What Homosexuality Advocates Don’t Want You to Know

This photo was taken on January 19, 2006 in Sa...What Homosexuality Advocates Don’t Want You to Know

James R. Aist

(Note:the numbers in parentheses refer to specific references listed at the end of the article)

Introduction

I am writing this article to give you an opportunity to learn some important facts about homosexuality that are not widely publicized and are often suppressed by the mainstream media. When reading this article, please keep in mind that much of the information here is based on averages within a population and does not necessarily characterize a particular homosexual person or couple. This information may prove useful to you in deciding whether or not you want to support the gay agenda. Either way, it’s always better to make a well-informed decision, so here we go.

What Homosexual People Do Sexually

“Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” (Ephesians 5:11).

This is a topic that the homosexuality advocates do not want you to find out about, because you may find some of these sexual acts to be unnatural and/or perverted, even disgusting, and so not support their homosexual agenda. In the words of the Apostle Paul “…they invent ways of doing evil…” (Romans 1:30). Here is a list of some of the most common sexual practices associated with a homosexual lifestyle: anal-digital manipulation, anal copulation, vaginal/oral sex, dildo/vaginal sex, rimming, fisting and golden showers (1, 3, 10, 12). If you want to know more precisely what these sexual practices involve, please consult the references cited above on your own, as “It is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret.” (Ephesians 5:12). Having provided this list, allow me to add that not all homosexual people engage in all of these practices (nor could they; think about it!). But they do all engage regularly in some or many of them, especially the first five listed. Although we may differ in opinion about which of these sexual acts are repulsive, what makes them all immoral is that they are same-sex sexual acts and therefore condemned as sin by God. Furthermore, many of these sexual practices are very unhealthy and dangerous ways to enjoy sex, as I will show in the next section.

Unhealthy Consequences of the Homosexual Lifestyle

“Both because of high-risk behavior patterns, such as sexual promiscuity, and because of the harm to the body from specific sexual acts, homosexuals are at a greater risk than heterosexuals for sexually transmitted diseases and other forms of illness and injury.” – Peter Sprigg (14)

Most of the following information is taken from five references (1, 3, 12, 14, 17) and is condensed for brevity. The most notorious sexually transmitted disease (STD) that affects gay men disproportionately is AIDS. Gay and bisexual men have HIV/AIDS at a rate more than 50 times greater than other people groups. In the U.S., deaths attributable to HIV/AIDS are 130 times more common among sexually active homosexual men than among sexually active heterosexual men (American Journal of Public Health, 2011. Volume 101:1133-1138). Many other notable diseases and traumas are associated, at elevated levels, with the gay lifestyle, including anal cancers, hepatitis A and B, syphilis, gonorrhea, and Chlamydia (all of which are STDs), proctitis, anal fistula, perirectal abscess, anal fissure, anorectal trauma, anorectal incontinence, rectal ulcers and lymphogranuloma venereum. The prominence of so many of these clinical conditions specifically in gay men led doctors to coin the term “gay bowel syndrome.” Moreover, the homosexual lifestyle reduces the life expectancy of gay men.  In the early 1990s the homosexual lifestyle was estimated to reduce life expectancy of gay  men in the Vancouver, Canada, area by 8 to 20 years, relative to heterosexual men (2). The development and use of new anti-retroviral drugs since the early 1990s has significantly reduced the death rates attributable to HIV/AIDS among gay men in the same area and apparently resulted in an increase of 3.8 years in the life expectancy of gay men relative to that reported earlier.  Nevertheless, the loss of life expectancy attributable to HIV/AIDS was still 9.8 years in 2000 (Canadian Journal of Public Health, 2000. March-April. Volume 91:125-8). According to the same study, life expectancy at age 20 years was only 40.8 years among gay and bisexual men, for a projected total lifespan of 60.8 years. Since this is about 15 years less than the average total life expectancy of ca. 76.4 years in the general male population in Canada in 2000, the results of these studies indicate that the homosexual lifestyle greatly reduced the lifespan of gay men at that time. By comparison, a lifetime of smoking tobacco cigarettes reduces lifespan by about 10 years, on average (15).

Elevated disease rates are also found among lesbians compared to heterosexual women, although the contrasts are not as dramatic as with gay men. Lesbians have been reported to have an increased rate of STDs, including Hepatitis B and C, compared with heterosexual women, as well as a 2.5-fold increased likelihood of bacterial vaginosis. They also have higher rates of breast and gynecologic cancers than heterosexual women.

Why Do Homosexuals Have More Mental Health Problems?

I have written in some detail about this topic in another article (click HERE), and the following is a summary of the main points. Homosexuality is associated with significantly elevated levels of mental health problems compared to heterosexuality. Gay activists assume that these differentially elevated levels of mental health problems are a result of social and structural stigmas aimed at homosexual people by a heterosexual, homophobic society, rather than having anything  to do with the homosexual experience per se. Scientists have attempted to prove that this assumption is true by conducting studies that generate an apparent association of either social or structural stigmas with elevated levels of mental health problems in sexual minorities. However, all of these studies have fatal flaws and limitations that prevent scientifically valid cause-and-effect inferences or conclusions to be made, leaving us with the original assumptions still untested. Even the leading researcher in this field admitted that no study has shown that either social or structural stigmas cause mental health problems! Therefore, it remains a real possibility that this phenomenon is caused primarily by the unwanted, dreadful realization — during the emotionally charged and very sensitive pre-teen and teen years — that one is sexually attracted to members of the same gender, instead of to members of the opposite gender, and that this realization is psychologically and mentally devastating to individuals because it dashes their deeply held and cherished hopes and dreams of leading a normal, healthy, heterosexual adult life that includes a wife and children. In other words, could it be that the elevated levels of mental health problems experienced by homosexual people are simply an indirect result of being homosexual in a heterosexual world, rather than a result of social and structural stigmas created by a homophobic, heterosexual majority? Regardless of why sexual minorities have elevated levels of mental health problems, we should always treat homosexual people with appropriate expressions of love, kindness and respect, as these are defined in the Bible. And we should always be quick to share the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with homosexual people when the opportunity presents itself, keeping in mind that we are all made in the image and likeness of God and are dearly loved by Him.

Links between Homosexuality and Pedophilia

In a separate article (click HERE) I have dealt with this topic in much greater detail than I will here. Basically, there are at least three documented links between homosexuality and pedophilia: 1) the percentage of male homosexuals among convicted child molesters is 6-20 times higher than the percentage of male homosexuals in the general population, indicating a direct correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia; 2) the development of both homosexuality and pedophilia is strongly influenced by some factor related to birth order, indicating that homosexuality and pedophilia have a common etiology (i.e., causation); and 3) homosexual pedophilia is an integral, ongoing and valued component of the homosexual movement, indicating a cultural link between homosexuality and pedophilia. You should be aware that there is an organized sub-culture of the homosexual movement that openly preys on boys and claims that they are doing their victims a favor by having sex with them. In America, this sub-culture is represented by NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association. This group also lobbies for the repeal of all age-of-consent laws, hoping that some day they can have their way with male children sexually without fear of legal consequences. While NAMBLA is an embarrassment to many in the homosexual “community”, their presence is, nonetheless, a real part of the homosexual movement in America, as adult-youth sex is viewed as an important aspect of gay culture (10, 14).

Bisexual people manifest a dual sexual orientation, heterosexual and homosexual; everyone seems to agree on this point. Heterosexual child molesters are often married with children and so clearly manifest a dual sexual orientation, one being sex-based, and the other age-based; everyone seems to agree on this point as well. So it should not be surprising at all that the preponderance of valid evidence indicates that many male homosexual child molesters also exhibit a dual sexual orientation, one being sex-based, and the other age-based. What is surprising, perhaps, is that not everyone can agree on this point as well.

Gays Gone Wild

Sexual promiscuity is especially characteristic of the male homosexual lifestyle. “Gay liberation in the 1970s was accompanied by an explosion of gay sexuality, especially in tolerant cities such as Los Angeles, New York and San Francisco, where gays concentrated. The director of the New York City Department of Health describes the situation as follows: “By their own reports, many men had large numbers of sexual partners annually, often numbering in the hundreds and even in the thousands.  Frenetic casual and anonymous sex was widespread among homosexual and bisexual men. Bathhouses, back rooms of bars and clubs, and other public settings such as erotic bookstores and movie theaters were, in effect, wide open…these practices and more were accompanied by extremely high rates of sexually transmitted diseases and set the scene for the rapid transmission of HIV once it appeared in the late 1970s.” (7). Although the AIDS epidemic among male homosexuals prompted the increased practice of protected sex among gay men for a time, it was not long before many of them threw caution to the wind and returned to their former practice of unprotected sex: “There were so many AIDS deaths that surviving homosexuals panicked and voluntarily reduced risky sexual practices. Subsequently, many behavioral researchers and AIDS Service Organizations declared the “war on AIDS” won among white male homosexuals. However, homosexuals soon went back to their old ways. As a result, HIV infections and rectal gonorrhea soared among homosexuals…”; “At the same time, rapid progress in the development of new antiretroviral therapies resulted in an announcement at the 11th World AIDS Conference in Vancouver that combination therapy guided by viral load measurements could potentially prevent HIV disease progression indefinitely, if not cure the infection outright. Homosexuals further increased unprotected anal sex (barebacking) and crack cocaine use. Since 1991 and continuing through the middle of the first decade of the twentyfirst century, there has been a steady increase in the rate of unprotected anal intercourse among homosexuals who largely describe themselves as “burned out” on safer sex or resigned to the fact that they will either become infected or infect their primary partners.” (9). In a 2000 British NATSAL survey, a random and population-based sample, men with a homosexual partner during the past 5 years reported having 110 sex partners during that time, compared with 8 sexual partners among those men who reported having no homosexual partnerships (9). Thus, homosexual men have, on average, at least 13 times as many sexual partners as do heterosexual men.

What About Lasting, Committed Homosexual Relationships?

The homosexuality activists would have us believe that lasting, committed homosexual relationships are the norm, but the evidence does not support that claim. Research has shown that homosexual relationships are far less likely to last a lifetime and that infidelity is much more common (and is even considered acceptable) in homosexual relationships when compared to heterosexual relationships (5, 6, 12). Dailey and Sprigg (11) compared the length of heterosexual marriages to the length of homosexual relationships. Only 29 percent of homosexual relationships had lasted 4-7 years, while 66 percent of marriages had lasted 10 years. The differences were even more dramatic for the longer time periods: 50 percent of marriages had lasted 20 years, while only 4-5 percent of homosexual relationships had lasted 16-19 years. Clearly, heterosexual marriages involve greater fidelity and are of a much longer duration than are homosexual relationships; fidelity and duration are indicative of commitment to a relationship.

When homosexuality advocates tell you that lasting, committed and faithful homosexual relationships are characteristic of the homosexual lifestyle, don’t believe it; the facts of the matter clearly show that such relationships are the exception, not the rule.

Effects of Homosexual Parenting

I have addressed this issue in greater detail elsewhere (click HERE). Gay activists have insisted for years that there is no difference in the outcomes of parenting by homosexuals when compared to heterosexual parenting. In 2005, the APA published a brief on this topic. In this brief, they cited 59 published articles in support of their summary claim that “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.” However, in 2012, Marks published a detailed analysis and critique of the scientific merit of that brief and the literature upon which it was based. Marks found that the studies cited in support of the APA summary claim are woefully lacking in sound scientific design and principles and concluded that the strong assertions made in the APA brief were not substantiated by the published studies used, and were, therefore, unwarranted. Several other, more scientifically sound, studies have provided evidence that, indeed, there are many, often large, and very significant differences in the outcomes of children of homosexual parents compared to children of heterosexual parents. These differences include inferior performance in school, a much lower graduation rate, poor impulse control, depression, suicidal thought, requirement for mental health therapy, cohabitation, unfaithfulness to sexual partners, contraction of sexually transmitted diseases, sexual molestation, lower income levels, drunkenness, tobacco and marijuana use and a very strong tendency for the adult children of homosexuals to self-identify as homosexual. In fact, adult children of homosexual parents are about 12-15 times more likely to be homosexual than are adult children of heterosexual parents. While it is not possible from these studies to conclude that the homosexual orientation of the parents directly or indirectly caused most of the negative outcomes found in their children, the results strongly suggest the possibility that homosexual parenting may not be equivalent to heterosexual parenting after all. The exception may be the homosexual orientation of the adult children of homosexual parents, which, in all likelihood, is heavily influenced by the homosexual orientation of the parents. At the very least, the claim that there are no differences in the outcomes of homosexual vs. heterosexual parents should be abandoned, based on the most scientifically sound research presently available. Perhaps the courts should not be so quick and eager to legalize homosexual adoption after all.

Homosexual parenting presents the children with an immoral role model, as the parents are living in sin. This fact alone makes it clear that homosexual parenting is never equivalent to heterosexual parenting by married couples. And “gay marriage” doesn’t change anything; the parents are still living in sin.

The Gay Agenda

Homosexuality advocates don’t want you to know that they even have an agenda.  The term “gay agenda” apparently was coined by evangelical Christians to refer to the ideology, goals, strategies and methods of the radical homosexual activists who are primarily responsible for the progress of the homosexual movement in America. The homosexuality advocates themselves vehemently deny that they have any such agenda. Why? Because widespread knowledge of their agenda, or even that they have one, could cast the homosexual movement in a bad light, thereby diminishing support of their goals within the heterosexual majority. The homosexual movement does, in fact, have an agenda. This agenda can be ascertained from their lists of demands published in relation to gay conventions and parades, in various gay print media articles, and in media accounts of the kinds of things they are actually doing. And with electronic media becoming more and more commonplace, the execution of the details of the gay agenda are becoming increasingly publicized and coordinated. You can read about the gay agenda in some detail; just click HERE.

(For more articles on HOMOSEXUALITY, click HERE)

References:

1. American College of Pediatricians. 2011. Female Homosexual Behavior. (click HERE)

2. American College of Pediatricians. 2011. Lifespan. (click HERE)

3. American College of Pediatricians. 2011. Male Homosexual Behavior. (click HERE)

4. American College of Pediatricians. 2011. Mental Health. (click HERE)

5. American College of Pediatricians. 2011. Monogamy. (click HERE)

6. American College of Pediatricians. 2011. Promiscuity. (click HERE)

7. Conservapedia.com. Homosexuality and Promiscuity. (click HERE)

8. Barber, M. 2012. The Gay-Activist Science Deniers. (click HERE)

9. Holland, E. 2007. Homosexinfo. Homosexuality, Bisexuality and Promiscuity.  (click HERE)

10. Burtoft, L. 1995. Setting the Record Straight. What Research Really Says About the Social Consequences of Homosexuality. Copyright 1995 Focus on the Family.

11. Dailey, T. and P. Sprigg. Comparing the lifestyles of homosexual couples to married couples. Family research council. (click HERE)

12. Phelan, J.E., N. Whitehead and P.M. Sutton. 2009. What Research Shows: NARTH’S Response to the APA Claims on Homosexuality. Journal of Human Sexuality, Volume 1, Pages 53-87. (click HERE)

14. Sprigg, P. 2010. The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality. Family research Council. (click HERE)

15. Kaufman, M. 2004. Cigarettes Cut About 10 Years Off Life, 50-Year Study Shows. (click HERE)

16. Douglas, W.A., C. Pakaluk and J. Price. 2012. Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School: A Comment on Rosenfeld. Demography, published online 18 November 2012. DOI 10.1007/s13524-012-0169-x. (click HERE)

17. Miles, A. J., T. G. Allen-Mersh and C. Wastell. 1993. Effect of anoreceptive intercourse on anorectal function. J. Roya. Soc. Med .86(3): 144-147. (click HERE)

6 thoughts on “What Homosexuality Advocates Don’t Want You to Know

  1. grateful2him says:

    Thanks for the read and the link in your article.

  2. […] groups are more prone to committing crime. Likewise, it might seem reasonable to me to witness the unhealthy and antisocial behaviors rampant among homosexuals and transsexuals and infer that there must be something intrinsically […]

  3. grateful2him says:

    I appreciate your comment, Ronny. I believe you will find that whenever I am writing on a topic that lends itself to non-biblical evidence, I make generous use of references to that evidence. May the Christian God you don’t believe in reveal Himself to you and bless you richly!

  4. Ronny says:

    I’m an Atheist myself. And while I don’t believe in the Christian God, I find this evidence hard to refute. This article has made me think and for that, I applaud it for. I have never met a Christian who I have debated with that has used evidence outside of the Bible, and the fact that his article does so is something I appreciate wholeheartedly.

  5. grateful2him says:

    The ACP articles I cited are all review articles whose validity is based on the original research articles they cited, many of which are either peer reviewed or taken from unbiased sources such as the CDC. They stand on their own merit. As for your flipant dismissal of the ACP, what are your qualifications to make such a judgement? Are you a pediatrician? Are you non-partisan? I didn’t think so, on both counts.

  6. gary47290 says:

    Any respected, peer reviewed documnts to support this nonsense? The so-called “American College of Pediatricians” can be rejected as a highly partisan tiny minority of Pediatricians.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s