In FRI’s recent trip to Europe, three scientific studies Dr. Cameron brought to Poland jolted its Parliament. They also excited audiences across the country, and made the media furious. Each of these studies showed why accepting the LGBT agenda is a big mistake.
The push for gay marriage is also a push for acceptance of homosexual parents. But what are the risks of homosexual parenting? It is well-documented that those who engage in homosexuality are — as a group — much more likely to molest children than are heterosexuals. We also know that parents are constantly around their children. So what about homosexual parents? Are they more likely to molest their own children, that is, to commit incest? Read more
Homosexuals today commonly assert ‘I was born that way,’ and many accept it. Some of this ‘born so’ posturing is just that — posturing. There is a great deal of evidence against the notion that homosexuals are ‘born that way.’ For instance, why should it be that an identical twin has about the same likelihood of having the homosexual preferences of his twin, as he does when compared to another non-twin sibling who does not share an identical genetic makeup? Why is it true that boys raised in cities are 3 to 4 times more apt, and those raised in religiously devout homes 3 to 4 times less apt, to have homosexual tastes as those raised in more rural areas or less religious homes? A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) of ~150,000 teens aged 14–18 years old provides yet more evidence against the ‘born that way’ claim. 
The first commandment to mankind recorded in the Bible  — “be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it” — is social. The God of the Bible gave man the ability to control (“subdue”) the earth. He also commanded man to have children and to increase in number. That having children — the ‘fruit of sex’ — is specifically commanded suggests the possibility that societies tend naturally toward social suicide.
The recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding homosexuality have NOTHING to do with the Constitution and EVERYTHING to do with judicial tyranny. Where, under the constitution, do nine judges get to allow a lower court to disregard a vote of the California electorate? Where does it permit the Court to say Congress and the President did something wrong when they reserved Federal benefits for man-woman marriages as in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)?
Even before the historic Boy Scouts of America (BSA) vote this past month, some of its leaders seemed intent on killing the organization. Consider two of the assertions in the ‘read ahead’ materials sent out before the vote (BSA Executive Summary 4/30/13):
Most believe homosexuality is acquired, especially through gay recruitment of children. The gay movement hates ‘common sense’ of this sort, realizing that such a belief impedes its access to others’ children and blocks the growth of homosexuality. The psychiatric profession also says common sense is absolutely wrong, though 60 years ago it touted this same (now rejected) notion.
From asserting that ‘homosexuals are no more apt to molest’ to ‘people are born, not trained, that way,’ professional associations now reinforce the gay movement’s propaganda. It makes no difference that testimonials abound linking a person’s homosexuality with their being molested. Where is the scientific proof, they say. Read more
Sex is in the news again. Rush Limbaugh charged a major British newspaper of supporting ‘normalization’ of ‘pedophilia.’ President Obama pushed gay marriage: “our gay brothers and sisters [must be] treated like anyone else under the law — for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.” U.S. fertility is at an historic low, and a Japanese Minister admonished the old to “hurry up and die” while deprecating “tube people.” Why animus toward the old? Japan is finally shrinking, so it is running out of workers! Read more
APA: The Bernie Madoff of Science?
How did homosexuals get to be mentally ‘normal?’ Until the 1960s, they were considered ‘mentally disturbed,’ not just by ordinary folk but also by psychologists and psychiatrists. So what happened?
Even in the 1950s, there was political pressure by some psychiatrists and gay activists to remove the designation of homosexuals as ‘mentally disturbed.’ But professionals want something ‘scientific’ on which to hang their hat; they do not want to appear ‘political.’ The landmark study by Evelyn Hooker of UCLA was that scientific thing. In fact, her study got promoted as ‘definitive’ by the American Psychological Association (APA).
‘Hooker proved that gays are normal’ said the APA. And the professional organization convinced psychiatrists that the Hooker study did just that. No wonder Hooker’s work is considered by many to be the most influential social science study ever published!
But there is a problem.
The APA lied — and it was a BIG LIE. Hooker’s study proved no such thing. Indeed, it was shoddy — filled with holes and weirdness. For instance, Hooker started out studying 74 male homosexuals but ended up with 30. Hooker would not let colleagues look at her data — and later destroyed it. And, in what might be the biggest example, on the key issue — whether homosexuals could be reliably identified on projective tests — every homosexual almost certainly revealed himself on at least one of the three tests.
To this last bit, Hooker and the APA said ‘forget about that, the 30 homosexual males were not predictably flagged on the ink blot test, so we should just ignore the rest of the findings from the other two tests.’ And, amazingly, the psychiatrists and just about everybody else did forget! So court decisions, textbooks, scientific articles — all of them misreported Hooker’s study.
But FRI has now gotten the facts out — in a major scientific journal, Marriage and Family Review. The sparks are already flying. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) — a far-left group with tons of money — wants our heads, and the article somehow unpublished. Homosexual activists are screaming that FRI is unfair. BUT, no one is denying our facts! And they are devastating.
This may be the first fraud committed by a scientific organization rather than a sole investigator. As the Hooker study is so central to the ‘homosexuals are normal’ argument, its exposure reopens the question of whether homosexuals are mentally disturbed. After all, for the American Psychiatric Association, something ‘associated with… a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, [or] disability….’ is a mental disorder. Things like alcoholism or drug addiction, for instance.
But, given that homosexual practitioners are at significantly greater risk of suffering mental and physical diseases — and this apparently leads to their shortened average lifespan — homosexuality would also appear to qualify. What is the rationale for considering homosexuality ‘the exception to the rule?’ Now that the Hooker study has been debunked and just about every study since reports that homosexuals are more apt to smoke, get drunk, use illegal drugs, and test mentally disturbed, what indeed?
Our paper demonstrates that the APA is the Bernie Madoff of science — at least when it comes to homosexuality. Who knows what else? If an organization will lie about one thing, about what can it be trusted?
Why Must a Murderer be Mutilated at Taxpayer Expense?
A federal judge has ruled that a Massachusetts man who murdered his wife but who now wants to ‘be’ a female must get taxpayer-funded sex-reassignment surgery. Why? Because it is the only way to treat his “serious medical need” given his constitutional “right to adequate medical care.”
So a murderer who wants lots of attention — he has been at this since the 1990s — is getting it. He wants a new career and some psychiatrists have declared he “needs” this procedure. Psychiatry got fooled by the APA and Evelyn Hooker and it is being fooled now. If a murderer ‘feels’ he should ‘be’ Hitler, does medical necessity require he be given a uniform, mustache, and get saluted? If this convicted murderer feels he MUST BE a ‘woman’ or he will commit suicide — so what? Good riddance. What is so ‘special’ about being a transgender nut that you must be served by society?
Recently, the first long-term study (10 year follow-up) was published of a large group (n = 324) of the sexually mutilated matched against a sample of more than 3,000 non-mutilated individuals.1 The long and the short of it was that “after sex reassignment, [the mutilated] have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population.”
This study looked at people who had sex mutilations (‘sex changes’) from 1973-2003. Because Sweden is a heavily regulated country, those who were studied were not asked survey questions about criminality or psychiatric problems as is common in American or British studies. Instead, their official records — and in Sweden those records are incredibly extensive — were examined for: (1) all-cause mortality, (2) suicide, (3) death by cardiovascular disease, and (4) death by cancer. Morbidity included (5) any psychiatric disorder, (6) alcohol/drug misuse, (7) suicide attempts, (8) accidents, and (9) convictions.
Before mutilation, transsexuals “had been hospitalized for psychiatric morbidity other than gender identity disorder… four times more often than controls” (17% vs. 4%). After mutilation they had higher rates of everything bad. Thus, the mutilated were about three times more apt to die, 19 times more apt to commit suicide, and about twice as apt to die of cancer or a heart condition. So, sex mutilation was not a cure.
But, were they happier in their new condition? One way to index happiness is whether they were hospitalized for psychiatric reasons (other than for ‘gender disorder’). By this measure, the mutilated were about four times more apt to be hospitalized — that is, they were not just unhappy, but so unhappy/disturbed they got put away. The authors suggested that “even though sex reassignment alleviates gender dysphoria, there is a need to identify and treat co-occurring psychiatric morbidity in transsexual persons not only before but also after sex reassignment.”
What? Mutilation is apparently just a down payment — the drain on society’s resources never stops. The mutilated were three times more apt to engage in substance abuse, eight times more apt to attempt suicide, twice as apt to have an accident (serious enough to have authorities involved), twice as apt to be convicted of a crime, and three times more apt to commit a violent crime.
These results are not dissimilar to reports by homosexuals regarding criminality, seeing a psychiatrist, etc. Past studies have shown the same relative results when comparing homosexuals to heterosexuals — homosexuals report more bad outcomes (and, when asked, at least 5% have said they might like a ‘sex change’). A key difference here is that the Swedish study did not look at subjective distress unless it led to a consultation, or crime unless it led to a conviction, etc., so this study reports only the ‘hard, actually caught’ data, and undoubtedly failed to document even more pathologies.
Again the authors: “Even though surgery and hormonal therapy alleviates gender dysphoria, it is apparently not sufficient to remedy the high rates of morbidity and mortality found among transsexual persons.” Indeed, these are deeply disturbed people, and they continue to be disturbed. Medical treatments that do not work are abandoned. So why continue sex mutilation? Why should society consider only the sexually-disturbed in need of ‘civil rights,’ and give them what they want no matter what the cost? Why are homosexuals encouraged not to change, and transsexuals allowed to flip their gender, despite the obvious negative social outcomes?
This study — by far the best of the lot — brings the whole idea of ‘mutilation therapy’ into question. Why are we mutilating disturbed people who continue to be disturbed? Do ‘feelings for the sexually-distressed’ trump science? Psychiatrists were fooled by the APA and Hooker into ‘freeing homosexuals’ to do their thing. Will they ever acknowledge they made a mistake in regarding mutilation as a treatment?
- Cecilia Dhejne, et al. (February 2011) Long term follow up of transsexual persons, PLOS One (open access). ↩
As Rush Limbaugh has noted, Jerry Sandusky is a ‘gay guy.’ Who else would want to have sex with boys? Yet nary a word about homosexuality graced the pages of the recent Freeh report or almost any news story. Would Sandusky have been protected for all those years if Penn State had not been supportive of gay rights? This question is one of several not being asked: for instance, is Sandusky HIV+?; how many of his victims are currently HIV+?; and how many are engaging in homosexuality? The NCAA used the scandal to tax Pennsylvanians $60 million in fines and penalties, but did nothing to challenge the reigning academic mantra that homosexuality ought to be accepted and protected.
Did Coach Joe Paterno only worry about the football program, or was he also protecting poor ol’ Sandusky and the academic view of homosexuality? Since the victims’ lawyers are not fingering others, it does not seem likely that Sandusky was part of a ‘gay nest’ at Penn State, but the civil suits should settle that question. There is a disquieting report of (heterosexual) child molestation to the Pennsylvania child protective services that should have, but did not, trigger official concern and action back in 1986, action that might have later saved many more children. According to psychologist Jim Singer, “most of the same Pennsylvania government agencies that were outraged over the PSU scandal — Child Protective Services, the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, and the Pennsylvania State Police — all ignored and buried his report of child molestation.”1
Now the tide has apparently turned, but has it really? A Philadelphia monsignor was given a three-to-six year prison sentence for allowing a priest suspected of sexual misconduct with a minor to continue to have contact with children (7/24/12). Will Penn State officials — including its former President — get the same treatment?
Conservatives are up in arms (and rightly so) that the mayors of Chicago and Boston have threatened that Chick Fil-A will not get to open in their cities. For when is it wrong to publicly condemn a habit that drives homosexuals to have sex with each other and with boys? Are these politicians — Chicago’s Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Alderman Proco “Joe” Moreno, and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino — so smart that they know more than either the wisdom of the Bible or the psychiatric community of the 1950s? Are their opinions so correct that they deserve to trump the constitutional right to do business in the U.S. regardless of one’s opinions or religion?
Unfortunately, the seeds of these liberal attitudes were sown a long time ago. Even Ronald Reagan — conservative hero that he was — was not immune to wrong-headed thinking when it came to homosexuality. In 1978, Reagan publicly opposed the Briggs ballot initiative in California that would have prevented schools from hiring homosexual teachers and would also have allowed schools to fire teachers that promoted homosexuality. Reagan wrote in an op-ed2 that September:
“Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual’s sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child’s teachers do not really influence this.”
Contrary to Reagan’s assertion, we do have (limited) direct information about whether homosexual teachers influence students to give homosexuality a go. As part of FRI’s nationwide study in 1983-84, the 17% who reported having a homosexual teacher were asked if the teacher had any influence on their trying homosexuality. Among men:
- 96% of current heterosexuals and 85% of current homosexuals said that the teacher had no impact on their trying homosexuality;
- whereas 4% of heterosexuals and 15% of homosexuals said the teacher influenced them in this direction either ‘a little bit,’ ‘some,’ or ‘a lot.’
- Also, 12% of the sample said their homosexual teacher made sexual advances toward them.
- 97% of current heterosexuals and 86% of current lesbians said there was no influence,
- but 3% of heterosexuals and 14% of lesbians said that they were influenced ‘a little bit,’ ‘some,’ or ‘a lot.’
- In addition, 4% said their homosexual teacher made sexual advances toward them.
Notice that those who were gay or lesbian reported more frequently than did heterosexuals that a homosexual teacher influenced them to try homosexuality. How many of these were tilted toward ‘giving it a go’ and then it stuck?
Of course, the vast majority of both groups said their teacher had no influence on their sexual orientation. Just because a teacher uses drugs and says so, will every student run out and give them a try? Of course not, any more than whatever a teacher teaches is necessarily and always ‘learned.’ Teachers, as parents, have influence. But that influence is far from determinative.
Nevertheless, the empirical evidence that exists lines right up with traditional concerns about homosexuality and especially the influence of school leaders (teachers, coaches, etc.) upon kids.
Politicians (and all civic leaders) should be aware of their special responsibility to act upon evidence rather than their ‘gut feelings’ or what is expedient. Instead, they seem to almost universally follow the modern, ‘godless religion’ of psychiatry. Its priesthood not only gets to determine what attitudes are sins (e.g., mental disturbances), gets paid to ‘treat’ such sins, but usually also tries to get greater society to endorse its worldview — which currently includes stamping out ‘homophobia.’ Neither Joe Paterno or Ronald Reagan was apparently immune to the song of the psychiatric sirens.
Best Study of Effects of Gay Parents: Slammed for Wrong Conclusions
The homosexual movement, many professional associations, and the media assert that whether a parent engages in homosexuality is irrelevant: as long as the child is loved, it’s all good. Tradition stresses the character of parents (and their concern for their children’s welfare), exhibited by raising a child within marriage, instead of alone or in an informal union. Tradition also holds that the aberrant attitudes, behaviors, and associates of those who engage in either homosexuality, illegal drug use, or criminality often have more influence on how a child turns out than expressions of love or affirmation by their parents.
A month ago Mark Regnerus published the best single study to date of the psychological and social status of adults with a homosexual parent. Based on a random sample of about 15,000, his study reported results consistent with common sense — those raised in a traditional man-woman intact marriage did best, while those with a homosexual parent(s) were the:
- most apt to say they were not exclusively heterosexual,
- most apt to be on welfare,
- least apt to be employed,
- most apt to have gotten a sexually transmitted infection,
- most apt to have recently thought of suicide,
- most apt to report being raped,
- most apt to test impulsive,
- most apt to smoke,
- most apt to report heavy TV viewing,
- most apt to have been arrested,
- most apt to have pled guilty to a crime,
- most apt to score high on depression,
- least apt to report being able to depend on others,
- least apt to report having felt secure and safe in their family, and
- most promiscuous.
Participants who had homosexual parents generally ranked more poorly on the other variables studied as well, even if they were not always ‘the worst.’
This study was ‘the best,’ because it used the largest sample of participants, those individuals were randomly chosen, and the survey instrument covered a lot of ground — asking about possible social as well as psychological effects of different home environments. It was not ‘perfect,’ but it was head and shoulders above any other study both in terms of numbers of adults with homosexual parents and methodological rigor. Most of the studies on homosexual parenting are shoddy in the extreme, using small, non-random samples of volunteer subjects, a few questions of interest, and usually finding ‘no statistically significant difference’ between homosexual and heterosexual parents due to a lack of statistical power (i.e., sensitivity).
So has Regnerus been lauded for such a well-done study? No, quite the opposite: he has been charged with all kinds of scientific malfeasance.
Homosexual activists upset with the study’s publication have demanded and gotten his employer (Univ of Texas at Austin) to formally investigate him and his study (even though the charges were launched by a homosexual journalist with no credible credentials and they did not specify anything that he might have done wrong). A post-publication review summarized in the Chronicle of Higher Education (July 26, 2012) highlights Darren Sherkat, a professor of sociology at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale who was assigned to do the review: “His assessment of the paper, in an interview, was concise: ‘It’s bull__t,’ he said.” [note: FRI edited Sherkat’s profanity, not so the esteemed Chronicle].
“Among the problems Sherkat identified is the paper’s definition of ‘lesbian mothers’ and ‘gay fathers’ — an aspect that has been the focus of much of the public criticism. A woman could be identified as a ‘lesbian mother’ in the study if she had had a relationship with another woman at any point after having a child, regardless of the brevity of that relationship and whether or not the two women raised the child as a couple. Sherkat said that fact alone in the paper should have ‘disqualified it immediately’ from being considered for publication.”
But since very few lesbian ‘mothers’ manage to stay together beyond 4 to 6 years, the instability found by Regnerus (as well as other researchers, including FRI) is part of the reason children of homosexuals do so poorly. Whether homosexual couples who are more stable make better parents is unknown — there are too few of them in any study to say. And it could be, as with lifespan, that the more ‘committed’ they are, the worse the outcomes for them and the children they raise.
Sally Ride: Dead at 61
Sally Ride, the first U.S. female astronaut, died this year at 61 of pancreatic cancer. Most women live until their 80s. Something strange afoot?
Ride was married to a fellow astronaut from 1982 to 1987. But it was just revealed she had a ‘long time lesbian relationship’ of 27 years. Do the math: her 27 year relationship with a professor of school psychology (and co-founder of Sally Ride’s company) means that she got into that relationship in 1985, smack in the middle of her marriage. It would appear that her childhood friend broke up her marriage.
And Sally may have paid with some of her lifespan. Our latest research into recent homosexual obituaries from San Francisco indicates that lesbians are dying on average around 60ish. Ride fits the pattern of lesbian deaths, but not that of married women’s deaths, which usually extend into the early-to-mid 80s.
Is this proof that homosexual activity leads to an early death? No, of course not. Had she stayed married, Sally Ride might have died at the same age and of the same malady. But, on average, her death fits a consistent pattern suggesting that homosexuality is associated with an early demise.
Human papillomavirus (HPV) may be the most common sexually transmitted disease (STD). It causes genital warts and rare cancers in men, along with warts and vaginal-cervical cancers in women. The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) recommends vaccinating girls aged 9 to 25. Many have accepted the vaccination for girls, since as a ‘killed’ or ‘dead’ virus, only girls sensitive to yeast are supposed to be harmed by the shots, and the cost of about $400/vaccination is substantially less than the total costs of the cancers it appears likely to prevent.
On the other hand, how long the vaccine remains efficacious has yet to be determined. It might ‘wear out’ after a few years, or not work as expected in the real world. Furthermore, in a just published study representing the largest follow-up to date, reactions to the vaccine have been more painful than assumed:
About three quarters (696 [78%]) of the participants reported pain at the injection site, with up to 11% of them recalling the pain as severe to very severe. The percentage of respondents reporting pain and pain intensity was inversely proportional to age. A third of respondents reported pain worse than that from other vaccinations. One hundred fifty-five participants (17%) reported bruising, and 127 (14%) experienced swelling. These effects were reported more frequently among those younger than age 18. 
Again, among girls, no one appears to have yet been seriously injured. But now the American Academy of Pediatricians is recommending the HPV vaccine for boys too. Is this warranted? Enter the homosexual connection. The FDA says
- At any time, about 1% of sexually active men in the U.S. have genital warts (from our 1983-84 survey, FRI would estimate that at least one-fifth of these cases occur among male homosexuals).
- Cancers of the penis, anus and mouth/throat are uncommon, and only some are related to HPV. Each year in the U.S. there are about:
(1) 400 men who get HPV-related cancer of the penis
(2) 1,500 men who get HPV-related cancer of the anus; most anal cancer occurs among male homosexuals, since they are 17 times more likely to develop anal cancer than men who only have sex with women
(3) 5,600 men get cancers of the mouth/throat, but many of these cancers are related to tobacco and alcohol use, not HPV (we would estimate that a quarter to a third of the cases due to oral-sex exposure to HPV occur in male homosexuals).
Quite correctly, the FDA does not recommend the HPV vaccine (and the $4 billion cost) for boys! The reason is obvious. Unless a man engages in homosexuality, the serious conditions arising from HPV are so rare that it ‘doesn’t make sense’ to get vaccinated. But if one engages in homosexuality, perhaps the vaccine is worth the cost.
If the vaccine were essentially ‘free,’ had no adverse consequences, and protected forever against a significant and costly threat, no one would argue that it should not be adopted. But in the real world, no vaccine is free or without risk — and it is uncertain how long this vaccine protects against HPV. For girls, the case for vaccinating against HPV looks fairly good. Not so for boys. But if homosexuals and their supporters have their way, every child will get it.
 Naleway, et al. (2012) J of Women’s Health, 21(4): 425-432. doi:10.1089/jwh.2011.2895. (Quoted from http://profncampbell.wordpress.com, April 6, 2012)
Birth Rates by State/Region Show Where We’re Headed
The total fertility rate is a fairly good index of ‘where things are going.’ As of 2009, the latest year with complete statistics, the U.S. rate stood overall at 2.00 children per woman. A rate of 2.1 is ideal to maintain a populace, but small fluctuations are normal. So things are going much ‘as usual’ in the U.S. By contrast, the European Union is averaging about 1.6 children per woman.
There are, however, some sizeable regional differences even in the U.S. —
- The ‘birth champion’ state was Utah, with 2.5 children per woman. This is a contribution that will ‘keep on giving’ as the children age, get married, and have kids of their own.
- The state that contributed least was Vermont at 1.6, in step with the rest of New England. New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Maine reported rates of 1.7, and Connecticut and Rhode Island weighed in at 1.8. These are at or just above European rates.
- States contributing more than their share included Nebraska, Alaska, Idaho, and Texas at 2.3 children per woman.
Thus, the Republican-leaning, less-welfare tilted states generally contributed to future posterity, while the Democratic-leaning, more European-like, states generally ‘mooched’ off the future they provide.
America’s Teenagers Having Less Sex?
We hear about ‘hooking up’ (i.e., sex between girls and boys who don’t much know each other, but who want the ‘physical experience’). We see more and more explicit sex in the media and the internet. What effects are these phenomena having on our kids’ sexuality?
The U.S. government runs a large national survey about births, sexual activities, and numbers of partners every year. By comparing the answers to the same questions from 1988, 1995, 2002 and 2006-10, possible trends can be examined. Of course, this is what teens tell interviewers. We hope it is ‘true,’ but we can think of no reason why they would be less apt to tell the truth today than in the past. What was found?
Virginity: In 1988, 51% of girls and 60% of boys aged 15-19 said they were not virgins. Both figures dropped steadily over time so that by the latest time period, 43% of girls and 42% of boys reported non-virginity. This seems to confirm the delay in sexual debut that FRI has noted.
Had sex in last 12 months, 3 months, month: Of non-virgins, from 2002 to 2006-10 (earlier questionnaires did not ask these questions), about 2% fewer of both boys and girls reported sexual activity in 2006-10. For girls (boys were similar), 41% said they had sex in the last 12 months, 34% in the last 3 months, and 28% in the last month. Blacks reported higher rates than whites: for black boys the corresponding percentages were 49%, 38%, and 30%.
Numbers of sexual partners in the last year: For non-virgins, one partner was reported by 28% of girls and 21% of boys; 2-3 partners were reported by 10% of girls, 15% of boys; 4 or more partners were reported by 4% of both sexes. Reports of multiple partners were down in the most recent time period.
Earlier sexual debut and not living with both parents increased the chances that a child would engage in sex and report multiple partners. Further, as has been found in every such survey, the major reason kids gave for not having had sex was “against religion or morals.”
Reference: Vital and Health Statistics, Oct 2011.
Gender Identity Disorder (GID): Mind Over Matter
Everyone knows kids should not:
- Run and play in the freeway, even if they really, really want to;
- Buy colas or sugary snacks at school, even if they really, really want to;
- Refuse to obey their teachers, even if they really, really don’t want to;
- Refuse to wear clothes or spit on the floor at school, even if ‘this is who they are;’
- Masturbate in public at school, even if they really, really want to and they ‘need to;’
- Buy cigarettes or marijuana, even if they really, really want to;
- Refuse to go to school, even if they really, really want to;
- Have sex with their teacher or friends at school, even if they feel a deep need;
But, if they really, really want to pretend to be the opposite sex and require everyone else to support their fantasy, it is a fundamental human right!
How can someone else’s ‘fundamental human right’ trump your fundamental human rights of freedom of speech and association? How can a child’s ‘fundamental human right’ mean you cannot exercise your fundamental human rights as an adult? Welcome to the psychiatric world order, where fantasies — if endorsed by psychiatrists — trump social stability and everyone else’s rights to be left alone, to not associate with a nitwit, or to speak out against fools!
So with the Miss Universe pageant. Seems when contestant Talackova was a boy of 4, he decided he ought to be a girl. So he was allowed to start hormone therapy in Canada at 14, underwent mutilation at 19, and now at 23 is causing all kinds of trouble. He sued the pageant to be allowed to compete, even though he was not a ‘natural born woman.’ In the psychiatric world order, getting mutilated in the right way serves up career choices!
As psychiatry works toward displacing religious professionals as the chief ‘gurus’ of our society, the rules of life are changing. Religious professionals have generally believed that one is ‘destined by one’s genitals’ since God ‘made them thus.’ As such, excepting those few cases where children are born with ambiguous genitalia, those who deviate from conventional maleness or femaleness are to be pushed toward gender conformity. Naturalism (i.e., things are the way they are because of evolution) agrees with the religious viewpoint, differing only in ‘how it became so.’ The consensus of religion and naturalism led psychiatry to create a ‘diagnosis’ of gender identity disorder (GID) and attempt to ‘cure’ (i.e., dissuade, reorient) ‘victims’ of this malady.
Today, increasing numbers of mental health professionals — appealing to a notion that ‘the client’s mental state is always right’ — are declaring that just as ‘homosexuals are born’ with desires toward the same sex, so it is with those who pretend to be the opposite sex; they are also ‘born that way,’ so others must join in the pretence. Can such a fanciful, quasi-religious concept that one is ‘born with a mental disposition’ to want sex of a particular sort or to ‘be’ the opposite sex, trump naturalism, religion, and the human rights of others? So it would appear.
The United Nations just barely beat back an attempt to make the choice to flip one’s sex a ‘human right!’ Although GID is still a treatable and billable ‘mental’ problem (as with homosexuality), the profession is being pressured by believers of ‘client-centeredism’ to agree that such desires are ‘normal’ and that those with such fancies should be ‘treated’ by professionals and protected by laws so they can ‘reach their destiny.’ And if the claimants are children… well, how can innocence be wrong?
Of course, parents are also involved in creating their child’s career by taking him to professionals for ‘help’ and going along with shots and surgeries. If the parents endorse hormones and mutilation it puts them in front of a parade that is guaranteed to last. Without contributing anything but disruption to society, they (and their child) garner rafts of attention and endless platforms to spout about ‘justice and fairness.’
The news is filled with politics right now, as the Republican hopefuls vie for a chance against President Obama. But the biggest story in Western culture is not receiving much attention, certainly not from politicians. In the West, both marriage AND sex are falling out of favor.
Marriage is weakening. In 1960, around the time the pill was introduced and the sexual revolution began, 72% of American adults were married. In 2010, that number was down to 51%! That’s a drop in ‘regulated sexual activity’ as well as a decline in ‘the best environment to raise children.’
The trend is most evident among minorities. In 1960, 74% of white adults were married. By 2010 only 55% were — a 26% decline. Hispanics have gone from 72% to 48% — a 33% drop; and blacks from 61% to 31% — a 49% decrease. A college education seems to dampen this decline somewhat, but attending college also reduces the production of children!
Why? Going to college and preparing for a career are among the reasons the current median age at first marriage has risen six years, up from age 20.3 for women and 22.8 for men in 1960. Many women are getting married toward the end of their reproductive lifespan, so their chances of having children or more than two children are smaller. Plus, with considerable effort (often involving ‘abstinence education’), the average age of sexual debut in the U.S. has been pushed back about a year and a half toward age 17 or 18.
As recently as 1920, the U.S. Census report listed girls aged 10 to 15 who were “married, working full time,” so this is yet another change toward shrinking pregnancy within the prime fertility window for U.S. women, and adding to our demographic dilemma. Thankfully, many people want to immigrate to the U.S., so the situation is not as bleak in America as it might be. However, the trend is not good when 28% of current U.S. households consist of only one person compared to only 9% in 1950.
In Japan, a greater dilemma is afoot. Sex is losing steam.
In 2010, the Japan Family Planning Association did a survey of 16 to 49 year olds. 36% of 16-19 year old males and 59% of like-aged females said they were “indifferent or averse” towards having sex (both somewhat up from 2008). Very few of these teens were married, so this statistic might strike some as virtuous. But to have babies, you’ve got to have sex. And to have sex, you have to want it. You must desire to meet, date, and perhaps marry to create babies. If enough ‘don’t care’ about all that, where will the babies come from?
There is no salvation from immigration — the number moving to Japan is tiny. And although Japan has a ‘sexy’ culture in many respects — ‘dirty comic books’ and websites abound, prostitution is seen as mostly OK — the interest in sex is still declining. One reason may be that ‘virtual sex’ is driving real sex out of many teenagers’ lives. Boys, especially, can become ‘addicted’ to porn and other sexual outlets, instead of chasing after the real thing.
In a society with a shrinking population, growing disinterest in sex is very disturbing news. The Japanese bedrooms of the married are ever quieter as well. 40% of the married said they had not had sex in the past month, compared to 36% in 2004. Top reasons checked for sexual quietude? “Reluctance after child birth,” “can’t be bothered,” and “fatigue from work.”
What does it profit a society to have lots of neat stuff and too few children?
Connection To Gay Rights
Like frogs in a kettle being slowly boiled to death, FRI frequently hears people — including those concerned about our cultural decline — suggest that the progress of gay rights is not worth a great deal of worry. After all, ‘the sky is not falling. The sun will always come up tomorrow.’ But no matter how ‘big’ or ‘small’ the crisis seems at the moment, the goal of proper social policy is to assure a future for society. As the birth rates of Western countries continue to fall, those who have supported gay rights seem oblivious to the contribution such ‘rights’ make to the decline. Even those who have ‘tolerated’ (or not vigorously opposed) gay rights do not seem to understand the implications.
But now the sky is starting to fall. From Xtra, a gay magazine in Vancouver, comes this:
“the gay rights movement is shifting norms in Canada. And with that comes a message to those who won’t evolve: your outdated morals are no longer acceptable, and we will teach your kids the new norm.” (10/20/11)
Canada produces 1.6 children/woman. Its future is thus doomed. Onward gay rights!
Led By The Child Who Simply Knew
That was the headline on the front page of the Boston Globe December 11, 2011. Consider the subhead:
“The twin boys were identical in every way but one. Wyatt was a girl to the core, and now lives as one, with the help of a brave, loving family and a path-breaking doctor’s care”
The Boston Globe serves one of the most educated populations of the U.S. — think Harvard, MIT, etc. Do these sophisticated folk want to be “led by a child?” Would they disrupt the lives of ‘regular kids’ to cater to a confused 4 year-old? Would they accept ‘as gospel’ the decisions of a program that started in 2007? Indeed, yes!
In one of the more incredible stories of subordination to the notion that ‘children know best,’ the same individuals, who denounce as ‘primitive’ beliefs statements such as ‘God created the world,’ disrupt society to cater to the whims of a 4 year-old!
[The whole story is on-line, and may well be worth your time to examine.]
At age 3,
“W favored pink tutus and beads. At 4, he insisted on a Barbie birthday cake and had a thing for mermaids. On Halloween, J was Buzz Lightyear. W wanted to be a princess.”
“decided to tell their story, they say, in order to help fight the deep stigma against transgender youth, and to ease the path for other such children who, without help, often suffer from depression, anxiety, and isolation.… We told our kids you can’t create change if you don’t get involved,”
says the father 53, “sitting in the living room of their comfortable home in a southern Maine community.”
When Wyatt was 4, he asked his mother: “When do I get to be a girl?’’ He told his father that he “hated his penis and asked when he could be rid of it.” Aged 5, at a “party for classmates and parents, W appeared beaming at the top of the stairs in a princess gown, a gift from his grandmother.” When first grade started, Wyatt carried a “pink backpack and a Kim Possible lunchbox.” Her parents eventually agreed to call ‘her’ Nicole instead of Wyatt. Precisely who is ‘disturbed’ here, the parents or the child?
When fifth grade started,
“Nicole showed up for school, sometimes wearing a dress and sporting shoulder-length hair. She began using the girls’ bathroom.… But one day a boy called her a ‘faggot,’ objected to her using the girls’ bathroom, and reported the matter to his grandfather, who… complained to the Orono School Committee, with the Christian Civic League of Maine backing him. The superintendent of schools then decided Nicole should use a staff bathroom.”
“To protect her from bullying at school, Nicole was assigned an adult to watch her at all times between classes, following her to the cafeteria, to the bathroom. She found it intrusive and stressful. It made her feel like even more of an outsider.”
Nicole and her parents filed a complaint with the Maine Humans Right Commission over her right to use the girls’ bathroom. The commission found that she had been discriminated against and, along with the Maines family, filed a lawsuit against the Orono School District. The suit is pending. “What Nicole and Jonas both went through in school was unconscionable,’’ says Jennifer Levi, one of the GLAD lawyers on the case. “Their one huge stroke of luck was having Kelly and Wayne as parents.’’
This madness is coming to your community. Who would ever have thought we would be ruled by children (and homosexuals)? Who could have imagined that the rights of normal kids and their parents would be trumped by the ‘rights’ of the sexually disturbed?
The ‘take away’ from the Penn State sex abuse scandal is that Rush Limbaugh, the most popular and well-known talk-show host, fears to address the issue of homosexual child molestation. From Nazi Germany to Communist China, the first cost of a dictatorship is loss of freedom of speech. In discussing the scandal, Limbaugh said the ‘elephant in the shower room’ was homosexuality; talking about it could “end my career” (11/18). He eventually called Jerry Sandusky a “gay guy,” but bent over backwards to assure his listeners that most of those who engage in homosexuality do not molest children. Read more
For adults, not only is there a positive correlation between using illegal drugs and engaging in homosexuality, but those who engage in either behavior are disproportionately criminal, mentally disturbed, more suicidal, etc1. Sympathetic academics and gay activists say these traits are the inevitable responses by homosexuals to discrimination. They didn’t start out that way, but were ‘just like regular kids except for homosexual interests.’ As such, ‘gay teens’ have as much right to protection and acceptance as blacks or other protected minorities.
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has completed a 9-year study of gay youth2 that bears on whether young homosexuals were ‘just like regular kids.’ Overall, the CDC findings line up nicely with traditional notions that a kid who gets into a ‘bad thing’ does other ‘bad things:’ gay youth were disproportionately involved in all measured forms of rebellion and self-harm. Many reported starting these harmful activities before their teens.
To gauge the importance of the CDC study, it is helpful to compare it against a 1990s-era longitudinal study from Christchurch, New Zealand3 that included checks on what respondents said. Some people do lie, exaggerate, and/or ‘have fun’ on questionnaires. Because of this potential problem, the New Zealand investigators studied the same 1,007 Christchurch children from birth through 21 years of age, with parental interviews, self-report, as well as observation and testing by the investigators. Its major weakness was its small sample size — only 28 participants ‘had engaged in or desired to engage in homosexuality’ by age 21. Nevertheless, the New Zealand study stands alone and is the current methodological ‘gold standard.’ Another, much larger longitudinal study of these issues has not been conducted. But with the New Zealand study in place, other studies can be compared to its findings.
2% of Christchurch young adults said they “were” homosexual or bisexual and an additional eight reported sex with a member of their sex since the age of 16 (four of those who said they “were” homosexual said that they had not engaged in homosexual sex). The 11 men and 17 women recorded as homosexual combined for a 2.8% rate of homosexuality among the study group.
This 2.8% of young adults were more apt to score as having ‘problems.’ In each of seven years of the study period, about 1% of heterosexuals and 5% of homosexuals said they attempted suicide. None actually committed suicide, but 32% of the homosexual and 7% of the heterosexual 21 year-olds reported attempting it at least once. Overall, 57% of homosexual versus 41% of heterosexual 21 yr-olds admitted to at least one crime (36% vs. 26% to a violent; 50% vs. 33% to a property crime). Male homosexuals also exhibited more conduct disorder (oppositional, rebellious) and more frequent substance abuse (smoking, drug use).
CDC Findings Replicate New Zealand
In the recent CDC study, ‘risk questionnaires’ were given to ~35,000 9-12 grade students in seven states and six large cities from 2001-2009 (about 80% of kids turned in usable answers). Whether defined behaviorally (sex of partner) or by self-labeling (gay, bisexual, or heterosexual), there was essentially no difference in the outcomes: homosexuality was associated with more personal and social problems. While each result was not found in every location or every year (these were independent samples), the overall pattern was unmistakable.
About 93% of kids said they were heterosexual, 5% bisexual or homosexual, and 2% had not made up their mind. 57% of kids reported sex with the opposite sex and 6% claimed homosexual contact. While 96% of the kids who only reported sex with the opposite sex said they were heterosexual — providing a strong match between behavior and claimed identity — 62% of those who only reported homosexual sex also said they were heterosexual (tried it and didn’t like it?). 22% of this latter group said they were homosexual.
Just like the New Zealand study, the differences found between the sexual orientation groups do not add up to the notion ‘just like other kids, but interested in homosexuality instead of the opposite sex.’ Consider dangerousness-to-others in the following table:
|Rode with driver who had been drinking||23%||34%|
|Drove when drinking||8%||14%|
|Carried a weapon||13%||23%|
|Carried a gun||4%||11%|
|In a physical fight (past yr)||29%||42%|
|Injured in a fight (past yr)||3%||13%|
All surveys report that adult homosexuals disproportionately endanger others. It obviously starts early. And although schools increasingly claim to be ‘safe zones’ for gay and lesbian youth, homosexuals more frequently rebelled against school rules (see table on next page).
Homosexuals were not the only ones rebelling, but they definitely did so more often. And if they ‘have to’ do things that injure themselves and others because of discrimination — why must they do them at school? Things did not go much better when homosexuals were ‘with their kind.’ 14% of heterosexuals vs. 20% of those who only had homosexual partners claimed to be hit or physically hurt on a date. 11% vs. 17% of those same groups reported being forced to have sex (i.e., raped). If homosexuals are ‘away from their oppressors’ when they are with each other, then why would they be more violent?
The ‘sleazy’ nature of homosexuality also starts early: 11% of heterosexuals vs. 29% of homosexuals reported 4 or more lifetime sex partners; 66% of heterosexuals vs. 45% of homosexuals reported condom use at last sex; and 19% of heterosexuals vs. 32% of homosexuals claimed to use alcohol or drugs before last sex.
|Behavior on School Property||Hetero||Homo|
|Carried a weapon||5%||14%|
|In a physical fight||11%||21%|
|Used smokeless tobacco||1%||8%|
|Threatened/injured with weapon||6%||18%|
Looking back, students were asked whether before age 13, they had smoked a whole cigarette (10% of straights vs. 25% of gays); drank alcohol (21% vs. 35%); smoked marijuana (8% vs. 21%); had sexual intercourse (the regular male-female kind, 5% heterosexual vs. 14% homosexual). The ‘fast starters’ were consistently, disproportionately homosexual. Even before their teens, a significant minority of kids who will eventually declare themselves ‘gay’ are into trouble-making and self-harm. ‘Good kids’ who don’t get into ‘adult stuff’ disproportionately turn out heterosexual; the kids who do ‘adult stuff’ are more likely to become homosexual.
Self-harm and criminality also ‘went together’ with homosexuality just as in the New Zealand study, as the next table shows. The homosexually-inclined were also more apt to be overweight, use and abuse alcohol, have diet issues, spend more time on-line (but less on TV) and not ‘eat right.’
Clearly, a significant minority of ‘regular kids’ do bad things (e.g., 22% using marijuana, 2% using heroin) and suffer depression for various reasons (25% felt sad or hopeless for 2+ weeks). Many of these regular kids may ‘cause trouble’ when they reach adulthood. But being around heterosexuals will ‘calm some of them down’ and if they become parents, their kids will help them to mature even more. On the other hand, the homosexually-inclined will gravitate to other gays and be encouraged toward even more rebellion and self-harm. The rape and violence associated with their ‘lovers’ will undoubtedly make them even more frequently depressed.
Unfortunately, no matter how marvelous the home or school environment, a small fraction of kids ‘go bad.’ If the home or school setting is defective, a larger fraction go bad. But in ‘look back’ (i.e., longitudinal) studies, the life-course of criminals, drug users, or homosexuals is similar. They get into the ‘bad things’ at a higher rate and at earlier ages.
Notice that about 2% of teens were ‘uncertain’ about whether they are going to join the gay or straight camp. Can giving special protections to a particular kind of rebelliousness — in this case homosexuality — encourage these kids to try it? While the findings of older studies were not based on the elegant samples of recent investigations, it appears that the rate of ‘trying’ homosexuality is going up. The ‘uncertains’ are there for the picking. If the schools protect homosexuality and give extra attention to homosexual students, they create incentives for the uncertains to jump away from heterosexuality. If drug users were given the same protections and sympathy as gays, do you think we would have fewer drug addicts?
|Never wore a seat belt||12%||21%|
|Felt sad/hopeless 2+ weeks during yr||25%||46%|
|Seriously considered suicide||12%||35%|
|Attempted suicide & treated by doctor/nurse||6%||27%|
|Ever used marijuana||38%||58%|
|Current cocaine use||2%||14%|
|Current heroin use||2%||14%|
|Ever used steroids||2%||14%|
|Currently use marijuana||22%||35%|
Can education slow rebellious kids down or keep them from harming themselves? Perhaps, but the evidence on this score is not that encouraging. For instance, a large, well-designed, multi-year study of school-based education found essentially no effect on rates of smoking in adulthood4. Apparently this kind of evidence does not phase the CDC. The authors of the current CDC study warn that their data indicate that homosexual kids should be especially ‘educated’ and protected. But where are the similar warnings for teen smokers, teen drug users, and the promiscuous? Why should they get a ‘cold shoulder’ from the Feds? After all, what’s fair is fair… isn’t it?
- Cameron P, et al (2005) Homosexual sex as harmful as drug abuse, prostitution, or smoking. Psych Rpts, 96; 915-961. ↩
- Kann L, et al (2011) Sexual Identity, Sex of Sexual Contacts, and Health-Risk Behaviors Among Students in Grades 9-12 — Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance, Selected Sites, United States,2001-2009 (6/10/11). ↩
- Fergusson DL, et al (1999) Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Archives of General Psychiatry, 56; 876-880. ↩
- Peterson AV, et al (2000) Hutchinson smoking prevention project: long-term randomized trail in school-based tobacco use prevention — results on smoking. J National Cancer Inst, 92; 1979-91. ↩
The Kinsey Institute is at it again! Of course they’ve changed their name (Center for Sexual Health Promotion) and allied with other organizations and sexual policy ‘big-wigs,’ including the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and former Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders. But to hear them tell it, they have just released the biggest, most important sex survey ever. Well, not quite.
The new study — called the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior (NSSHB) — captured headlines all across the world on October 4 with one of its big findings that 8% of U.S. men and 7% of U.S. women said they were homosexual or bisexual! True? Probably not.
Though the survey methodology was touted as highly representative and authoritative, it still left a number of questions. Survey respondents were drawn by Knowledge Networks, an outfit that draws random samples from a larger probability-based panel of potential households. Individuals in the larger panel are queried a few times a month via email to see if they will take part in various surveys, one of which in 2009 was the new sex study. All data collection is done online.
What’s not very clear is how agreeing to participate in such a panel (and possibly getting paid to do it) might or might not be related to one’s sexual proclivities. Pilot tests described on the Knowledge Networks website seem to indicate that their recruitment process over-samples more educated individuals and under-samples the less educated (as might be expected given the need to use a computer and internet connection in order to respond to their survey requests).
Both Knowledge Networks and authors of the NSSHB results claimed that the sample weights for the study were adjusted to match demographic profile of the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS). Yet it is somewhat confusing as to what precisely was done.
One author noted that “Some participant characteristics were previously collected by Knowledge Networks for purposes of sample stratification and sample adjustments using post-stratification data weights. These measures included gender, age, race … and sexual orientation (heterosexual/straight, homosexual/gay/lesbian, bisexual, asexual, other)” (P. 257). However, a few paragraphs later is the statement: “During analyses, post-stratification data weights were applied to reduce variance and minimize bias caused by non-sampling error. Distributions for age, race, gender, Hispanic ethnicity, education, and U.S. Census region were used in post-stratification adjustments.”
So was the sexual orientation measure used to post-stratify the sample or not? Since post-stratification involves adjusting one’s sample — after the fact — so that the weighted proportion of respondents matches a pre-established target, knowing whether or not sexual orientation was used for these adjustments matters a great deal. If so, on what basis was the pre-established target calculated? And how could it have been when there are no regular national statistics or registries on sexual orientation — unlike characteristics such as race or gender — to provide a benchmark, and in fact, when estimating sexual preference was one of the goals of the study to begin with?
Based on the professional write-up, our best guess is that data on sexual orientation was collected separately from the main survey, but not necessarily used to post-stratify the survey sample. But if that is so, exactly how were the estimates of sexual preference compiled and computed? And was the same sample used both to estimate sexual orientation as well as to answer the ‘main’ survey?
Despite all the fanfare, the sample that was reported had a fairly high non-response/noncompletion-rate (as was true of our 1983-84 FRI survey). Consider that “[a] total of 2,172 parents (or legal guardians) reviewed the study, including the survey, and 62% (N= 1,347) consented for their child to be invited to participate. Of 1,347 adolescents [e.g., aged 14-17] contacted electronically, 831 responded, with 99% (820) consenting to participate. An electronic recruitment message was sent to 9,600 potential adult respondents, of whom 6,182 (64%) responded, with 82% (N= 5,045) consenting to participate” (P. 256-7).
Do the math and you find a 50% (5,865/11,772) overall response rate from the target sample. About 70% is common for large national surveys, but of course, sex surveys are inherently harder and fewer people tend to be willing to participate, especially those individuals of a conservative bent.
Estimates of sexual orientation reported by the NSSHB were as follows:
Table 1. Sexual Orientation by Subgroup, NSSHB (2010)
The estimates in Table 1 are weighted and post-stratified, as discussed above, in order to match the U.S. national demographic profile. However, when only half the target sample participates in the survey, it is quite possible that the respondents were different enough from the non-respondents to create a significant bias in the results.
What we found in our earlier survey (which had a similar number of respondents) was that liberals and the libertine were more likely to respond to a sex survey than the more conservative or sexually conventional. Homosexuals are ‘showy’ about their sexuality (e.g., ‘gay pride parades’), so just as we concluded in the FRI study that our relatively high level of non-response probably led to overestimating homosexual prevalence, so too the same may be true of the NSSHB.
In addition, many of the media headlines got it wrong to begin with (what a surprise!). While only 92% of adult men and 93% of women identified themselves as “heterosexual/straight,” a significant minority of the rest (1% of men; 2.3% of women) called themselves “other” (which presumably, from the professional report, grouped together the responses “asexual” and “other”). The FRI study similarly found that 2.1% of men and 3.9% of women said they were “not sexual,” so the “other” subset of the NSSHB should not be assumed to be homosexual. In fact, the reported tallies for combined adult gays/lesbians/bisexuals were 6.8% men and 4.5% women, somewhat less — especially for women — than the media headline of 8% gays and 7% lesbians.
Table 1 is also odd in other respects. Not the high prevalence of homosexuality, per se, but the difference between the sexual orientations of adolescents vs. adults. If we take these figures at face value, then about 3.3% of boys were homosexual, compared to 7.8% of men. For the girls, it’s just the opposite — 8.6% are homosexual in youth, but that shrinks to only 4.5% in adulthood. If these estimates are the ‘best ever,’ what mechanism explains this pattern? For instance, if individuals are ‘born’ homosexual, how could the percentages grow in boys and shrink in girls over time?
FRI suspects that the numbers themselves aren’t all that accurate. Not only do the estimated rates of homosexuality/bisexuality run considerably higher than other studies (such as the CDC’s 2005 report), but other results also don’t seem to jibe with previous research. An example of this is the reported prevalence of anal sex. The Guardian reported “More surprisingly, perhaps, the reported rate of anal sex has also increased dramatically, effectively doubling since the National Health and Social Life Survey was carried out by researchers from the University of Chicago in 1988” (www.guardian.co.uk, 10/5/10). So did the prevalence of anal sex really double in the past 20 years, or are the NSSHB results simply overstating the reality of things?
Part of the answer comes from ‘across the pond’ in Great Britain. It’s Office of National Statistics recently reported a much, much larger (~238,000 person) and more traditionally-executed study covering all of Britain. The Integrated Household Survey (IHS) was not primarily a study about sex, but for the first time included a question on sexual identity. Surveying those aged 16 or over (adulthood in Great Britain is reached at age 16), it found the results in Table 2.
Table 2. Self-Perceived Sexual Identity by Gender, IHS (2010)
|Gender (age 16+)||Heterosexual||Gay/Lesbian||Bisexual||Other||Don’t Know/Refusal/Non-response|
While it is certainly possible that rates of homosexuality differ between the U.S. and Great Britain, if anything, there is even more societal and legal support for homosexual expression in England than in America. Marriage-like civil partnerships, for instance, are legal throughout Britain. So you might guess that rates of homosexuality, were they to differ, would favor the English. And yet the IHS only found 1.6% of men and 1.3% of women claiming a homosexual or bisexual identity, about a third of the rates estimated in the American NSSHB. Why the difference?
At least two factors come to mind. One, the overall response/completion rate for the IHS was upwards of 96%, compared to only about 50% for the NSSHB. Very few individuals, therefore, failed to answer the question on sexual identity in Britain, meaning that the self-selection bias was likely fairly minimal. Indeed, the Office of National Statistics (ONS) did several tests of the survey either with or without the sexual identity question and found very similar response rates each time.
Second, and related to the first factor, because the rest of survey was not about sex, but only had this one question on sexual identity, it seems likely that it was not perceived as a significant invasion of one’s privacy. This in turn should have kept non-responses to a minimum and improved the overall accuracy of the results. The ONS also compared the IHS results to several other recent studies of sexual identity/orientation and found similar estimates of prevalence.
It is also interesting that — like nearly every other study on this topic over the past 50+ years — the IHS found a significant drop-off in the prevalence of homosexuality at older ages. Table 3 documents the reported results. Although the age groupings are fairly wide, note how the proportion claiming a homosexual or bisexual identity drops from 1.8-2.0% up to age 44, to 1.2% in middle-age, and down to 0.6% for those in old age.
These results provide further confirmation of the notion FRI has studied and documented for many years: either homosexuals tend to die at younger ages than heterosexuals, or they drop out of the lifestyle as they get older. The first possibility underscores the risks and unhealthiness that seem to be inherent in homosexual practice. The second puts the lie to the ‘born that way, always that way’ claim of homosexual activists. Either way, being homosexual may be ‘fun’ for awhile, but in the end it’s no picnic.
Table 3. Sexual Identity by Age Group, IHS (2010)
|Age Group||Heterosexual||Gay/Lesbian||Bisexual||Other||Don’t Know/Refusal/Non-response|
Today the courts are talking about the ‘right’ to engage in homosexuality, the ‘right’ of homosexuals to get married to each other, the ‘right’ to openly join the military, etc. Political candidates are afraid of appearing ‘homophobic.’ But 60 years ago, even 35 years ago, the U.S. had it right. Then, engaging in same-sex sex was NOT considered a ‘right.’ Indeed, those who engaged in homosexuality were seen as highly socially disruptive, due to a lengthy, and empirically-tested, set of reasons. In 1950, Congress discussed the Employment of Homosexuals and Other Sex Perverts in Government:1
Most of the authorities agree and our investigation has shown that the presence of a sex pervert in a Government agency tends to have a corrosive influence on his fellow employees. These perverts will frequently attempt to entice normal individuals to engage in perverted practices. This is particularly true in the case of young and impressionable people who might come under the influence of a pervert. Government officials have the responsibility of keeping this type of corrosive influence out of the agencies under their control. It is particularly important that the thousands of young men and women who are brought into Federal jobs not be subjected to that type of influence while in the service of the Government. One homosexual can pollute a Government office.
- PX2337 Employment of Homosexuals and Other Sex Perverts in Government, S Rep No 81-241, 81st Congress, 2d Session (1950) at 4 ↩
On March 19th, the San Francisco Chronicle opined “Pity the enemies of gay equality who find themselves at intellectual odds with America’s most prominent, and most prolific, philosopher of public life, Martha C. Nussbaum.” Professor of law and ethics at the University of Chicago, “Nussbaum has Paul Cameron’s arguments against gay rights in her sights, and she is considered nothing less than the second coming to America’s intellectuals. Even Richard Redding says she proves that there is no rational reason to oppose homosexuality — opposition to gay rights is merely ‘disgust.’”
Nussbaum’s From Disgust to Humanity: Sexual Orientation and Constitutional Law (2010) and Hiding from Humanity (2004) argue it is wrong permit disgust to influence public policy regarding homosexuals. Most, she argues, have “a deep aversion akin to that inspired by bodily wastes, slimy insects, and spoiled food — and then cite that very reaction to justify a range of legal restrictions, from sodomy laws to bans on same-sex marriage.” She believes the politics of disgust contradict equality of all under the law. “It says that the mere fact that you happen to make me want to vomit is reason enough for me to treat you as a social pariah, denying you some of your most basic entitlements as a citizen.”
Nussbaum complains “‘anti-gay activist… Paul Cameron, the founder and head of the Family Research Institute’ has ‘seized upon this response and employed it unethically to sway both legislative rulings and public opinion against gay rights.’” Unethically? Is it truly unethical to point out that certain behaviors are disgusting?
After President Clinton announced his intention in 1992 to allow homosexuals into the military, a slew of ‘first hand’ articles started to appear in major newspapers revealing how gays were not only ‘good soldiers,’ but also that they had a ‘secret network’ that extended to every military facility, including the Pentagon. This continues today — homosexuals are ‘proud’ to disobey or ignore their military vows should they interfere with their sex preferences, and journalists are proud to toady for them.
Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, and Johnson all felt that homosexuals were natural traitors and ought to be excluded from the military as well as any sensitive position (e.g., intelligence). They knew that a disproportionate number of Britain’s spies and traitors during the cold war — Guy Burgess, Donald Maclean, and Anthony Blunt among others — were homosexual Soviet agents.
Who is the current candidate for ‘worst traitor?’ Undoubtedly it would be Bradley Manning, whose ‘dump’ of tens of thousands of pages of secret materials about the Afghan war has resulted in fame for him and death for hundreds, if not thousands, of Afghans who helped our side. Why is Manning significant? Because his story illustrates yet another reason why homosexuals don’t belong in the military.
That’s what the headlines claimed. 77 lesbian families with 78 offspring gotten by artificial insemination [AI] were studied when the kids attained 17 years of age. And the kids did fine without fathers! Indeed, perhaps a bit better than those kids with fathers. Homosexuals are WONDERFUL.
Unfortunately, this study in Pediatrics is an example of the usual ‘gay investigators find gay parenthood is nifty’ kind of study promoted by the professional associations. No matter how poorly done the study or absurd the conclusions, the study gets great coverage and the investigators ‘get away with murder.’
In the Pediatrics article, the kids of lesbians were “rated [by their mothers] significantly higher in social, school/academic, and significantly lower in social, rule-breaking, aggressive, and externalizing problem behavior than the [standardized] comparison group.” Hmm. Read more
Might the march toward gay rights in the West at some point meld with widespread pederasty in the Middle East? This is not a rhetorical question. What ‘our allies’ do to boys in Afganistan and Pakistan echoes past Islamic practice and is cause for concern — especially since ‘our’ homosexuals have been successful in lowering the age of consent and are busily teaching Western children the wonders of homosexual sex.
We know that pederasty followed Muslim conquests from Spain to northern India and did not decline until the middle of the 18th century. Mohammed said “Beware of beardless youth for they are a greater source of mischief than young maidens.” Was he referring to men with sexual desires for boys?
The creation of the Taliban in Afghanistan offers a clue about the ‘dangerousness’ of boys: “Such is the Pashtun obsession with sodomy — locals tell you that birds fly over Kandahar using only one wing, the other covering their posterior — that the rape of young boys by warlords was one of the key factors in Mullah Omar mobilising the Taleban. In the summer of 1994… two [Afghan] commanders confronted each other over a young boy whom they both wanted to sodomise. In the ensuing fight civilians were killed. Omar’s group freed the boy and appeals began flooding in for Omar to help in other disputes. By November, Omar and his Taleban were Kandahar’s new rulers.”  Read more
If homosexuals are allowed to serve in the military, they will be recruiting in the showers, having sex in the barracks, and straights will undergo sensitivity training. Before long, the U.S. may be defended by the sex-obsessed and those who can tolerate kowtowing to them.
These are the truths that no one will speak.
Forget about ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ (DADT). The issue is NOT about whether those engaging in homosexual sex are, or are not, asked about their ‘sexual preferences.’ The real issue is whether the federal law against sodomy in the armed forces will be abolished either by statute or practice. If the law is abolished, not only will there be open homosexual sex in the barracks, but regulations against hostility to it will be enforced with vigor.
Of course, almost no one else is saying these things. So how can FRI be sure they are true?
It is the ‘nature’ of most homosexuals to ‘do their thing’ — and the more public the better. This characteristic has been noted throughout history. Sex, to the homosexually addicted, is close to the be-all and end-all of life. Why else have 300,000 male homosexuals died of AIDS, even though the mechanism — penile-anal sex — has been known since 1983? Why else do so many homosexuals engage in public sex? Why are there ‘gay pride’ parades?
How else to explain Adam Lambert? Instead of becoming just another rich ‘star,’ on November 22, he performed at the American Music Awards, broadcast on ABC. During his number, he proceeded to grind one of his dancer’s faces into his pelvis, grab the crotch of another, and passionately kiss his male keyboardist1. That “performance is something I’m extremely proud of and I wouldn’t change a thing. I am glad it facilitated a conversation about what kind of double standards there are out there.” Read more
- Macleans.ca, 2/8/10 ↩
‘Pedophilia’ and Male Homosexuality
Homosexuals have claimed for some time that they are no more apt than heterosexuals to molest children. Over the past three decades, professional associations have chimed in to support their claim. For instance, in Romer v. Evans, a 1994 brief by the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, and the American Psychiatric Association told the U.S. Supreme Court “there is no evidence of any positive correlation between homosexual orientation and child molestation” (pp. 23, 24). The same claims are made in most college textbooks. In fact, this position is so ingrained that two expert witnesses for State Attorney Generals’ offices told me they were banned from addressing disproportionate molestation when defending Arkansas regulations against foster parenting by homosexuals (decided June 29, 2006) and Florida’s defense of its law against homosexual adoption (decided November 25, 2008).
The state of knowledge was historically very different. In pre-Christian Greece, Aristophanes observed that men taken with homosexual relations “when they grow to be men, they become lovers of boys, and it requires the compulsion of convention to overcome their natural disinclination to marriage and procreation.” More recently, a 1970s survey conducted by the Kinsey Institute reported that while aged 21 or older, 23% of 671 gays said they had sex with boys aged 16 or younger. And of 4,329 gays sampled by Jay and Young — both open homosexuals — about 22% reported sex with boys and over 30% openness to, or approval of, sex with boys.
Despite this evidence, Scotland has decided to protect homosexual practitioners in a very significant way. Recent events in Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Dundee ought to jolt Scots into rethinking those protections. Read more
Society justly discriminates against those who steal, dog it on the job, or swindle. On the basis of public health, it justly discriminates against smokers or those who use illegal drugs. Everyone recognizes how wrong and/or injurious these behaviors are and that they need to be discouraged.
But why doesn’t the same thing happen when one’s sexual lifestyle is so defective that they are more apt to commit suicide, get assorted STDs and cancers, and not live as long? What if they contribute less to society but, at the same time, are actually given more — in terms of benefits and protections — than average citizens? What is the response to being protected as a ‘sexual minority’ instead of being justly discriminated against? The answer? Seek even more protections — for injustice breeds more injustice.
What argument to use, however, for even more societal support? If someone is costing society more than most and contributing less than most — because of what sets them apart as a ‘sexual minority’ — and they further disrupt society by taking over rest areas, publicly having sex, and raising all kinds of cane… why shouldn’t society justly conclude that vigorous discrimination is the remedy?
The clear answer: turn the tables by contending that such discrimination is inherently unjust, and that being discriminated against causes all these bad things to happen to them.
Why not, in fact, launch a formal suit against society with these pretenses as evidence? Many might suppose ‘if they sue, surely they must be unjustly discriminated against.’ Further, filing such a suit could make it appear that society causes homosexuals to be less healthy. After all, most sane people don’t sue unless there is some merit to their case.
Of course, homosexuals are neither ‘normal’ nor particularly ‘sane.’ They are never going to frame the suit in terms of their behavior. Just how far would such a suit go if homosexuals publicly contended that they ‘innocently put their penises into places they don’t belong, got infected, so… society is to blame for any resulting infections and diseases…’?
No wonder then that the suit launched this year against Canadian society never mentions what homosexuals do or the medical consequences that result from this behavior. To hear the homosexuals tell it, it isn’t the anal sex or promiscuity that causes harm, it’s society’s disapproval of their activities.
Posturing as victims worked with AIDS. The slogan ‘everybody with AIDS is innocent’ seems too silly to have worked. But it did. HIV gets more research dollars per infected person than any other disease!
So why not run the same scheme for all the other maladies and troubles associated with the gay lifestyle? Exactly this is now happening in Canada. In a suit filed February 2009, the gay/lesbian/bisexual lobby complains about inequality! Consider their opening:
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 when compared with programming supports for the general population and other minority populations, from Health Canada or the Public Health Agency of Canada. In particular, the GLB population is not included as a priority population and therefore receives no dedicated funding when addressing those health issues where GLB communities are disproportionately affected. Such inequities occur despite departmental and agency mandates, and precedents each have established in providing dedicated funding for other specific minority populations [as Canada’s Native Indians].
These government departments might suggest that GLB populations aren’t specifically excluded from their programs and services. However, ignoring the unique health needs of our community is a form of discrimination against our communities.
Remember the Marxian ideal, “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs?” Gay activists are not about to address whatever their responsibilities might be (i.e., “from each”), but the “needs” part is right down their alley. After all, every decent empirical study shows that homosexuals generate so many problems for themselves (as well as others), that they ‘need’ all kinds of help.
Married people live healthier, longer, and are generally richer. So, from the liberal perspective of inequity, it makes sense that they should be taxed to give ‘special benefits’ to those who pursue homosexual interests.
Isn’t it simply shocking that the Canadian government is not “actively or methodically working to address the unique health and wellness issues faced by lesbian, gay and bisexual Canadians… [And this even though] the health status of GLB Canadians is among the poorest of any population in Canada”?
Wow. What might have caused this terrible circumstance?
For one thing, a lack of money for GLB leaders “to work with the government to improve their health.” Didn’t you know that the
GLB population is not included as a priority population and therefore receives no dedicated funding when addressing those health issues where GLB communities are disproportionately affected. Such inequities occur despite departmental and agency mandates, and precedents each have established in providing dedicated funding for other specific minority populations.
So what is the evidence of this terrible discrimination? The simple fact that, by almost every measure, homosexuals are less healthy. ‘Obviously,’ homosexual sex is just as ‘healthy’ as normal, heterosexual sex, so it must be discrimination that ‘explains’ the discrepancies.
Consider the catalogue of harms raised in the GLB suit — all of which is our fault.
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.
How much? The
life expectancy of gay/bisexual men in Canada is 55 years…. Less research has been conducted on the life expectancy for lesbians in Canada but health indicators suggest that while it is not as low as that for gay men, it is still lower than the life expectancy of the general population.
Surely this reduced lifespan is not a consequence of what homosexuals do — no matter how biologically dangerous or disgusting. It must be because we refuse to say and believe that what they do is just grand.
When compared with the heterosexual population, 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. A more usually quoted number is that GLB people have a suicide rate 3 times greater than that of the general population and that GLB people comprise 30% of all suicides in Canada.
FRI agrees that violence — including suicide — is more common among those who engage in homosexuality. How much more so? Hard to tell — since those who succeed can’t be questioned.
The rate of suicide has stayed fairly steady at 11/100,000 population in the U.S. and about 12/100,000 in Canada. Most suicides appear to be associated with use of drugs or alcohol. To FRI’s knowledge, the one study that did a social-psychological autopsy of a set of suicides found an excess, but not a doubling, of suicides among those who engaged in homosexuality. This difference was not large enough to be ‘statistically significant.’
If the 1.7% of Canadians who are identified by Statistics Canada as ‘gay’ commit 30% of all suicides (e.g., ~1200 suicides per year) their lives must be miserable, since such a figure would suggest a rate of suicide around 25 times higher for this subgroup. FRI doubts this claim, but if anywhere near true, this is a sufficient fact to damn homosexual behavior, and to drill it into the heads of school children. They should be encouraged to stay away from kids or adults messing with homosexuality, rather than be introduced to homosexuality as a possible ‘healthy’ choice.
Surely this heightened suicide rate is not a consequence of what homosexuals do — their instability, their promiscuity, etc. It must be because we refuse to say and believe that what they do is just terrific!
But consider their claim that “[s]uicide is preventable and with appropriate programming the suicide rate in GLB people could be substantially reduced.” The media is forever reporting on suicide prevention programs in schools. Unfortunately, desire or intent to ‘prevent’ or ‘treat’ suicide is not the same thing as actually making a difference. The outcome studies of ‘suicide prevention’ programs almost unanimously find either no effect, or perhaps a slight increase because of them.
Studies have found that GLB people have smoking rates ranging from a low of 1.3 times higher, to 3 times higher, than that of the general population. Studies of GLB youth have shown smoking rates even higher, with one study of young lesbians in the southern United States stating that 78% were smokers.
FRI agrees with this assessment. Those who engage in homosexuality are considerably more apt to smoke.
Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada have funded extensive social marketing campaigns to reduce smoking rates, although few of those campaigns targeted GLB communities. As with suicide, smoking is preventable and with appropriate programming the smoking rate in GLB people could be substantially reduced.
Notice that while homosexuals have apparently already gotten at least some money for “extensive marketing campaigns,” the result has been nil — homosexuals are still more apt to smoke. Why is this if they have been ‘targeted’ (albeit infrequently) for marketing campaigns? Because no marketing or education campaign has been shown to reduce smoking long-term. None. Not for anyone, let alone homosexuals.
So why has the rate of smoking gone down? Partially because it costs more these days (more taxes, mainly), but mostly because — in harmony with the research and recommendations of FRI’s Chairman, Dr. Paul Cameron, in the late 1960s-early 1970s — smokers are quarantined from restaurants, public buildings, etc.
Those who are quarantined are discriminated against by others because ‘society’ has said they are either doing wrong or that they have a contagious disease or condition. Some stop because of the inconvenience. Some stop because of this discrimination. But one thing is certain — being quarantined discourages many from taking up the habit and others from continuing it. The same is true of homosexuality: society gets more of what it protects and lauds, less of what is difficult and discriminated against.
Studies into the rates of alcoholism in GLB people show a range from a low of 1.4 times higher, to a high of 7 times greater, than the general population.
FRI agrees with this assessment. Those ‘addicted’ to one thing or substance (in this case homosexual behavior) are more apt to also be ‘addicted’ to another thing or substance. Smokers are more apt to use illegal drugs. Druggies are more apt to engage in homosexuality, participate in violence, etc.
It is estimated that 5% of the general population experiences severe depression at some point in their lives. However, studies into depression within the GLB community show rates ranging from a low of 1.8 times higher, to a high of 3 times higher….
FRI agrees that the ‘gay’ life leads many to severe depression.
It is within the area of HIV/AIDS that the inequities in Health Canada and Public Health Agency of Canada policies and programs vis-à-vis GLB people are most clearly illustrated. Gay and bisexual men… comprise 76.1% of the AIDS cases since statistics were first kept…. The GLB community has borne the brunt of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, yet 25 years after the epidemic first appeared in Canada there has never been a dedicated program or strategy — and by extension, sufficient funding — to tackle this epidemic in the GLB community.
If one uses Statistics Canada’s figure of 1.7% for the percentage of the population that is homosexual or bisexual, then the HIV infection rate is at least 26 times higher than the general population.
Of course, those who practice homosexuality run all sorts of risks. But “borne the brunt” congers up images of an invading army of virus sweeping through the land, and either
- brave homosexuals stepping up meet the threat head-on, or
- innocent homosexuals being unjustly targeted for infection!
The sad fact is that these individuals got and spread the disease because of their sexual habits, not because of any chivalry on their part or some nefarious conspiracy to target homosexual practitioners.
Gay men, lesbians and bisexual men and women are at higher risk for some cancers as a result of their sexual orientation and because preventative messaging is not targeted at GLB communities. Because of higher rates of smoking and alcohol use, GLB populations are at a higher risk for lung and liver cancer. Sexually-active gay and bisexual men have a higher prevalence of anal cancer precursors due to frequent exposure to the human papillomavirus, a virus believed also to be a contributor to high rates of head, throat and neck cancers among this same population.
Lesbians are reported to be at a higher risk for breast cancer based on particular risk factors more prevalent in this population. Lesbians are also at increased risk for cervical cancer….
Shame on society! These poor homosexuals are suffering because we haven’t found a way to either prevent their infection or cure them. After all, they are only doing what their sexual orientation ‘forces’ them to do.
Blood and Organ Donations
While we recognize that the Canadian Blood Services (CBS) is primarily responsible for the policies around the safety of blood transfusions, we believe that Health Canada, which funds the CBS, is ultimately responsible for the policy that prevents any gay or bisexual male from donating blood if they have had sexual intercourse with another man since 1977. Since this policy has no basis in science, is it possible that some Health Canada officials still fear a risk of being sued because of their role in the tainted blood scandal and are taking a course of action that protects them to the detriment of GLB Canadians?
Hmm… hundreds of Canadians have been infected by using blood from male homosexuals. Unfortunately, dropping the restriction on homosexual donations while using the best and latest blood tests won’t eliminate the risk, only reduce it: maybe down to at most 1 transfusion-related infection per year. Which is more important: keeping the blood supply as close to 100% safe as possible or placating homosexuals by eliminating the current donor restrictions?
Other countries have examined their policies and made changes regarding blood donations from gay or bisexual men. [In] the United States, [a] spokesperson from the American Red Cross said, ‘It does not appear rational to treat gay sex differently from straight sex.’ There is no real scientific justification for maintaining the discriminatory lifetime ban on blood donations by men who have sex with another man. However, such a policy sends a powerful message that gay and bisexual men are a threat to public health.
Is this a joke? “It does not appear rational to treat gay sex differently from straight sex”? Gay sex is inherently biologically dangerous and disgusting. To placate homosexuals, we are all to live within the embrace of a LIE. No matter what the Red Cross says, heterosexual sex is necessary for our society to continue; homosexual sex is — at its most benign — unproductive, and usually, disease-spreading. People are ‘homophobic’ because they should be.
Who knows whether the Canadian government will decide that even more risk must be borne by the general public to satisfy the sensitivities of homosexuals? And, of course, if gay activists win their suit, the general public will have to cough up more money to also employ these activists to ‘try to prevent’ the excess suicides, STDs, murders, etc. associated with homosexual behavior.
The moral of the story: injustice breeds more injustice.
Evangelicals were John McCain’s most reliable supporters in the 2008 presidential contest. Exit polls had white Evangelicals voting 74% for him (black Evangelicals, of course, went Barack Obama’s way). This degree of ‘solidarity’ is about as high as it gets among the coalition that makes up the Republican Party. In contrast, 83% of white Jews and 97% of blacks voted for Obama.
Evangelicals were also the most reliable voters against gay causes. Evangelicals voted against gay marriage 81% strong in California — where only the name ‘marriage’ was protected, since gay civil unions have all the rights of marriage within the state. They also went against gay marriage 81% strong in Florida — where civil unions were abolished by the vote — and voted 81% against gay marriage in Arizona.
So Evangelicals were stronger against gay marriage — by about 10% — than they were for John McCain.
Evangelicals were somewhat less protective of children (or perhaps confused), voting 65% against gay adoption in Arkansas. Overall, one could point to Evangelicals — who make up almost a quarter of the electorate — as the strongest opponents of gay rights, even as one could point to Jews as gays’ strongest religious supporters (62% of Jews voted against the Florida marriage amendment and thus not to abolish homosexual civil unions or the possibility of gay marriage). So much for the term ‘Judeo-Christian’ having much political meaning.
Given these voting patterns, there is a substantial disconnect between the Evangelical rank and file and many in the Evangelical leadership. On December 2nd, Richard Cizik, the Chief Lobbyist and Vice President for Governmental Affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) said on National Public Radio that
I would willingly say that I believe in civil unions. I don’t officially support redefining marriage from its traditional definition — I don’t think.
Who knows what Cizik would ‘unwillingly say,’ but what he said was quite enough. After all, the NAE claims to represent 45,000 U.S. churches — churches that claim allegiance to the same Bible that calls homosexual behavior an ‘abomination.’
Yet, it is hard to say whether Cizik topped Dr. Neil Clark Warren. Dr. Warren has in recent years made a name for himself advertising his eHarmony online dating service. Evangelicals, in particular, have thronged to eHarmony, making Dr. Warren wealthy. So what did Dr. Warren do when he was sued in New Jersey by a homosexual who claimed he was being discriminated against because he couldn’t get a gay date on eHarmony?
‘Fold’ is the answer.
Readers of FRR may recall that New Jersey wanted the Boy Scouts to use gay scoutmasters because of its gay rights law. Yet when the dust settled at the U.S. Supreme Court, the Boy Scouts were vindicated — their Constitutional right of association trumped New Jersey’s gay rights law. Surely, a website dedicated to heterosexual marriage would be free of having to also be dedicated to homosexual trysts.
Despite this precedent, when eHarmony was pressed by New Jersey’s attorney general, it decided to just fold. And a magnificent fold it was. In an out-of-court settlement, Warren’s enterprise agreed to cover $50,000 in administrative costs for the Attorney Generals’ office, pay the homosexual $5,000 for his trouble, and give free six-month memberships to the first 10,000 homosexuals who register for a new ‘egayharmony’ site! (Which, by the way, is not equal, but ‘separate but equal’ treatment — shades of the Jim Crow laws before the Civil Rights act).
An enterprise that regularly touted its wares on Focus on the Family radio, folded rather than stand up for even the most rudimentary Christian principle. Now, those who use eHarmony will know that they are helping homosexuals to ‘hook up,’ spread disease, create generalized mayhem, and flaunt their sexuality in front of God, society, and the rest of the world. Bad? Certainly. Worst? Hard to say.
New Lows With Prop 8
Supporters of Proposition 8 in California, including Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family and Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church, hit a number of new lows.
As noted, Proposition 8 reserved the name ‘marriage’ for the union of a man and a woman — but nothing more. In part because of the campaign for Proposition 22 in 2000 — a campaign in which those opposed to gay marriage said that they didn’t object to homosexuality, didn’t care about what homosexuals did, didn’t care whether gays got civil unions, etc. — California passed several laws favoring gay rights, with legislators and homosexual activists citing these very ‘don’t cares.’
Those laws require pro-gay ‘education’ about homosexuality in school, the right to ‘civil unions’ as the equivalent of marriage in all but name, and all kinds of special protections and legal enhancements for those who enjoy homosexual activity. So unlike Florida’s pro-marriage proposition, California’s was exceedingly narrow. The only legal change required by Prop 8 would be the denial of the name ‘marriage’ to homosexual civil unions. Nothing more.
Yet the advertising for Proposition 8 — including ads sponsored by Focus on the Family Action — suggested that its passage would protect kids from pro-gay education, keep their teachers from ‘coming out’ to students, keep homosexuality a private matter, and the like. None of these implications or claims was true. Only the name ‘marriage’ was in play. To be sure, had it failed, homosexuals might have felt emboldened to do even more recruiting and advertising. But Prop 8 was about signage — the name on the ‘marriage store.’ The store itself had already been frittered away. As Rick Warren indicated (News One, 12/28/08), “I’m not opposed to gays having their partnership. I’m opposed to gays using the term marriage for their relationship.”
Given how far Evangelical leaders went with their rhetoric and money — about $30 million was spent by the pro-Prop 8 side, $45 million by gay activists — it can be argued that Prop 8’s passage was a victory. Yet, even with the questionable rhetoric and heavy advertising, it barely passed. Further, if Barack Obama had not been running on the Democratic ticket, it would have almost certainly failed. Why? Because most (51%) whites and Asians (who made up 69% of the electorate) voted against it. Prop 8 won because of the black vote — a vote that went 70% for Prop 8.
Of course, that’s not how Prop 8 supporters described it. Reuters (11/6/08) quoted Jeff Flint, one of the managers for the Prop 8 campaign, as saying “we won because we stuck to our guns of being pro-marriage and not anti-gay.” Gay marriage ban supporters avoided any public criticism of homosexuals, even when they said they did not want schools to “teach” gay marriage.
And all of this has happened in just the last two months! The Evangelical leadership is quickly retreating from anything resembling historic Christian principles regarding homosexuality. The same kinds of thing happened in the Episcopal Church, now famously being torn asunder by the pro-gay tilt of its leadership versus the anti-gay sentiments of the laity.
Will the disconnect between what their followers believe and what the Evangelical leadership is doing have any repercussions? The Episcopal Church leadership ‘owns’ the facilities of the denomination, so its opinions are hard and costly to oppose. After all, they might take church property away from dissident congregations. The Evangelical leadership has nothing but ‘moral suasion’ and a kind of tradition on its side. Indeed, churches usually have to pay (or donate) to be affiliated with given leaders or organizations.
The folk in the pews — as demonstrated by their votes on gay marriage — are not likely to ‘go along’ with the leadership if it wants to compromise on gay rights. Stay tuned. This, like the Episcopal mess, could be a barnburner.
Ever wonder why the media is so tilted to the ‘immediate’ instead of looking ahead? When a reporter doesn’t have children of his or her own, what happens after one retires or dies is of lesser moment. Out.com (10/31/08) says:
The chief political correspondent for The New York Times since 2002, Adam Nagourney, is gay, as is his predecessor in that job, Rick Berke, who started in the paper’s Washington bureau in 1986 and is now a top-level editor in New York. Likewise the Times’s lead Barack Obama reporter, Jeff Zeleny, its lead Hillary Clinton reporter, Patrick Healy, and the man who ambled behind George W. Bush in 2000, Frank Bruni. There’s Michael Finnegan, a campaign heavyweight at the Los Angeles Times, and Jonathan Darman, Newsweek’s 27-year-old wunderkind political scribe.
Gays Still Less Healthy
If gays are ‘accepted’ and ‘protected,’ if homosexuality is taught in public schools as a good thing, will gays be healthier? Such is the claim of gay activists. ‘Reduce homophobia,’ they assert, ‘and we will be as healthy as anyone. It is society’s discrimination and non-acceptance, not out lifestyle, that makes us less healthy.’
Now we have a test out of all places, Massachusetts — home to perhaps the most gay-friendly governments at the state and local level, and home to gay marriage, as well as gay ‘super rights.’ It recently reported the findings from a grand statewide survey (November 2008) in which almost 40,000 adults were interviewed. This report by the Department of Public Health used data collected from the 2001-2006 Massachusetts Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. 97.1% self-identified as straight, and 2.9% as gay/bisexual.
So, in a state that bends for all things homosexual, are gays healthier? Not a chance.
The health profile of gay/lesbian/homosexual residents was poorer than that of heterosexual/straight residents on just about every measure, including self-reported health, disability-related activity limitation, heart disease, asthma, current and past tobacco smoking, anxious mood and depression, 30-day binge drinking and substance use, and lifetime and 12-month sexual assault victimization. In addition, lesbians were more likely to be obese.
As FRI has noted and published, all the large surveys heretofore in the professional literature — from Kinsey to the U.S. 2002 National Survey Of Family Growth — have reported similar findings. And they emerged from this survey too, even though the head of the Massachusetts department of health is openly gay.
Again we ask: if discrimination is the problem, why are homosexuals less healthy in even the most gay-affirming and accepting locales? To read the whole report, search Google for ‘A Health Profile of Massachusetts Adults by Sexual Orientation Identity: Results from the 2001-2006 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Surveys.’
FRI’s Visit to Moldova
Pictures from our sucessful visit to Moldova. FRI is working to get the ‘ducks in a row’ in Eastern Europe, so that this distressed region does not undergo further distress with gay rights and gay marriage. Many, particularly the high school students at the advanced schools, were extremely grateful to receive the information that FRI provided.
Very few students were ‘sold’ on the pro-gay rights line. Indeed, most appreciated the kinds of information that would help them combat the kinds of rhetoric coming from the European Union in general, and Sweden in particular. Most were attentive, and the questions they asked were typical of the ones Americans ask (e.g., Why do people want to engage in homosexual relations? Are they ‘born that way’ and if not, why not? How come we haven’t been told these kinds of things?).
Journal of the
Family Research Institute
Vol. 13 No. 4
A tantalizing mix
The headlines screamed, and even
National Public Radio crowed: even in the inner-city, AIDS can be prevented!
for less than $300 apiece, inner-city Blacks and Hispanics can be "taught
to use condoms" and, as a consequence, not get AIDS. If true, a BIG DEAL.
But the reality does not match the rhetoric.
Here was the plan. Separate those
coming to STD clinics by sex into small groups of 5 to 15 persons. Ask each
person to attend 7 twice-weekly 90-to-120 minute sessions on AIDS prevention/risk
reduction. At these sessions, have the leaders and other group members pressure
participants to be safe, use condoms, use clean needles, etc. Let a control
group just go to a 1 hour session featuring an AIDS prevention videotape. Then,
over the next year, assess the participants in the study at the 3rd month, 6th
month, and 12th month for: 1) self-reported claims of condom-use in the 90 days
before the interview, 2) for men only, STDs as indicated on their chart at the
STD clinic, and 3) at the 12th month follow-up, tested prevalence of chlamydia
and gonorrhea via a urine sample.
About 1850 were involved in each
of the experimental and control groups. Whether participants were paid is not
clear, but the average number of "booster" sessions (called "dosex")
that the experimental group attended was 5.2, and 63% attended 6 or 7 sessions.
The experimental group claimed that
they were using condoms more often than the control group at each of the 3 assessments.
While statistically significant, the differences were not enormous. The average
number of "unprotected intercourse acts" claimed at the 12th month
assessment was 16.7 for the controls, 13.2 for the experimentals who attended
5 or fewer sessions, and 11.2 for those experimentals who attended 6 or 7 sessions.
The experimental group also claimed fewer symptoms that were suggestive of STDs.
If you can take people at their word
on these matters, a mild success. The objective measures, however, were not
good news for the investigators.
When it came to STDs as indexed by
the STD clinic charts, there was no difference between the experimental and
control groups about 9% in each case contracted an STD over the year. The investigators
did find that gonorrhea was a bit less common in the men in the experimental
group (1%) than in the control men (2%) on the STD charts. But the urine test
at the 12th month found no statistically significant differences between the
groups in gonorrhea or chlamydia.
So what we have is a fairly strong
study that generated weak or no findings. Just like the French study in 1991
that found no effect of public AIDS education upon STD rates (Family Research
Report, June-Sept, 1991), this study found at most a "hint" that a
fairly intensive small-group effort might actually reduce STDs.
While the authors argued that people
could be relied upon to "tell the truth" about their condom use, FRI
is skeptical. But if the authors were correct, then consider what they didn’t
find. In contrast to the small correlation reported between attending more booster
sessions and self-reported condom use, there was no report of any correlation
between self-reported condom-use and STDs.
Why not? Apparently there was no
such correlation. This non-finding punches a hole in the condom-theory of STD
prevention. You have to wonder whether the belief in the efficacy of condoms
is one of science or one of faith.
Multisite HIV prevention trial group. The NIMH multisite HIV prevention trail:
reducing HIV sexual risk behavior. Science, 1998,280, 1889-94.
FRI is often asked about ex-gay ministries.
We generally give mildly-endorsing referrals to these efforts. After all, their
intentions are good. However, these organizations are not an unmixed blessing.
Consider some of the following facts:
is no doubt that some who engage in homosexuality are converted or weaned
away from the lifestyle by these groups. This fact riles gay activists since
the bulk of them claim that they were born that way and can’t change. The existence
of those who have changed is a real ‘bug in the gay bonnet’ since it puts the
lie to one of their tactics. And it forces gay apologists to argue that those
who have changed weren’t really gay, or else they couldn’t have changed a rather
silly tautology that ignores the plain evidence.
Despite the living testimonials
of many ex-gays, there is little doubt that the cure rates among the ex-gay
organizations are nothing to brag about. All addictions, particularly sexual
addictions, are hard to break and many more people attempt to break away than
finally succeed. A great deal of time, effort, and money has to be expended
for each cure. Per dollar, the cure rate for sexual addictions is among the
worst of all the habitual sins.
Alcoholics Anonymous appears to have
popularized the ‘it takes one to save one’ slogan. Although this theme has influenced
many social workers over the past several decades, the evidence that it truly
works is not so clear. FRI has attempted to nail down proof that ex-druggies
do the best work converting druggies away from drugs, ex-drunks do the best
weaning alcoholics from alcohol, and ex-gays do the best converting homosexuals
away from homosexuality. So far, we have not found convincing evidence that
any of the Ex- programs run by Ex’s are more successful than programs manned
by non-professional non-Ex’s or those run by psychologists, social workers,
or psychiatrists. Either way, the success rate with addicts is not very high.
Because they tap into the ‘it takes
one to save one’ principle, the leaders of the ex-gay ministries don’t have
to have college degrees, and generally they don’t. The enthusiasm of the converted
is counted as good as or better than degrees. But perhaps formal learning doesn’t
make any difference when it comes to helping people. After all, many studies
that have compared the cure rates of students in psychology or psychiatry often
report as good or better cure rates for the students than Ph.D.s or M.D.s in
the field. Such heavy reliance upon enthusiasm, however, is troubling to those
that want reliable hard facts. After all, those who are not technically trained
will have difficulty evaluating the scientific literature on homosexuality (or
any other) topic. Enthusiasm is no substitute for the training that enables
critical evaluation of technical reports and scientific claims.
Everything Works Some of the Time
An important fact to remember when
evaluating the claims of any cure or program is that just about any treatment
or cure works for some people. In fact, FRI is unaware of any touted program,
from nude therapy to shock therapy and everything in between, that can’t claim
some successes and trot out some testimonials to prove it. There are always
some who testify that a given program did them some good or cured them.
The real issue then is not whether
some are helped, since some always are, but rather whether some reasonably predictable
proportion of those contacted by the Ex-program are cured. Further, how does
the proportion who are cured compare to the proportions cured by other programs
or simply by waiting until the person gets older (which works for most addictions
if the person doesn’t die first).
Usually, curative-minded groups or
treatments claim about a 1/3 success rate for those who stay the course of the
entire treatment. Of course, many addicts drop into Ex-groups for a look see.
Some will even try the program or treatment out for a while. But many, probably
even most, don’t stay the course. How do you count these people? If you consider
them failures, then the program looks worse. But it they are not counted at
all, that’s not quite fair either. Clearly, figuring cure rates for any given
Ex-program is exceptionally difficult.
Figuring cure rates is even more
difficult when the program or organization deliberately avoids collecting data.
Exodus, the largest Ex-gay consortium, does not collect any form of data on
cures or conversions. Instead, it collects data on number of books sold, number
of inquiries, number of attendees at conferences, etc. As with many social service
organizations, Exodus has no hard evidence that its approach works, other than
the usual set of testimonials.
In May we talked with a member of
the Exodus board of directors. He offered the usual social service line that
we don’t know how many were reached, but we know some are. And whether it’s
one or many, at least… We talked with leaders of another ex-gay group in June,
and they gave the same answer. This is somewhat frustrating, since there are
always people who would like funding under the guise of helping others. Prudence
dictates that programs demonstrate how much bang for the buck they deliver.
Unfortunately, like so many social service or helping programs, the ex-gay ministries
cannot provide that crucial information.
When government programs have been
carefully evaluated, they usually fail to accomplish much. So proof of efficacy
is both a legitimate and prudent request. When Bob Davies, North American director
of Exodus, was pinned by gay activists in mid-July, 1998 that two of the initial
leaders of Exodus had left their wives for homosexuality, he said "We don’t
claim to have 100 percent success. We know that there are many people that come
to Exodus who after a period of time realize that because of the difficulty
in the change process they lose heart and give up…that does not negate the
fact that there are many people who stick with it and experience significant
change." (Christian News 7/27/98)
As the example of Exodus suggests,
some of the leaders of the ex-gay movement appear to be still semi-entangled
with the lifestyle. As a consequence, a significant number of those in leadership
fall back into homosexuality, when, had they just quit, got away, stayed away,
and moved on, they might have escaped entirely.
It is a sad truth that those who
were once seriously involved with an addiction are more susceptible to the temptations
of that addiction than those who were never addicted to begin with. Public record
documents several cases of leaders of ex-alcoholic and ex-drug abuser programs
who ‘fell off the wagon.’ When those who are struggling with an addiction or
sin are around others who are so tempted, bad things can happen, and frequently
For instance, imagine that you have
a large church. Adultery is a common problem. In a large congregation, it is
predictable that many are struggling with having committed adultery or being
sorely tempted to. Let us further imagine that you organize a program to help
such individuals. You announce that at such a time in such a room all those
who have committed adultery or desire to do so will meet together to comfort
each other, pray, read the Bible, listen to speeches from those who have overcome,
What will happen? Predictably, chaos.
Every man in the room will know that
every woman in the room either has or wants to commit adultery. Every woman
in the room will know that every man in the room either has or wants to commit
adultery. While some may be helped by this ministry, it is certain that the
program will also be a stimulus to pairing up adulterous individuals, serving
as a kind of introduction agency. By focusing a ministry on a particular sin
or problem, and bringing together those with that particular difficulty, significant
problems are almost guaranteed.
Consider this testimony from lesbian
Sandi Wiggins: "A little over ten years ago I was involved with two different
Ex-Gay ministries. I was involved to the point where I was a small group leader
and a hotline phone counselor. My thinking was completely change imperative.
I engaged Ex-Gay ministries because of my own deep cognitive and spiritual distress
about being a Christian and a lesbian. I met my partner at an Exodus conference.
About five years ago, I turned to yet a third Ex-gay ministry.
"Within the past two years,
I have been praying and brooding more intensely for resolution in my soul. I
had deeply internalized homophobia because of the way I understood that the
Bible and hence God thought about me. I totally believed that I could not live
a fulfilling life or be a Christian or be self-actualized unless my same gender
"Now I have seen that all these
things are possible in my life and that I can truly continue to follow Jesus."
Notice the progression.
Sandi had "internalized homophobia."
That is, she felt bad about her involvement with homosexuality. But she DID
NOT WANT TO GIVE IT UP, so she hung around those with homosexual desires, ostensibly
to help them (and, FRI suspects, she genuinely wanted to help them quit). Still,
homosexuals were all around her. If she changed her mind again, the ‘right’
people were there to help her bail out and go back. Sandi hung around homosexuality
and homosexuals and eventually met her true [homosexual] love.
Jesus said that "If you love
me you will follow my commandments," including those commandments against
sexual immorality. Unfortunately, when asked to choose between sexual and/or
personal fulfillment and following Christ, people often choose the former and
reinterpret the latter.
If Ms. Wiggins had got free and moved
on, her life today might be very different. But now she is a cancer in both
the ex-gay movement and the church, arguing and proving by her very life that
one can claim to follow Jesus without actually doing so.
(To Be Continued in Next Issue)
Wolf, 40, lives in Lancaster, SC, a state considering a "hate crimes"
law. To prove how badly hate-crime protection was needed she presented herself,
beaten and bleeding, to police. But, as with so many other "hate crimes,"
it was faked. It seems Wolf paid someone to beat her and then spray paint both
her and her double-wide mobile home with hate slogans such as "Jesus weren’t
born for you, faggot."
Wolf’s mother, lover and other gay
rights activists have used her as a poster-child, pointing to her beatings,
as proof of the need for such laws. Gay rights groups have called her a symbol
of persecution and rallied at the State House for hate laws. They also blasted
law enforcement officials for dragging their feet in the investigation.
The sheriff noted that thousands
of hours of police time had been spent on her case. FRI has also learned that
the Attorney General’s office is probably going to proceed against Wolf. South
Carolina has solid laws against perjury.
What a strange world. "Hate
crimes" are so attractive that homosexuals injure themselves and their
property to "prove" that they are hated by others and to get sympathetic
attention. FRI is unaware of any other kind of new law that tempts so many people
to become "victims" because of its existence. Even though maybe half
of the claims of rape are false or embellished, anti-rape laws have been around
for a long time. The newly-created hate crimes laws are spawning a brand new
class of fake victims.
(NY Times 7/17/98)
Title IX, a federal law that bars
"sex discrimination," protects gays! That’s the decision of the U.S.
Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Under a ruling in Fayetteville,
AR, the OCR will "monitor the school system’s progress until June 1999."
Former Fayetteville student William Wagner, 17, and his parents active in Parents
and Friends of Lesbians and Gays brought the suit.
William, who was openly "gay,"
suffered "anti-Gay harassment throughout 1995 and 1996, when he was in
grades 8 to 10. Openly Gay, he was constantly jeered by students with epithets
like ‘fking faggot,’ was taunted about wanting sex with other boys and had drawings
passed around of him in sexual acts." In the 10th grade William was beat
up by some boys who were convicted of battery.
David Buckel of Lambda (an ACLU-like
organization for homosexuals), noted that since sexual orientation discrimination
in public schools is not barred by federal statute, the OCR had to be convinced
that the harassment William suffered was sexual. "Buckel notes that not
all anti-Gay discrimination and harassment in schools will constitute sexual
harassment under the federal statute. For example, he says, if students heckle
another student with anti-Gay comments but their actions or language do not
involve sexual conduct, those actions would not be sexual harassment. But other
abuse, as in the Wagner case, would constitute sexual harassment. For example,
Buckel says, if schools decide they don’t need to do anything about Gay-bashing
of boys because boys should settle their disputes off campus."
The Fayetteville school district
"agreed in the future to discipline students who sexually harass others;
monitor incidents of sexual discrimination and harassment; conduct training
for faculty and staff to deal with sexual harassment, including that directed
against Gay students; reiterate to students, faculty, and staff that sexual
harassment is prohibited; and hold an information and discussion session for
students on sexual harassment."
And the net result?
Hire more people to ‘re-educate the
Perhaps they got off easy. After
all, the Ashland, WI school district had to pay another gay student $900,000
for his "torture" by fellow students.
(Freiberg, P. Washington
Marijuana use increased in the 1970s
among the school-aged. It then decreased in the 1980s, but has has gone back
up in the 1990s. What’s happening?
Good data on reported pot use has
been collected on U.S. high school seniors each year from 1975 through 1996.
Each year a reasonably-representative sample of about 15,000 students was asked
about their use of pot, whether they disapproved of the use of pot, to what
degree they thought marijuana use was dangerous, and various lifestyle factors
such as how committed they were to their religion, what kinds of grades they
got, how many hours they worked at a job per week, and whether they recreated
away from their family.
As a rule, the more religious and
better students were less apt to use pot, while students who had more evenings
out per week or who were truant were more apt to use marijuana. But, all told,
these lifestyle kinds of variables only "explained" about 21% of the
variance in whether or not students smoked pot. Almost half (49%) of the variance,
however, in students’ smoking patterns came from what they claimed to believe
about whether marijuana was harmful and whether they claimed to believe that
it was wrong to smoke it. The correlations between beliefs and behavior strongly
suggest that when students believe that there is less risk in smoking and/or
believe that pot use is OK, then personal use is apt to rise. Not surprisingly,
the authors argue for more government programs to convince students that pot
use is bad and dangerous.
There is a problem, however.
That problem is that the voters of
America have been making pot easier to get. And why? Because marijuana is supposed
to be "good medicine" for certain folk. Compassionate use is now permitted,
by a vote of the people, in California and Arizona. Attempts are underway to
make compassionate use legal throughout the U.S.
Americans, especially teenagers,
think that "medicine" is a good thing. If teenagers are starting to
think about pot like they think about vitamins, there is going to be even more
of an upswing in pot use.
So this kind of magical thinking
could transform a "little pot" into a kind of "good thing,"
since some people are helped by a lot of it.
Will students believe government
slogans and ads, or the votes of their parents and neighbors? Time will tell,
of course, but something may be afoot here that can’t be fixed with public service
announcements on TV and radio.
J. G., Johnston, L.D., O’Malley, PM. Explaining recent increases in students’
marijuana use: impacts of perceived risks and disapproval, 1976 through 1996.
American Journal Public Health, 88, 887-892.
Just where is AIDS headed? Are things
as "in control" as the Centers for Disease Control claims? Two disquieting
things crossed my desk recently that suggest otherwise.
First, Paul D. Green of Minneapolis,
MN wrote FRI and the authorities in Minnesota that "I have been a medical
insurance billing clerk for over 10 years now… at 2 major Minneapolis hospitals
in the billing department…. my job was to bill various insurance and Medicaid
programs for the patients’ bills. I was very alarmed that I was seeing so many
cases of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases including Chlamydia, Herpes,
Syphilis and others in far larger number than were being reported on television
as the totals of these diseases in the State of Minnesota, and I was only one
billing clerk…." I talked with Mr. Green at some length and found him
credible. I checked with other physicians who assured me that STDs are so frequently
underreported that they would not doubt his story.
Second, Cary Savitch, M.D. has written
a book about AIDS, The Nutcracker is Already Dancing (1997), that is also troubling.
Through his experiences he has come to positions about AIDS control that FRI
has advocated since 1983. But the thing that strikes the reader is the sheer
volume of cases of HIV infection that he is getting in the relatively "backwater"
city of Santa Barbara, CA. There are "too many cases" for what one
would expect given its location.
It may be that "something is
going on" that isn’t reaching the official statistical summaries of the
Research Report critically examines empirical data on families, sexual social
policy, AIDS, drug addiction, and homosexuality, digging behind the ‘headlines’
and breaking new scientific ground.
is published 8 times/year by the Family Research Institute.
Dr. Paul Cameron,
Dr. Kirk Cameron,
P.O. Box 62640