence of compulsive masturbation, no use of phone sex or pornography, with basically no desire to participate in those behaviors. The attraction to men lingers, but every week I participate [in] the group encourages me more."

    A female respondent stated: "I never expected this much recovery. My relationships with men have greatly improved--I am able to relate sexually to my husband in a way I was never able to before. I'm learning to leave the familiar protective emotions of contempt, arrogance, pseudo self-sufficiency, anger and self-indulgence behind, and practice the emotions of love instead."

    "Change is extremely difficult and requires total commitment," said a male respondent. "But I have broken the terrible power that homosexuality had over me for so long. I haven't been this light and happy since I was a child. People can and do change, and become free."

    "NARTH will give a new voice to these individuals and the hundreds more who participated in our study," Nicolosi said, indicating that his organization intends to disseminate the survey's results to leaders in the religious, political and scientific communities. "As professionals, we cannot allow the American public to be deceived one minute longer. We must be allowed to reach out to those who want our help and help them. And we intend to continue to do so."

    Here are the studies:
    Retrospective Self-Reports of Changes in Homosexual Orientation: A Consumer Survey of Conversion Therapy Clients
    Joseph Nicolosi, A. Dean Byrd, Richard W. Potts
    Psychological Reports, June 2000

    Summary - We present the results of a survey of 882 dissatisfied homosexual people whom we queried about their beliefs regarding conversion therapy and the possibility of change in sexual orientation. There were 70 closed-ended questions on the survey and 5 open-ended ones. Of the 882 participants, 726 of them reported that they had received conversion therapy from a professional therapist or a pastoral counselor. Of the participants 779 or 89.7% viewed themselves as “more homosexual than heterosexual,” “almost exclusively homosexual,” or “exclusively homosexual” in their orientation before receiving conversion therapy or making self-help efforts to change. After receiving therapy or engaging in self-help, only 305 (35.1%) of the participants continued to view their orientation in this manner. As a group, the participants reported large and statistically significant reductions in the frequency of their homosexual thoughts and fantasies that they attributed to conversion therapy or self-help. They also reported large improvements in their psychological, interpersonal, and spiritual well-being. These responses cannot, for several reasons, be generalized beyond the present sample, but the attitudes and ideas are useful in developing testable hypotheses for further research.

    Beliefs and Practices of Therapists who Practice Sexual Reorientation Psychotherapy
    Joseph Nicolosi, A. Dean Byrd, Richard W. Potts
    Psychological Reports, April 2000

    Summary – There is currently controversy regarding whether sexual reorientation or conversion therapies are ethical and effective forms of treatment for dissatisfied homosexually oriented people. We present the results of a survey of 206 psychotherapists who practice sexual conversion therapy. 187 therapist said they believed homosexuality is a developmental disorder and that the 1973 decision by the American Psychiatric Association to “depathologize” homosexuality was politically motivated and unscientific. The therapists believe that the majority of dissatisfied homosexually oriented clients who seek conversion therapy benefit from it, experiencing both changes in their sexual orientation and improved psychological functioning. We conclude that therapists who persist in providing reorientation therapy do so because they believe it is an effective and ethical treatment option for their clients.

    Dr. Robert Spitzer is one of the most influential psychiatrists of the 20th century. He also was the chair of the task force that wrote the DSM in 1980. This is the professional book that helps to classify mental disorders. He also was the leader of the effort in 1973 to remove homosexuality from the list of mental diseases.

    In 2001, Spitzer gave a presentation “Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation?” at the 2001 annual APA meeting. He had been very skeptical at first that it was possible. But, in interviews with ~200 former homosexuals/lesbians, he found that “66 percent of the men and 44 percent of the women had arrived at what [Spitzer] called good heterosexual functioning,” defined as “being in a sustained, loving heterosexual relationship within the past year, getting enough satisfaction from the emotional relationship with their partner to rate at least seven on a 10-point scale, having satisfying heterosexual sex at least monthly and never or rarely thinking of somebody of the same sex during heterosexual sex.” Spitzer has stated that his research "shows some people can change from gay to straight, and we ought to acknowledge that."

    The APA issued an official disavowal of Spitzer's work, charging that it had not been peer reviewed and stating that "There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of reparative therapy as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation." After ~2 years, he was finally able to get his paper peer reviewed and published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. In a 2005 interview, Spitzer stated,
    “Many colleagues were outraged. I remember when it first appeared in the media, I got a letter from, I think, a dean of admissions at Columbia. He wrote me that it was just a disgrace that a Columbia professor should do such a thing. Within the gay community, there was initially tremendous anger and feeling that I had betrayed them. I think that has largely dissipated. But also, I'm at the point in my career that I don't worry about such things… The study that ought to be done is a controlled study where people go into the therapy, and then you initially evaluate them, and then you evaluate them later and see how many actually changed. But that study is not going to be done, unfortunately.

    Is that because of a lack of interest or funding?
    The reasons are, number one, reparative therapists are not scientists—they don't do studies. The second reason is, if somebody proposed that the National Institute of Mental Health do such a study, I think almost certainly any gays in the study section would say this is a total waste of time: They would say, We already know it's hokum, so why do it?”

    In other words, there’s such tremendous bias against the idea that gays can change, that it won’t be done, at least not anytime soon.

    Homosexuals try to deny that change is possible…even when it’s been observed such as in one case with penguins When 2 male penguins, Harry and Pepper, took care of an abandoned egg, homosexuals called them homosexual. But, later, Harry dumped Pepper for an attractive female penguin and they soon made a nest and she laid an egg from their relationship. Wayne Besan, a homosexual activist, reacted to this fact:
    “Attempts to change sexual orientation are patently offensive, discriminatory by definition, theologically shaky, uniformly unsuccessful and medically unsound!” exclaimed a visibly angry Besen. “There is no ‘ex-gay’ sexual orientation. Harry is simply in denial. He’s living what I call the ‘big lie.”

    When asked if heterosexual penguins can become gay, Besen replied, “Well, um, sure. It happens all the time. But in that case it’s just the penguin embracing who he really is. Once gay, always gay!”

    It is double standard attitudes like this at all levels of society, including the APA and many professional scientists, that unfortunateley are stifling and hindering research into the fact that quite a large number of people have successfully changed from homosexuality to successful male-female relationships.

    Gays are unfortunately putting so much pressure on companies and the government that people are getting fired for just disagreeing with the gay lifestyle and it’s dangers. This is a VERY serious violation of free speech:
    Hockey agent Todd Reynolds tweeted that it was "Very sad to read Sean Avery's misguided support of same-gender 'marriage.' Legal or not, it will always be wrong." Damian Goddard, who hosted a show on Rogers Sportsnet in Canada, tweeted his support for Reynolds and was fired.


    (and bully news sources, government leaders, scientists and others to largely repress it from public knowledge?)

    Here is an excerpt from the book, "The Marketing of Evil" by the award winning David Kupelian. This is just an excerpt of one chapter. The whole 1st chapter is online free at:

    War conference

    In February 1988, some 175 leading activists representing homosexual groups from across the nation held a war conference in Warrenton, Virginia, to map out their movement’s future. Shortly thereafter, activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen put into book form the comprehensive public relations plan they had been advocating with their gay-rights peers for several years.

    Kirk and Madsen were not the kind of drooling activists that would burst into churches and throw condoms in the air. They were smart guys – very smart. Kirk, a Harvard-educated researcher in neuropsychiatry, worked with the Johns Hopkins Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth and designed aptitude tests for adults with 200+ IQs. Madsen, with a doctorate in politics from Harvard, was an expert on public persuasion tactics and social marketing. Together they wrote “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ’90s.”

    “As cynical as it may seem,” they explained at the outset, “AIDS gives us a chance, however brief, to establish ourselves as a victimized minority legitimately deserving of America’s special protection and care. At the same time,” they warned, “it generates mass hysteria of precisely the sort that has brought about public stonings and leper colonies since the Dark Ages and before. … How can we maximize the sympathy and minimize the fear? How, given the horrid hand that AIDS has dealt us, can we best play it?”

    The bottom line of Kirk and Madsen’s master plan? “The campaign we outline in this book, though complex, depends centrally upon a program of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising.”

    Arguing that, skillfully handled, the AIDS epidemic could conquer American resistance to homosexuality and form the basis of a comprehensive, long-term marketing campaign to sell “gay rights” to straight America, “After the Ball” became the public-relations “bible” of the movement.

    Kirk and Madsen’s “war goal,” explains marketing expert Paul E. Rondeau of Regent University, was to “force acceptance of homosexual culture into the mainstream, to silence opposition, and ultimately to convert American society.” In his comprehensive study, “Selling Homosexuality to America,” Rondeau writes:

    The extensive three-stage strategy to Desensitize, Jam and Convert the American public is reminiscent of George Orwell’s premise of goodthink and badthink in “1984.” As Kirk and Madsen put it, “To one extent or another, the separability – and manipulability – of the verbal label is the basis for all the abstract principles underlying our proposed campaign.”

    Separability? Manipulability? Allow me to translate this psychological marketing jargon: We can change what people actually think and feel by breaking their current negative associations with our cause and replacing them with positive associations.

    Simple case in point: homosexual activists call their movement “gay rights.” This accomplishes two major objectives: (1) Use of the word gay rather than homosexual masks the controversial sexual behavior involved and accentuates instead a vague but positive-sounding cultural identity – gay, which, after all, once meant “happy”; and (2) describing their battle from the get-go as one over “rights” implies homosexuals are being denied the basic freedoms of citizenship that others enjoy.

    So merely by using the term gay rights, and persuading politicians and the media to adopt this terminology, activists seeking to transform America have framed the terms of the debate in their favor almost before the contest begins. (And in public relations warfare, he who frames the terms of the debate almost always wins. The abortion rights movement has prevailed in that war precisely because it succeeded, early on, in framing the debate as a question, not of abortion, but of choice. The abortion vanguard correctly anticipated that it would be far easier to defend an abstract, positive-sounding idea like choice than the unrestricted slaughter of unborn babies.)

    Okay, you might be wondering, even granting the movement’s cutting-edge marketing savvy, how do you sell middle America on those five hundred sex partners and weird sexual practices? Answer, according to Kirk and Madsen, you don’t. Just don’t talk about it. Rather, look and act as normal as possible for the camera.

    “When you’re very different, and people hate you for it,” they explain, “this is what you do: first you get your foot in the door, by being as similar as possible; then, and only then – when your one little difference is finally accepted – can you start dragging in your other peculiarities, one by one. You hammer in the wedge narrow end first. As the saying goes, allow the camel’s nose beneath your tent, and his whole body will soon follow.”

    In other words, sadomasochists, leather fetishists, cross-dressers, transgenders, and other “peculiar” members of the homosexual community need to keep away from the tent and out of sight while the sales job is under way. Later, once the camel is safely inside, there will be room for all.

    Rondeau explains Kirk and Madsen’s techniques of “desensitization,” “jamming,” and “conversion” this way:

    Desensitization is described as inundating the public in a “continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If straights can’t shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet.” But, the activists did not mean advertising in the usual marketing context but, rather, quite a different approach: “The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome.” They add, “[S]eek desensitization and nothing more. … If you can get [straights] to think [homosexuality] is just another thing – meriting no more than a shrug of the shoulders – then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won.”

    This planned hegemony is a variant of the type that Michael Warren describes in “Seeing Through the Media” where it “is not raw overt coercion; it is one group’s covert orchestration of compliance by another group through structuring the consciousness of the second group.”

    “Structuring the consciousness” of others? If that phraseology is uncomfortably reminiscent of various mind control and brainwashing tales you might have heard over the years, don’t be surprised. Manipulating the emotions and thereby restructuring the thoughts and beliefs of large numbers of people is what modern marketing is all about.

    “Jamming,” explains Rondeau, “is psychological terrorism meant to silence
    expression of or even support for dissenting opinion.” Radio counselor and psychologist Dr. Laura Schlessinger experienced big-time jamming during the run-up to her planned television show. Outraged over a single comment critical of homosexuals she had made on her radio program, activists launched a massive intimidation campaign against the
    television program’s advertisers. As a result, the new show was stillborn.

    But perhaps the highest-profile example of jamming occurred after the 1998 murder of University of Wyoming freshman Matthew Shepard. Lured from a bar, robbed and savagely beaten by two men, Shepard died five days later of head injuries. In the frenzied, saturation media coverage that followed, the press and homosexual activists singled out conservative Christians as having created a “climate of anti-gay hate” in which such a brutal act could happen.

    NBC’s Today show took the lead, focusing on a Christian ad campaign running at the time that offered to help homosexuals change their orientation. Reporter David Gregory narrated: “The ads were controversial for portraying gays and lesbians as sinners who had made poor choices, despite the growing belief that homosexuality may be genetic.
    … Have the ads fostered a climate of anti-gay hate that leads to incidents like the killing of Matthew Shepard? Gay rights activists say the ads convey a message that gay people are defective.”

    And in a now-infamous interview, Today’s Katie Couric asked Wyoming Governor Jim Geringer: “Some gay rights activists have said that some conservative political organizations like the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family are contributing to this anti-homosexual atmosphere by having an ad campaign saying if you are a homosexual you can change your orientation. That prompts people
    to say, ‘If I meet someone who’s homosexual, I’m going to take action to try to convince them or try to harm them.’ Do you believe that such groups are contributing to this climate?”

    Consciously or not, the media were following Kirk and Madsen’s playbook to the letter, discrediting anyone who disagreed with the homosexual agenda by associating them with lowlife murderers. In reality, none of the Christian groups smeared by NBC had ever condoned mistreatment of homosexuals – in fact, they had explicitly condemned it.

    As if to add even more shame to the whole-hog jamming of Christians after the Shepard murder, in 2004 a comprehensive new investigation by ABC News 20/20 concluded that homosexuality very likely wasn’t a factor in Shepard’s murder, but rather Shepard had been targeted for his money.

    So much for desensitization and jamming. But what about “conversion”? Here, Kirk and Madsen announce defiantly:

    We mean conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media. We mean “subverting” the mechanism of prejudice to our own ends – using the very processes that made America hate us to turn their hatred into warm regard – whether they like it or not.

    Transforming another person’s hatred into love (“warm regard”) is the object of classic brainwashing. As Kirk and Madsen explain:

    In Conversion, we mimic the natural process of stereotype-learning, with the following effect: we take the bigot’s good feelings about all-right guys, and attach them to the label “gay,” either weakening or, eventually, replacing his bad feelings toward the label and the prior stereotype. … Whereas in Jamming the target is shown a bigot being rejected by his crowd for his prejudice against gays, in Conversion the target is shown his
    crowd actually associating with gays in good fellowship. Once again, it’s very difficult for the average person, who, by nature and training, almost invariably feels what he sees his fellows feeling, not to respond in this knee-jerk fashion to a sufficiently calculated advertisement.

    We’re talking about some serious messing around with Americans’ minds here. Do the homosexual activists thus engaged really know they’re deceiving the public, or are they convinced they’re just telling the truth?

    “It makes no difference that the ads are lies,” write Kirk and Madsen, “not to us, because we’re using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones.”

    For more information, check these sites, books and their references:  (Download the file on homosexuality which is a discussion between me and a friend I knew in high school who is a homosexual many years ago. See esp. the sections "HOW IS HOMOSEXUALITY RISKY/DANGEROUS--PART 1 & 2")

    Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: a sourcebook of basic documents by Thomas K. Hubbard

    Homosexuality and homosexual parenting cause major problems for society because they damage the family structure which is the foundation of society. Here are excerpts from an article by the secular American College of Pediatricians in 2009 regarding homosexuality and parenting:

    “Over thirty years of research confirms that children fare best when reared by their two biological parents in a loving low conflict marriage. Children navigate developmental stages more easily, are more solid in their gender identity, perform better academically, have fewer emotional disorders, and become better functioning adults when reared within their natural family.2,3,4,5,6,7,8 This is, in part, because biology contributes to parent-child bonding.9

    There are significant innate differences between male and female that are mediated by genes and hormones and go well beyond basic anatomy. These biochemical differences are evident in the development of male and female brain anatomy, psyche, and even learning styles.11Consequently, mothers and fathers parent differently and make unique contributions to the overall development of the child.11,12,13 Psychological theory of child development has always recognized the critical role that mothers play in the healthy development of children. More recent research reveals that when fathers are absent, children suffer as well. Girls without fathers perform more poorly in school, are more likely to be sexually active and become pregnant as teenagers. Boys without fathers have higher rates of delinquency, violence, and aggression.12,13

    Gender-linked differences in child rearing styles between parents are complementary and protective for children. Erik Erikson was among the first to note that mother-love and father-love are qualitatively different. Mothers are nurturing, expressive, and more unconditional in their love for their children. Father-love, by contrast, often comes with certain expectations of achievement.13

    This research has revealed that children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, engage in risky sexual experimentation, and later adopt a homosexual identity.18,19,20,21,22 This is concerning since adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle are at increased risk for mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorders, conduct disorders, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.23

    Studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable child outcomes from homosexual parenting have critical design flaws. These include non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, failure to account for confounding variables, and perhaps most problematic - all claim to affirm the null hypothesis.14,15,16 Therefore, it is impossible for these studies to provide any support for the alleged safety or potential benefits to children from same-sex parenting.

    The research literature on childrearing by homosexual parents is limited. The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.

    Finally, research has demonstrated considerable risks to children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle. Violence between homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples.24,25,26,27,28 Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years.29.30,31 Homosexual men and women are reported to be promiscuous, with serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed "committed relationships.32,33,34,35,36 Individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness,37,38,39 substance abuse,40 suicidal tendencies41,42 and shortened life spans.43 Although some would claim that these dysfunctions are a result of societal pressures in America, the same dysfunctions exist at inordinately high levels among homosexuals in cultures where the practice is more widely accepted.44

    See references for the above at:

    David Tyree, an NFL football star, summarizes these problems that scientists see with homosexuality. He says “two men will never be able to show a woman how to be a woman.” He also points out that marriage is the “only relationship that actually mirrors a relationship with God. It’s very unique in that way.”


    Why don’t people know these dangers? There has been a very intentional and concerted campaign by Harvard psychologists to desensitize people and make them feel sorry for homosexuals and make it into an issue of freedom when it is nothing of the sort.

    The political arguments are on the pro-gay side. The science is on God’s side, conclusively. Pro-gay activist psychologists designed and published plans to change the American mind through psychological tactics that intentionally ignore scientific facts no different from how they've done it with many other areas. They care nothing about science or God. PERIOD. And many are sincere but unfortunate victims of their tactics.  It's also dangerous because we know what this has done to nations in the past.

    The Greek culture placed a very strong emphasis on homosexuality and idealized male beauty and strength (Sacks 263). This comes through in their myths and symbology for example where they even sometimes removed women’s role of childbearing and replaced it with male fertility symbols. Zeus’ penis for example was the womb for all other gods and goddesses. These stories were their “media” and had quite an influence on what was considered desirable.

    Sexual relationships between men and boys (pederasty) were not only quite common in some ancient cultures like Greece, they were sometimes considered the ultimate form of love as well as necessary for the socialization of boys.

    Let’s look at a quote from Plato’s Symposium. Understand that he’s talking about the relationship between a grown man and an older boy:
    "I, for my part, am at a loss to say what a greater blessing a man can have at earliest youth than an honorable lover.... If we can somehow contrive to have a city or an army composed of lovers and their favorites, they could not be better citizens of their country.... No man is such a craven that love's own influence can not inspire him with valor that makes him equal to the bravest born." Thorkil Vanggaard. Phallos-A Symbol and its History in the Male World. (London: Jonathan Cape, 1969.), 40.

    The Greek Poet Propertius said:
    "May my enemies fall in love with women and my friends with boys."
    Philippe Aries and Andre Bejin (ed.), Western Sexuality-Practice and Precept in the Past and Present Times. (Oxford: Basil Blackewll Ltd, 1985.), 33.
    See also:

    “When males in ancient Greece would come around puberty they would “become a man” by having relations not with women but with other male children” (Pratt).

    So, Older boys was what Greek culture considered the ideal love target and men who were attracted to women were not real men, but compromisers.

    This idealization of homosexuality caused such a decline in families and the number of childbirths that Rome and Greece passed laws requiring men to marry and have a certain number of children. This decline of the family was a significant factor in the decay of the Greek and Roman cultures and made them more and more dependent on others to perform the basic functions of society and protect their nation.

    It had other effects as well. What did this cultural ideal of idolizing homosexuality do to the attitude of the Greeks towards women? The status of women was very low and they were considered to be of not much value, making Greece quite a misogynous, woman-hating society. Men lost respect for and interest in women who were "defined as near slaves, or as perpetual minors" in Athenian society (The Greek World, pg. 200).

    Women were second-class citizens at best and had very little active involvement in society other than participation in religious activities. Their most important function was reproduction, to ensure heirs. They lived almost exclusively in the house, in separate quarters called the "women's chambers" (Sacks, 263). “Xenophon, a Greek writer, notes that women are weaker, less courageous, and more affectionate towards children. These qualities justify their inferior status in society” (Foley 1305).

    Semonides writes about 10 types of women. They are at best, a beautiful evil and at worst a curse for mankind. He agrees that one type may be good, but that type basically does not exist. Hesiod writes that while nothing is better to acquir than a good wife, bad ones are like parasites and “Whoever trusts women, trusts thieves.”

    The Greek poet Palladas wrote:
    "Marriage brings a man only two happy days. The day he takes his bride to bed and the day he lays her in her grave." Morton M. Hunt. The Natural History of Love. (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1959.)

    The picture was not all bad, with some like Oddyseus in Homer’s Illiad saying to a young princess, Nausikaa, who is washing her clothes, "Lady, I entreat you--but are you some god or mortal?...he will be by far the most blessed of all, who prevails with his wedding fits and leads you to his home."

    So, there was some normal passion for women, but there was much negative and demeaning treatment of women as well as the infanticide of baby girls being a common practice in both Greek and Roman civilizations. A Roman citizen wrote a letter to his wife in 1 BC,
    "I am still in Alexandria. ... I beg and plead with you to take care of our little child, and as soon as we receive wages, I will send them to you. In the meantime, if…you give birth, if it is a boy, let it live; if it is a girl, expose it."

    Lauren Hawkins writes this at the Ancient Encyclopedia of History,
    “D. Brendan Nagle and Stanley M. Burnstein in their work The Ancient World: Readings in Social and Cultural History, include in their section,Husbands, Wives and Slaves: The Domestic Foundations of the Polis, Hipponax’s piece, “If Only We Could Reproduce Without Woman…!” which clearly demonstrates the misogynistic attitude of the time and makes women seem unappreciated and worthless. There is not a single point in the piece where women are talked about positively. As stated, women were typically only seen valuable for their ability to reproduce and to maintain a household…

    “A break down of the female characteristics that are represented in the text is quite interesting. First the pig is used to represent women. Hipponax is describing a woman as a slob that has no respect for herself and her self-appearance. Then comes the fox, which is described as being sly and unpredictable and then, most offensive, is the dog, also known as the bitch. The dog is supposed to reproduce over and over again and is annoying because she is in everyone’s business and always wants to be heard. Nobody can shut the woman up whether she is treated nicely or beaten.

    “Hipponax’s depiction of woman as the sea is the most accurate representation of women, because a woman’s moods and temperaments do tend to change quite frequently. This is the only representation that a modern reader might actually agree with. Yet this reasonable pause is brief and the list continues on describing a woman as the ass, weasel, horse, and the ape until reaching the conclusion that “Zeus made this the greatest pain of all: Woman”. The nicest `type’ of woman this poet can manage is the bee but cannot help but say, “Good luck in finding such a woman” as he goes on to describe a woman who is only a “loving wife beside her loving man” who will bear “illustrious and handsome children”. For most people, however, the bee is synonymous with a sting.”

    There’s a 3rd consequence of homosexuality. Homosexuality and pederasty are definitely not the same. But, when one moral and societal barrier is broken down, it’s easier to consider breaking down others and the arguments used to excuse both of them are the same. The homosexuality of the Greeks was extended in time to pederasty as well and it seems that as H. Hendrin says, “Homosexuality in Greece does appear to be related to the psychosocial stress involved in the break-up of one type of society and the failure of a new and productive one to resolve successfully some of the human problems in relations between the sexes…”.

    Bob Hamer was an FBI agent who investigated the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). He read a book by Frank Turek about same sex marriage and responded:
    “{Your book} actually brought back memories of the NAMBLA conferences I attended. I listened to men justify oral sex on 18 month olds. How often I listened to men claim their pedophilia was an inborn trait; it was natural, ‘This is the way God made me.’”

    While it can be helpful to question societal boundaries and establishments of all types, it’s also the tendency that when one societal boundary is crossed, it becomes easier to question the next boundary and the next until very significant and traumatic harm is done that seriously damages lives.

    What does the Bible say? The Bible tells us that homosexuality is very serious sin (Leviticus 18:22, 1 Corinthians 6:9) and it tells us that it causes diseases (Romans 1:26-27) which is yet another testable and accurate prediction the Bible makes that science has now confirmed. God doesn’t just arbitrarily label things sin because he wants to demonstrate His power or it suits some fancy of His. Things labeled as sins in the Bible have consistently been documented to damage or destroy human life physically, relationally, spiritually, etc. and sometimes all three. It’s because God wants to protect people from this damage that he labels certain things sin.

    Let’s be clear though, homosexuality is only one sin of many and although homosexuality is a very harmful one, one the Bible calls an abomination, some other sins are worse and all sinners need to be loved and cared about even though we know their sin is harming them. We ALL need grace and power from God to overcome the tendencies to sin that we have and this is no less true for those who have problems with lying or adultery than it is for homosexuals. All have sinned the Bible tells us and ALL need mercy, grace and power from God to overcome that and make positive changes whether homosexual or heterosexual. Thank God for grace to do that..

    Israel was a theocracy. So, God strictly banned homosexual behavior there very strongly since all had agreed to live by His principles to show the world what was the ideal way to live (Since they had just come out of slavery, God had to connect some severe punishments to disobience in many areas or they would probably have just laughd. This was NOT God's ideal approach...but sometimes it was necessary to save more lives overall and higher purposes like that).


    The real question on homosexuality is this. Should government be involved in promoting things that are harmful and just because people feel like doing it? If so, then they should be promoting adultery, premarital sex, drug use and a myriad of other harmful things that people naturally want to do along with homosexuality which is indisputably harmful to life in scientifically documented ways. I personally don't think that governments banning adultery, drug use, abortion, or homosexuality and some other things is wise or effective. But, I do think governments should do their best to educate people on the consequences of certain behaviors and promote things that are good for society and not harmful ones. If it doesn't do that, we all will suffer in many ways.

    Governments are responsible to promote the best society they can and prevent people from harming others as best they can. If the best way for society is by following a Christian idea, A Buddhist idea, a Darwinian idea, a creationist idea, etc. then so be it. But it is stupid not to mention incredibly biased for the government to refuse to use an idea just because it comes from religion or any other group. Human life improvement is the goal...not prejudiced ideology like that.

    Both sides also need to be level headed and clear about about 2 facts here:
    1) America is not a theocracy since not everyone has agreed to be ruled by God as was the case with Israel in the Bible. Religious people need to recognize that they can't just impose their views on the government without having other strong evidence outside the Bible that shows it affects national security, safety, health, etc. in significant ways. The same goes for atheism. It can't just impose the views of its philosophy on the government without significant evidence showing it's important for society. If religion has something beneficial insights or wisdom to offer society, there should be no bias against considering them seriously if we really care about human life. And the same is true for Buddhist ideas, Islamic ideas, agnostic ideas, atheist ideas, Native American Indian ideas and others. All can go through normal methods of scientific and rational testing and establish a case and present it to our leaders to be acted upon.

    2) Pretty much all big organizations have made seriously wrong choices that have harmed people at times. Government has, schools have, science has, religion has, atheism has and others. But, it’s a fact that despite some problems, religion and government have often have worked very well together, esp. when religion is in the position of influence the government, but not allowed to persecute those who differ. And the same is true of atheism and other ideologies. For example, America's Declaration of Independence starts out arguing for the freedoms and independence of America from a religious foundation. This is the very birth of our nation and religion and government were involved together in that and at many other times throughout the early years of our nation:
    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
    Christians throughout history have been very concerned about human rights. They campaigned to influence government to end slavery in England and later America. They campaigned to stop widow burning, foot binding, and other inhumane things. They campaigned for economic injustice (in just the last 25 years, Christian campaigns have helped 1.3 billion people escape dire poverty).

    Christians in Rome didn’t try to ban the practice of homosexuality politically there, so why should we do that in America? In addition, making government laws against this practice will not stop it or change human nature or desires. Laws never change the heart, which is the real point of Christianity and the important crux here. Making homosexuality illegal will just make it more hidden. Christians should be and most are more concerned about changing hearts than with making political laws that won't be very effective at changing bad habits anyway. 

    So, even though its harmful, imposing God’s laws on homosexuality on everyone is not something that we should advocate. There's a much better way.

    There is a very important principle that governments should never be involved in intentionally promoting things that we know are harmful whether it’s drug use, violence, unhealthy food, unsafe vehicles or anything else. Since the science is quite strong that homosexuality is harmful, and since homosexuality also undermines the family unit, the basis of society for all history, many many Christians as well as others think that society should not legitimize the harmful behaviour of homosexuality by giving out marriage licenses for homosexuals. To the contrary, while the government may need to allow consenting adults to engage in harmful behaviours, the government should use all power at its disposal, including media, education, academia and more to strongly discourage the activity in every way possible and refuse to promote it by giving marriage licenses that legitimize this behaviour that has undermined societies in the past. We should do our best to educate people about the harm of homosexuality, but if they insist on doing it, let them reap the consequences of that decision.

    Secular people should not be afraid that this is mixing church and state. And actually, if we look at the records of history, statistically, there is actually more danger from government uniting with atheism than there is from it uniting with religion. Here's even an atheist writing on this point (note that the states he refers to all held atheism as the official state view):
    It will at this point be strenuously objected that numerous innocent people have been murdered in the name of religion. True, alas, all too true. However, a little perspective comes not amiss at this juncture. Just how many people were killed by religious excesses, such as the Inquisition? Although estimates vary widely, the best estimates (see here) are that the number of deaths during this sad epoch, which took place over several centuries, was between 3,000 and 10,000; some experts, here, place the number as low as 2,000. Were it not murdered human beings that we are talking about, but considering solely the relative magnitudes, one might fairly say that this pales into utter insignificance compared to the devastation inflicted upon the human race by governments. According to the best estimates (see here, here, here, here, here and here), the victims of statism in the 20th century alone approached the 200 million mark. That is no misprint! To compare a few thousands of unjustified deaths with several hundreds of millions is unreasonable. Yes, even the murder of one victim is an outrage. But in comparing religion and government one must keep in mind these astronomical differences."


    The position of advocating homosexuality is no different from advocating smoking or the use of drugs. This practice violates human life, harms families, is denigrating to women, results in abuse of children and more. We must base our decisions on facts and then emotions because people’s lives are being ruined and wasted by this harmful practice. It also dishonors God severely to see human lives destroyed like this. In the future when God shows the full ramifications of homosexuality, people will look back with horror on what they supported because it destroyed so many lives. This is a 100% guaranteed fact no different from how the sincere doctors in the past will look back with horror on why they followed pagan Greek philosophy on bleeding patients instead of God and why many doctors will look back with horror on why they advised drinking alcohol and smoking and eating pork instead of following God's principles.

    I do not hate anyone, no matter how much they differ from me.. But, I HATE the diabolical falsehoods that harm human life. Everyone, including me, has errors in our thinking and I emotions as well that arenot easy to give up. But, following God, truth, science, etc. instead of emotions and politically convenient things to say is by far the best way to improve life and has often brought tremendous freedom and improvements to life.