The Transgender Movement: A Comprehensive Review

While I was in the process of writing a number of articles on the homosexual movement (click HERE), some of my friends kept asking me if/when I was going to write similarly about the transgender movement. At the time, I was not sufficiently motivated to read up on that topic and publish on it here. However, current events have forced my hand, so I spent a considerable amount of time doing the “library research” in anticipation of publishing a somewhat comprehensive article of my own on the topic. However, after I had begun writing, I ran across an excellent, fully comprehensive and scholarly article published recently by the Family Research Council. So, I decided that everyone would be best served if I simply reposted their article here in its entirety. I strongly recommend that you use the link at the end of this article to access the PDF version of the article, which includes all of the 144 references cited and other important information not included here.

Understanding and Responding to the Transgender Movement

By Dale O’Leary and Peter Sprigg



In recent decades, there has been an assault on the sexes. That is, there has been an attack on the previously undisputed reality that human beings are created either male or female; that there are significant differences between the sexes; and that those differences result in at least some differences in the roles played by men and women in society.

The first wave of this attack came from the modern feminist movement and the second from the homosexual movement. The third wave of this assault on the sexes has been an attack on a basic reality–that all people have a biological sex, identifiable at birth and immutable through life, which makes them either male or female.

The third wave ideology is known as the “transgender” movement. This paper offers a description and critique of that movement and ideology. Part I addresses the psychological and medical issues involved; Part II will address the public policy issues.

Part I: Gender vs. Sex

According to the new gender ideology, the word “sex” is restricted to the biological, while “gender” describes the social and cultural manifestation of sex: how a person feels and experiences his or her sexual identity and how it is shaped by culture.

If individuals are unhappy because they want to be the sex they were not born, they are, according to the American Psychiatric Association, suffering from “gender dysphoria.” Some believe they were born with the body of one sex and the psyche of the other and want their bodies changed to match their internal “wiring.” They want to convince others to see them as the other sex.

Family Research Council (FRC) affirms what has been accepted as both normative and indisputable: that the truth about sexual differences is objectively knowable and that redefining it will be harmful.

Sidebar: Intersex Conditions

A misleading distraction frequently is raised in the context of this issue. A tiny percentage of people suffer from disorders of sexual development (DSD), sometimes referred to as an intersex condition (or as hermaphroditism). True hermaphrodites — those in whom sexual anatomy is ambiguous or clearly conflicts with their chromosomal make-up — are rare, estimated by one expert as “occurring in fewer than 2 out of every 10,000 live births.” The vast majority of “transgender” individuals are not “intersexed.”

No one can change his or her sex.

No one can change his or her sex. The DNA in every cell in the body is marked clearly male or female. Hormones circulating in an unborn child’s brain and body shape his or her development. Psychiatrists and surgeons who have served transsexual clients know surgery does not change sex. George Burou, a Moroccan physician, admitted: “I don’t change men into women. I transform male genitals into genitals that have a female aspect. All the rest is in the patient’s mind.”

Transgender terminology

In this new era of deconstructing and redefining human sexuality, a new set of vocabulary emerges. One pro-transgender activist group has issued a glossary of terms and definitions, explaining the differences between terms such as transgender, transsexual, and transvestite [or cross-dresser].

“Gender Identity Disorder” Becomes “Gender Dysphoria”

Transgender activists, following the example of the homosexual activists in the 1970’s, have objected to having their condition labeled a “disorder.” They successfully lobbied the American Psychiatric Association to have the diagnosis of “Gender Identity Disorder” (GID) changed to “Gender Dysphoria.”

Consequentially, the revised language in the APA’s 2013 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5) says, “Gender dysphoria refers to the distress that may accompany the incongruence between one’s experienced or expressed gender and one’s assigned gender.” But, to avoid the stigma transgender activists say they wish to discourage, why not simply remove the diagnosis from the DSM altogether, as was done with homosexuality? The APA says, “To get insurance coverage for the medical treatments, individuals need a diagnosis.”

Causes of “Gender Dysphoria”

Family Research Council believes that it is politics, not science, which has driven the conclusion that such a condition is not inherently “disordered” and is only problematic if it causes subjective distress.

Sander Breiner, a psychiatrist with clinical experience working with transsexuals at Michigan’s Wayne State University, declares, “[W]hen an adult who is normal in appearance and functioning believes there is something ugly or defective in their appearance that needs to be changed, it is clear that there is a psychological problem of some significance.” Paul McHugh, professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins, has declared bluntly, “It is a disorder of the mind. Not a disorder of the body.” Another psychiatrist, Rick Fitzgibbons, describes gender dysphoria as “a fixed false belief . . . [which is a manifestation] of a serious thinking disorder, specifically a delusion.”

What, then, causes a person to experience such “dysphoria?” While causality is difficult to determine, the transgendered are more likely to have been victims of child sexual abuse and to have a history of trauma, loss, and family disruption.

Patterns of Transgender Desires

There are three major patterns of transgender desire.

1) Males with childhood GID, who are usually sexually attracted to men.

2) Secret transvestites (also known by some researchers as “autogynephiles”)

3) Females with childhood GID, who are usually sexually attracted to women.

Gender Dysphoria in Children

Susan Bradley, M.D., of the University of Toronto, has worked extensively with children with gender identity disorder (GID). She regards GID as one of a number of attachment disorders. Bradley and Kenneth J. Zucker, two of the world’s leading experts in GID in children, have declared that “clinicians should be optimistic, not nihilistic, about the possibility of helping the children to become more secure in their gender identity.”

Even without treatment, the cross-gender behavior generally resolves itself in either self-identification as homosexual or heterosexual. Roughly 75 percent will later self-identify as gay or lesbian. Only a tiny percent will become transsexual. However, today trans-positive therapists encourage parents to accept GID as normal and allow the child to live as the other sex. As the child matures the therapists prescribe puberty blocking drugs, preparing the child for a total sex change.

Social acceptance is seen as a panacea, but there is no evidence these children will avoid the negative outcomes associated with transgender identification, including higher rates of suicide attempts, completed suicides, overall mortality, and need for psychiatric inpatient care. Zucker and Bradley view failure to treat children in an effort to prevent a transsexual outcome as “irresponsible.” Referring to medical interventions to block puberty in gender-variant children, Dr. McHugh of Johns Hopkins says bluntly, “This is child abuse.”

Who Gets Approved for “Gender Reassignment”?

An association of doctors who perform gender reassignment surgery, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), has developed Standards of Care for Gender Identity Disorders. Transgender persons seeking hormone therapy or surgery are supposed to be examined for undiagnosed disorders of sexual development or co-morbid psychological disorders. While the former (DSD) are rare, the latter are common yet necessary and appropriate psychotherapy may not always be offered, and may be resisted by clients determined to obtain surgery. In addition, only a handful of doctors in the U.S. actually perform gender reassignment surgery, leading some transgender people to seek it in other countries, such as Thailand, where conditions are more lenient.

Gender Reassignment Surgery

Full transition involves hormone treatments, breast surgery (removal or implants), other cosmetic surgery, genital reconstruction, and a change of personal identification. However, not every person seeking to live as the other sex will decide to have full reconstructive surgery.

Problems after Surgery

Gender reassignment surgery often does not achieve what patients hope for. Transgender individuals want to “pass” as the other sex. According to a large study of transgendered persons, only 21 percent are able to “pass” all the time.

The surgical procedures are not always successful and can be extremely painful. A lifetime of hormone treatments can also have profound physical and psychological consequences. Jon Meyer, M.D., Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Behavior Science at Johns Hopkins University, concluded, “My personal feeling is that surgery is not a proper treatment for a psychiatric disorder and it is clear to me that these patients have severe psychological problems that do not go away following surgery.”

However, not all those who demand that society recognize them as the other sex have or even intend to have surgical alterations to their bodies. The position of transgender activists is that people should be recognized as belonging to whatever gender they choose, regardless of the physical condition of their bodies.

High-Risk Behavior

Transgender people are more likely than the general public to engage in high-risk behaviors, which may result from or contribute to psychological disorders (or both). Some of the high-risk behavior is directly related to their desire to change sex. For example, some transsexuals self-mutilate or undergo procedures in non-medical settings. Others engage in high-risk sexual behavior such as prostitution, which places them at risk.

High rates of suicide exist even among those who have already received gender reassignment surgery, which suggests that suicidal tendencies result from an underlying pathology. Ironically, however, some applicants threaten suicide or self-mutilation as an argument for the approval of surgery.

“GenderQueer” vs. “the Gender Binary”

To most Americans, it may seem radical to assert that a man can become a woman or a woman can become a man. However, the transgender movement has moved into even more radical territory–attacking what they call “the gender binary,” that is, the idea that everyone should identify as either male or female. Those who adopt this approach sometimes refer to themselves as “genderqueer.”

One of the reasons for the rise of “genderqueer” is that the state of being transgendered is extremely unstable. One source listed over 70 different gender identities.

Rebellion against Reality

Transgender activists blame their problems on “transphobia.” Feminist author Janice Raymond says, “I accept the fact that transsexuals have suffered an enormous amount of psychical and emotional pain. But I don’t accept the fact that someone’s desire to be a woman, or a man, makes one a woman or man.” She refers to “transsexualism” as “the falsification of reality.” Terri Webb was a transgender activist who came to the conclusion that her activism was little more than “an unsuccessful attempt to get others to legitimize my fantasy.”

Mental Health Treatment Options for Gender Identity Issues

A psychologically healthy person accepts the reality of his or her sexual identity. Grief, discomfort, and anger over one’s genetic makeup signal problems that can and should be addressed through counseling. The academic literature includes some clinical accounts of successful efforts to overcome gender identity problems.

Decades ago, there were already findings pointing “to the possibility of psychosocial intervention as an alternative to surgery in the treatment of transsexualism.” One of the most unfortunate results of the transgender movement is that this possibility has not been more thoroughly explored and developed.

Part II: Public Policy Implications of the Transgender Movement

1) Should the government itself (local, state, and/or federal) accept and recognize so-called changes in someone’s sex or “gender identity?”

Sex is a biological reality, and is immutable. In reality, a “sex change” is impossible. Biological sex is a more fundamental, more important, and more accurate measure of a person’s intrinsic identity than the purely subjective and often shifting concept of “gender identity.” Ideally, the law would forbid government recognition in any way (whether on birth certificates, driver’s licenses, passports, or any other government-issued identification) of any change in an individual’s biological sex as identified at birth.

In states where such recognition is too deeply entrenched in the law or in judicial precedent for policy-makers to have a serious hope of undoing it, such recognition should be limited to cases where gender reassignment surgery already has been performed. Policy-makers should strenuously resist efforts to legally recognize changes of sex or “gender identity” that are based only on personal choice, psychological feelings, or social experience, rather than on a physical change.

2) Should the government force other, private entities to accept and recognize so-called “sex changes” through the use of non-discrimination laws that include “gender identity” as a protected category?

This question relates to the efforts to pass laws or ordinances at the local, state, and federal level which would outlaw “discrimination” on the basis of so-called “gender identity” in employment, housing, public accommodations, education, and business transactions.

Some of the bills or laws that seek to protect “gender identity” acknowledge the importance of appearance, dress and grooming standards in the workplace. However, most ordinary Americans would consider dressing in ways that are culturally appropriate for one’s biological sex to be the most fundamental “appearance, grooming, and dress standard” that could be conceived of.

“Bathroom Bills”

The most extreme application of the principle of “non-discrimination” based on “gender identity” would be to the use of gender-separated restrooms, locker rooms, and showers. Even former U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), the homosexual Congressman who sponsored the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), acknowledged that what transgender activists want “is for people with penises who identify as women to be able to shower with other women.”

Here are some additional reasons to oppose laws purporting to outlaw “discrimination” based on “gender identity:”

  • Such laws increase government interference in the free market.
  • “Gender identity” is unlike other immutable characteristics protected in civil rights laws.
  • Such laws would lead to costly lawsuits against employers.
  • Such laws mandate the employment of “transgendered” individuals in inappropriate occupations, such as education.

3) Should the government pay for medical treatment designed to create the appearance one is other than the sex he or she was born?

One context in which taxpayers could be forced to pay for “gender reassignment” procedures is through the health insurance provided for public employees. Another avenue is government health insurance programs for the poor and the elderly (Medicaid and Medicare). On May 4, 2015, the federal courts decided a claim by a convicted murderer that the Massachusetts Department of Corrections should pay for his gender reassignment surgery–and that failure to do so was “cruel and unusual punishment.” Fortunately, the court rejected that claim.

Government should not pay for gender reassignment (hormone treatments and surgery). Such treatments–involving, as they do, the amputation of healthy body parts–are, arguably, a violation of medical ethics. These are elective procedures rather than necessary health care–just like any other form of cosmetic or plastic surgery.

4) Should the government force other entities to pay for changes in sexual appearance?

The Affordable Care Act (also known as “Obamacare”) has greatly expanded the role of the federal government in dictating to insurance companies (and those who purchase insurance policies, whether employers or individuals) what must be included in those policies. There is no explicit “sex change” mandate in Obamacare. However, some aspects of the law have increased the chances that insurance companies will offer such coverage. Late in 2014, the state of New York imposed a mandate upon insurance companies throughout the state to fund sex reassignment surgery (SRS).

5) Should the federal government permit “transgender” individuals to serve in the military as their preferred sex?

Historically, transgendered persons have not been permitted to serve in the U.S. military. Transgender status has been considered a disqualifying psychiatric condition, and having had gender reassignment surgery has been a disqualifying physical condition. However, transgender activists are pushing for a change to the policy.

The story of America’s most famous transgender service member tends to reinforce concerns that such individuals are not fit for military service. Bradley Manning is the soldier convicted of espionage in 2013 for turning over confidential documents to the website Wikileaks. The day after Manning was sentenced to prison, he “came out” as transgendered.


A person’s sex (male or female) is an immutable biological reality. In the vast majority of people (including those who later identify as “transgender”), it is unambiguously identifiable at birth. There is no rational or compassionate reason to affirm a distorted psychological self-concept that one’s “gender identity” is different from one’s biological sex.

Neither lawmakers nor counselors, pastors, teachers, nor medical professionals should participate in or reinforce the transgender movement’s lies about sexuality–nor should they be required by the government to support such distortion.

** The Executive Summary does not contain citations as these are embedded in the text of this paper.

Dale O’Leary is a freelance writer and lecturer and the author of The Gender Agenda and One Man, One Woman. Her blog can be found at

Peter Sprigg is Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. and the co-author of Getting It Straight: What the Research Shows about Homosexuality and author of Outrage: How Gay Activists and Liberal Judges are Trashing Democracy to Redefine Marriage.

Click here to download the entire article as a PDF, with 144 references and further details.

June 2015 Issue Analysis IS15F01



202-393-2100/fax 202-393-2134/(800)225-4008 order line



Spontaneous Change in Sexual Orientation: It Does Happen!

Spontaneous Change in Sexual Orientation: It Does Happen!

James R. Aist

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


Pro-gay activists are doing their best to deny that therapy and counseling for people with unwanted homosexuality can be effective. This is not because it can’t be effective (it can), but because to admit that it can be effective would undercut the goal of the “gay agenda” to convince the heterosexual majority that that homosexual people are “born gay” and, therefore, cannot change. But the fact is that not only can therapy and counseling be effective in helping people diminish or remove homosexuality from their lives, such change often occurs spontaneously, without any intervention being necessary or even attempted; it just happens.

The Details

A huge amount of information on this topic has been reviewed and summarized by Whitehead and Whitehead (1), which I will excerpt as follows:

Large studies now show that…

For adolescents:

[The following points were derived by Whitehead and Whitehead (1) from the data files used by Savin-Williams and Ream (2).]

  • Most teenagers who identify as homosexual will change from same-sex attraction. In fact, in the 16 to 17 year age group, 98% who identified initially (at age 16) as homosexual or bi-sexual had moved towards heterosexuality one year later, at age 17;
  • 16 year olds saying they are same-sex attracted or bi-sex attracted are 25 times more likely to say they are opposite sex attracted at the age of 17 than those with a heterosexual orientation are likely to identify themselves as bi-sexual or homosexual; and
  • 16-year olds who claim they are opposite sex attracted will overwhelmingly remain that way.

For adults:

  • About half of those with exclusive same-sex attraction move towards heterosexuality over a lifetime. Put another way, 3% of the practicing heterosexual population (both men and women) claim to have once been either bisexual or homosexual;
  • These changes are not therapeutically induced, but happen “naturally” in life, some very quickly;
  • The vast majority of changes in sexual orientation are towards exclusive heterosexuality;
  • The number of people at any point in time who have changed spontaneously towards exclusive opposite sex attraction are greater than the number of bisexuals and exclusive same-sex attraction people combined. In other words, “Ex-gays outnumber actual gays”; and
  • Exclusive opposite sex attraction is 17 times as stable as exclusive same-sex attraction for men, and 30 times as stable as exclusive same-sex attraction for women. (Women are known to be more fluid in their sexual orientation than are men.)

Additionally, Sorba (3) has documented numerous examples of adult celebrities and homosexuality advocates who have spontaneously changed from homosexual to heterosexual. These include celebrities such as pop star Sinead O’Connor, actress Ann Heche, gay activist/author Jan Clausen and gay activist Williams (Bro) Broberg. Furthermore, at least six specific examples of adults who changed sexual orientation spontaneously, without therapy or counseling, have been documented by NARTH (4). These documented examples of spontaneous changes demonstrate the considerable fluidity that exists in sexual orientation for many individuals, even in adulthood.


Sexual orientation is often fluid, not fixed, and change sometimes occurs spontaneously, without formal intervention of any kind. The vast majority of spontaneous change in sexual orientation is from homosexual to heterosexual. In fact, it can be accurately stated that ex-gays outnumber actual gays at any given time. These documented facts demonstrate that at least a considerable number of homosexuals are not “born gay.” And they lend credence to the many reports that therapy and counseling for unwanted homosexuality can be effective: since sexual orientation sometimes changes spontaneously, it follows that formal efforts to assist an individual with unwanted homosexuality would, indeed, be quite effective, and they can be (click HERE)

References Cited:

1. Whitehead, N. and B. Whitehead. 2012. My Genes Made Me Do It! – Homosexuality and the Scientific Evidence. Chapter 12. Can sexual orientation change? (click HERE)

2. Savin-Williams, R., and G. Ream. 2007. Prevalence and Stability of Sexual Orientation Components During Adolescence and Young Adulthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior 36:385-394.

3. Sorba, R. 2007. The Born Gay Hoax. (click HERE)

4. NARTH, 2012. 7) Spontaneous or Adventitious Change of Sexual Orientation. (click HERE)

(For more articles on HOMOSEXUALITY, click HERE)

Cultures without Homosexuality: They Do Exist!

Cultures without Homosexuality: They Do Exist!

James R. Aist

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


Homosexual activists often claim that homosexuality is universal among the cultures of the world. They do this to convince the heterosexual majority that homosexuality is normal, that it has a biological (genetic) basis and that it is immutable (unchangeable). To the extent that they can convince the heterosexual majority that this claim is true, they can garner support for the “gay agenda.” But is this claim really true? Do all of the cultures of the world really have homosexuality, and is homosexuality always a stable cultural characteristic? Let’s have a look at the evidence.

The Evidence

There are several kinds of cultural evidence indicating that homosexuality is not genetically determined, but is, instead, strongly influenced by post-natal events and factors. Much of this evidence was reviewed by Whitehead and Whitehead (1), and I will first mention some of the highlights of their review before moving on to other evidence. If causation of homosexuality were to be genetically determined, then it would appear in about the same percentage in all cultures, but this is clearly not the case. The prevalence of homosexuality has varied considerably in different cultures. For example, Ford and Beach (23) found that in the 79 cultures they surveyed, homosexuality was rare or absent in 29 and lesbianism was found in only 17. Homosexuality is also historically and exceptionally rare among Orthodox Jews. And among the genetically related tribes of the New Guinea Highlands, homosexuality was mandatory among one tribe, practiced by 2-3% of a second tribe and completely unheard of in a third tribe. A significant number of cultures appear not to have practiced homosexuality at all. Moreover, if causation of homosexuality were to be genetically determined, then its occurrence in any given culture would be stable over very long periods of time (e.g., 1,000 years or more), but in some cultures, homosexuality disappeared within several generations. Anthropologists attribute many such sudden changes in the occurrence of homosexuality to Christian influences, which represent a set of post-natal, non-biological, cultural factors.

Two original scientific studies merit particular mention in this regard. Broude and Greene (2), anthropologists from Harvard University, used the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample of 186 societies representing different and independent culture clusters within major areas of the world. This data base is considered to be the best representative sample of world cultures (3). They found that 12% of these cultures had “No concept of homosexuality.” Moreover, in 59% of these cultures, homosexuality was “Absent or rare.” A necessary conclusion from these results is that homosexuality does not exist in a great many of the cultures of the world. More recently, Hewlett and Hewlett (3), anthropologists from Washington State University, interviewed 35 members of an Aka forager band and 21 members of a Ngandu farmer village of the Central African Republic. The Aka had no concept of homosexuality, and it was absent from their culture. The Ngandu were familiar with the concept of homosexuality from visits by some village members to the capital city, but they had no word for it in their language. And homosexuality was absent in and around their village. In both of these cultures, sex was considered to be of paramount importance for the purpose of procreation and was highly valued primarily for that purpose alone. Furthermore, from a review of the relevant literature, these authors concluded that the Euro-American human sexuality literature, including some college textbooks, gives the false impression that homosexuality is a human universality. Whereas, in fact, the Euro-American patterns of homosexuality are quite unusual by cross-cultural standards; homosexuality is more common in this demographic than it is elsewhere in the world. By contrast, sexual practices of the Aka and Ngandu are not unusual by the same cross-cultural standards.


Homosexuality does not conform to any genetically prescribed model, but it does appear to have an overwhelmingly cultural component, ebbing and flowing with changes in cultural values, such as the introduction of Christianity, and with different cultural expectations (1). Several cultures do not even have a concept of homosexuality, and a great many have little or no homosexuality at all. Therefore, the claims by homosexual activists that homosexuality is universal among the cultures of the world and is immutable are patently and demonstrably false.

(For more articles on HOMOSEXUALITY, click HERE)

References Cited:

1. Whitehead, N. and B. Whitehead. 2012. Chapter 6. What do different cultures tell us about homosexuality? (click HERE)

2. Broude, G. and S. Greene. 1976. Cross-Cultural Codes on Twenty Sexual Attitudes and Practices. Ethnology 15:409-430.

3. Hewlett, B. and B. Hewlett. 2010. Sex and Searching For Children Among Aka Foragers and Ngandu Farmers of Central Africa. African Study Monographs 31:107-125. (click HERE)

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)


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)


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. 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)