The official published version of this article can be found by clicking here. This is a final authors’ draft of the paper:

Cameron, P., Cameron, K., & Proctor, K. Effect of homosexuality upon public health and social order. Psychological Reports, 1989, 64, 1167-1179.

Summary

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.

Manning felt the military was ‘discriminating against him and his kind.’ So he apparently stole state secrets (in his role as a U.S. Army intelligence analyst!) and, thanks to the ‘freedom loving’ folk at the NY Times, all his stolen goods got published. Now the Taliban is making a list of enemies to murder. And Manning ‘got even’ — with his society, with the military, and with all those on our side of the conflict.

What has been little reported in America is how well Bradley Manning fits the homosexual profile. The British media have reported that his facebook page contains many claims and clues about his homosexual affiliations. Seems he just split with his homosexual lover and has also been contemplating a sex change.

Why Manning was allowed into the military — in intelligence no less — is far from certain. And what about those who aided and abetted his actions? Are the co-conspirators at MIT who helped him dump the data homosexual also?

And why is the British press the only media to publicize this aspect of Manning’s character? U.S. right-wing radio talk show hosts have been essentially silent. On August 11, Rush Limbaugh added to his usual ditty that “race, sex, sexual orientation” don’t make any difference to “us conservatives.” It seems that Rush has ‘adopted’ the elite’s notion that ‘gay is OK’ because it is like skin color — simply irrelevant. How far from the truth can he be?

Pakistanis View America Negatively

The Pew Foundation reported (July 30) that Pakistanis’ feelings toward the U.S. were very negative. Obviously, our wartime efforts against terrorists in both Afghanistan and along the border of Pakistan probably impact this assessment. However, it is not always clear why the West is trying to court this Islamic ‘Land of the Pure.’

Pakistan, besides leading the world in the prevalence of men raping boys, has upwards of 3,000 children — mostly boys — that go missing every year (Reuters 8/2/10). And, at the child abuse conference in Lahore in 2009, Punjab Minister for Law and Parliamentary Affairs, Rana Sanaullah, said “people should be educated about the menace of child sexual abuse” which is “distorting the image of Pakistan.”

He asserted the “majority of children admitted to Madrassas to get religious education were abused” (International News 11/20/09). Of the 4 million students in Pakistani Madrassas, all but 6% are boys, so the sexual abuse to which Sanaullah referred is almost all homosexual — a far higher rate of molestation than alleged within any Catholic church or institution.

Other media seem to confirm these statements. Google trends (www.google.com/trends) allows one to track the relative worldwide prevalence of users searching for specific terms or topics since the beginning of 2004. Figure 1 indicates the average search prevalence over that time for the phrases ‘sex with boys’ (orange) and ‘sex with men’ (blue). ‘Sex with men’ has always been more popular in Google searches than ‘sex with boys,’ but both have seen a recent upswing since 2009.

Interestingly, Google trends also breaks down search traffic by region/country, city, and language, reporting frequency of searches relative to all Google searches from that same area. By this tally, Pakistan (Muslim) is the clear leader not only for searches on ‘sex with boys,’ but also for ‘sex with men,’ ‘sex with girls,’ and ‘sex with women.’ Second place in all these categories goes to either India (Hindu/Muslim) or Sri Lanka (Buddhist/Hindu).

To the extent that Google search traffic corresponds with interest in a topic amongst the populace, Pakistan might be considered the ‘sexiest’ country on Earth. However, the results are quite dependent on the degree of Internet penetration and usage in any given area. In addition, searches for a phrase like ‘sex with boys’ do not automatically mean the user desired to engage in such activity. However, given that the ratio of search traffic for ‘sex with men’ vs. ‘sex with boys’ averages 2.2:1 for English language searches compared to 1.2:1 for Arabic language searches, the results may indicate more proportionate interest in ‘sex with boys’ among Arabic speakers. Further, given the prevalence of various kinds of pornography and prostitution on the web, and the fact that women in Arabic countries generally have much less computer access than men, it would appear that reports of disproportionate homosexual child molestation in Pakistan may indeed be credible.

Plumbing Problems: Learned, Not Born

Two major kinds of appetites involving our ‘plumbing’ receive a lot of attention: (1) eating/drinking, and (2) sexual desire.

Eating and drinking are associated with the alimentary canal. Traditionalists counsel moderation in the amount eaten, as well as with alcohol. Modern elite moralists worry about everything — salt, cholesterol, additives, insecticides, etc.

Sexual preferences also involve plumbing, with traditional moralists (at least the Christian variety) promoting procreation (within marriage) as a positive, while enjoining against homosexuality. Traditionalists reason that while having children ties one to broader society, those who prefer homosexuality usually have an overriding loyalty to the ‘gay community’ that surpasses social and family loyalties (which is part of the reason homosexuals in general are rebellious and so often involved in betrayals). They consider homosexual activity to be negatively transformative. Modern moralists, on the other hand, see no downside to homosexuality. As long as one is not ‘harming others’ or involving children sexually, their counsel seems to be ‘do what you feel like.’

Culinary tastes can ‘fixate’ in youth, and profoundly influence one’s life. Thus there are adults who only eat certain kinds of cereals, MacDonald’s, or macaroni and cheese. This taste is so ‘real’ that the fixated cannot attend dinners or eat with others for fear that they won’t be able to eat or will be mocked. Fortunately, this kind of ‘culinary deviation’ is rare (but highly resistant to change if carried into adulthood).

Sexual tastes can also ‘fixate’ — often in youth, but even in early- and mid-adulthood. Sometimes sexual tastes ‘cross over’ into culinary tastes. Imagine a society in which fat girls are ‘sexy.’ If, as argued by homosexual activists, homosexuals are ‘born that way’ then would those in such a society be likewise ‘born so?’

Welcome to Mauritania — a Muslim country in Africa about three times the size of New Mexico, and sparsely populated with 3 million souls. There, being fat as a woman — between 220–300 lbs (obese in the Western view) — makes her sexually desirable. Indeed, so important is being fat that a girl’s parents, often the mother or a trained villager, make girls as young as 5 drink up to five gallons of fat-rich milk daily. Why? To give her silvery stretch marks on her upper arms and to assure she is plump all over.

Forced? Indeed. If the girl refuses to drink (and most kids do, after all they are ‘full’), her foot may be painfully squeezed between two boards, her fingers bent backwards, her ears pulled, or she might even be forced to drink her own vomit! On the other hand, a man is considered good looking if he is slender (the sign of a hard worker).

This part of Mauritanian society is real — the men consider their taste for fat women as ‘natural’ as Western men do their taste for slender gals. But neither ‘ideal’ is ‘natural’ except within their respective cultures. What we now consider ‘rather plump women’ was the ideal through much of Western history (e.g., most of the women in famous paintings tend toward the hefty). Hollywood and ‘fashion designers’ had a great deal to do with moving ‘the feminine ideal’ toward the slender.

Sexual tastes do indeed vary greatly across cultures. Poland’s famous ‘barefoot explorer’ has devised a technique that allows him to visit, live with, and film many tribes in the Amazon. He goes in nude, just as the natives are. Each little society — perhaps 200-300 people — has permitted him to stay long enough to learn the language and the customs.

The important part of his research from our perspective — confirmed in tribe after tribe — is the absence of ‘deviant’ sex. Indeed, given their living situation — where the men go out to hunt and the women stay to plant, cook, and clean — they apparently live free of any sort of sexual deviation, including adultery. When told about other forms of sex, such as homosexuality, they laugh, calling the children to see or hear the strangeness of our culture.

Of course, girls there marry at around 9-11, boys at perhaps 13 or so. Every girl/woman knows what every other girl/woman is doing, so there is no adultery (the girls and women are in constant contact with each other as they work), and there is no privacy since many families occupy one dwelling.

Both of these cultures sexual tastes are instructive when it comes to the sexual preferences of homosexuals. Once established, the taste is ‘real,’ but nonetheless learned. As long as sex between men and women leads to children, it ‘gets the job done’ and a future is assured. Whether the women are slender, fat, younger, or older is largely irrelevant.

Western culture still encourages a preference for the opposite sex. That used to be ‘enough’ to assure a future. But now with birth control, it is not. And the problem is exacerbated by the teaching in Western schools of the acceptability of homosexuality. Because sexual tastes are not inborn, nor ‘cast in stone,’ the West may well experience as much of a change toward homosexual preferences as Mauritania will undoubtedly experience in its sexual ideals as it consumes more of our (Western) entertainment.

Clearly, Mauritanian men are not ‘born with’ a desire for fat women any more than Western men are ‘born with’ a desire for slender gals. Their sexual taste in women is learned. Indeed, at their typical weight, the sight of a young female nude from Mauritania would probably be a ‘turn off’ for most Western men. Likewise, Mauritanian men are currently repelled by our ‘slender beauties.’  But Western influences are coming to Mauritania — they will probably change in time. Our culture can expect no less a change as homosexual influence grows here.

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.

Reports of lesbian mothers about their children collected in 2009 were compared with reports of heterosexual mothers regarding their own 93 children in a ‘standardized’ sample collected in 2001. Scientifically speaking, the investigators should have compared the kids of lesbians with a similar sample of heterosexual mothers who used AI. While the differences between the two groups of kids were generally small — based on their mothers’ ratings — ‘mothers with a motive’ are suspect raters of their own child. Surely it would have been more impressive if teachers had rated all the kids in their classes that the children of lesbians attended, and the lesbians’ kids stood out as better.

Likewise, if the kids had taken a version of same questionnaire devised ‘just for them,’ and the kids of lesbians scored themselves higher on the same things that their mothers did — that would be somewhat impressive (though not as impressive as the teachers doing the ratings). However, no such kid-ratings were reported (even though they were apparently collected), except for complaints of being discriminated against.

The scores on the mother-rated questionnaires were ‘standardized’ with a convenience sample of 93 ‘regular’ kids rated by mothers about possible social and personality problems. A glaring difference between the standardized sample and the lesbian mothers was the proportion of white mother respondents — 96% of lesbians vs. 68% in the comparison sample. Why is this important? Because non-white kids — blacks and Hispanics especially — usually have more ‘social,’ ‘school/academic,’ ‘rule breaking behaviors,’ ‘externalizing,’ and ‘aggressive’ behaviors than whites. These, it turns out, were the very areas in which differences favoring the lesbians’ kids were reported!

If these kinds of racial differences were present in the ratings of the heterosexual mothers (not reported, of course, by the authors), all the study’s differences might be due to the standardized sample being about a third non-white. In that scenario, the findings might be explained by the fact that white kids generally do better than minority kids on following the rules — in or out of school. However, if the lesbian mothers’ ratings were compared to just those 62 kids with white mothers in the standardized sample and the differences persisted, then the ‘finding’ might suggest something more significant and comparatively valid.

Of course, the race of the child may make little difference in these comparisons, but the race of the mother usually makes a difference because whites have a different ‘subculture’ than blacks or Hispanics. That is why comparative studies generally attempt to match their samples on demographic characteristics, including race, so that such cultural or other disparities are properly accounted for. Times may also have changed in the 8 years between when the comparison sample was drawn and the lesbians’ sample, so the differences may partly reflect ‘then vs. now’ changes in cultural attitudes toward social and behavioral problems.

Whether there is nothing or a lot to ‘prove,’ probably the best persons to rate a child on these kinds of issues are their teachers. Of course, getting parents’ and the child’s answers are useful, but these lesbians had gotten artificially inseminated and volunteered to join a long-term study — most likely they had something to prove. Without a reasonable comparison group how can one know which results are due to ‘lesbian mothers’ vs. ‘people who get AI’ vs. ‘kids in 2001 instead of 2009?’ Those who get AI have gone to some trouble to have children. Do they make better parents as a consequence? We don’t know from this study, because the ‘artificial kids’ were compared to ‘regular kids’ in the 8 year-older, more ethnically diverse standardization sample.

Nevertheless, there are ‘miracles’ in this study. For instance, adolescent lesbians almost always test as more rebellious in surveys (e.g., more frequently are involved in violence, use drugs, are more frequently promiscuous), but apparently this did not carry through to their children in this study — really? Further, 56% of lesbians who had been ‘partnered’ at the time the child was born were now ‘divorced.’ Yet there was no difference in the mothers’ ratings of both kinds of kids — those in ‘intact’ homes and those in ‘broken’ situations. Another miracle is that kids who knew and didn’t know their donors tested ‘the same.’

These are instances of the notion that ‘as long as a homosexual parent is involved, everything turns out OK and nothing else really makes a difference’ so commonplace in studies run by homosexual investigators. Interestingly, the mother-ratings of the 41% of lesbians’ kids who said they were discriminated against because of their mothers, did not differ from the 59% of kids who did not say they were discriminated against (that is, based on the kids’ answers to the questionnaire). However, when lesbian mothers said their kids had been discriminated against (38% of kids in the lesbian sample), they rated their kids lower than the mothers of the 62% kids who supposedly hadn’t been discriminated against (again, according to the mothers’ reports)!

These results show the truth of the old saying, ‘It all depends on who you ask.’ Mothers said one thing, kids said another, and their teachers weren’t asked at all.

The ratings from this study do not justify the conclusion of the authors: “our findings show that adolescents who have been raised since birth in planned lesbian families demonstrate healthy psychological adjustment and thus provide no justification for restricting access to reproductive technologies or child custody on the basis of the sexual orientation of the parents.” (pp. 7-8) Yet this absurdity was the real reason for the study. Since when do a small set of lesbians’ kids who might have tested OK — at least when rated by their mothers — justify saying that “adolescents who have been raised since birth in planned lesbian families demonstrate healthy psychological adjustment?”

One sample taking one questionnaire does not a rule make. Further, how can the same small sample “provide no justification for restricting access to reproductive technologies or child custody?” Perhaps some evidence has been generated to support not restricting access to AI, but none of this evidence bears upon “child custody.” And as to fathers being irrelevant, this study provides no clear evidence either way.

Reference: Gartrell N, Bos H (2010) US National longitudinal lesbian family study: psychological adjustment of 17-year-old adolescents. Pediatrics, posted online June 7, 2010.

2010 US Supreme Court: Homosexuals 1, Evangelicals 0

Higher education and the U.S. Supreme Court don’t like Evangelicals, or any group that ‘discriminates’ against those who engage in homosexuality. In Christian Legal Society vs. Hastings (2010), the Court did just about everything to ‘make it possible’ for academic institutions to eliminate groups that don’t accept homosexuality from campus life. So far, in the ‘big decisions’ involving homosexuals, the Supreme Court has ruled against Colorado voters’ attempt to stop homosexuals getting special privileges (1994), upheld the right of the Boy Scouts to discriminate against homosexuals (2000), outlawed making homosexual conduct illegal (2003), and now has ruled that broad interpretations of ‘civil rights law’ trump religious rights. So the overall ‘score’ is gays 3, Christians 1.

At issue was whether a Christian club, with standards that included not engaging in homosexuality, would be permitted on the campus of Hastings Law School like 60 other clubs. The California state school said no, and now the Supremes have said no.

Why? Well, it doesn’t make much logical sense. In 1972, the US Supreme Court held that Students for Democratic Action — a violent left-wing group — had First Amendment rights to be permitted on campuses. But as Justice Alito noted in dissent “Hastings admitted in its answer, which was filed prior to the former dean’s deposition, that at least as of that time, the law school did not follow an accept-all-comers policy and instead allowed “political, social, and cultural student organizations to select officers and members who are dedicated to a particular set of ideals or beliefs.”

He also noted “If an organization is to remain a viable entity in a campus community in which new students enter on a regular basis, it must possess the means of communicating with these students. Moreover, the organization’s ability to participate in the intellectual give and take of campus debate, and to pursue its stated purposes, is limited by denial of access to the customary media for communicating with the administration, faculty members, and other students. Such impediments cannot be viewed as insubstantial.”

“The forced inclusion of an unwanted person in a group infringes the group’s freedom of expressive association if the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints. Dale, supra, at 648. A Free Love Club could require members to affirm that they reject the traditional view of sexual morality to which CLS adheres. It is hard to see how this can be viewed as anything other than view point discrimination [which]… will allow every public college and university in the United States to exclude all evangelical Christian organizations.”

Thus, with this ruling, anyone can have freedom of speech and association unless you offend “the prevailing standards of political correctness in our country’s institutions of higher learning.” Indeed.

If we give persons with compulsive sexual interests the cat-bird seat, they will discriminate vigorously against all opposition. Since Christianity was ‘to blame’ for clearing the Roman Empire of strong homosexual influence, if we elevate homosexuality to a ‘right,’ it follows our society must be cleansed of Christianity. A terrible trade, given the benefits of Christianity and the liabilities of homosexuality.

Will Western ‘Gay Rights’ Meld With Islamic Pederasty?

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 18^th 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.” [1]

Perhaps these commanders wanted the boy for Bacha Bazi (‘boy play’). As documented on Frontline (PBS, April 20, 2010), attractive boys, aged 10 through 17, are sold by or extorted from their Afghan families to dress in women’s clothes, perform the whirling dance for crowds of men (often wearing artificial breasts!), and then (often) get privately sodomized by one or more of the audience.

In neighboring Pakistan, in “villages throughout the country, young boys are often forcibly ‘taken’ by older men, starting a cycle of abuse and revenge that social activists and observers say is the common pattern of homosexual sex.” These quasi-abductions often ‘create’ homosexuals: “The first time Aziz, a lean, dark-haired 20-year-old in this bustling cultural capital, had sex with a man, he was a pretty, illiterate boy of 16. A family friend took him to his house, put on a Pakistani-made soft-porn video, and raped him. Now, says Aziz…, he is ‘addicted’ to sex with men, so he hangs around Lahore’s red-light districts, getting paid a few rupees for sex. At night, he goes home to his parents and prays to Allah to forgive him.… Among the Pashtun majority [in the region], having a young, attractive boyfriend is a symbol of prestige and wealth for affluent middle-aged men. Indeed, Pashtun men often keep a young boy in… the male room of the house that the wife rarely enters.… The boy is always the passive partner in sex and has often been coerced into the relationship; he is given food and clothes by his partner, and is in many cases forbidden to leave the relationship or marry. (In theory, the boys could marry when they’re grown, but they are generally considered damaged, and end up wandering the streets as homosexual outcasts).” [1]

As might be expected when the stronger foist themselves upon the weaker, violence and homosexual activity are highly correlated. Consider the fate of boy volunteers for the Taliban captured by the Northern Alliance. Jeffrey Gettleman reported [2] that:

“at least 1,500 prisoners, mostly boys, were being held in private jails. ‘Were they being sexually abused?’ Gettleman asked. ‘It is a custom,’ the informer declared, ‘With boys that age, before they have hair on the faces, these things happen.’” Things? What things? “Jimshade [a boy ]… follower of the mullah Sufi Mohammed… said he was captured. He spent six weeks as a slave… before his family bought his freedom. ‘The soldiers do things to you,’ he said, ‘that make you want to kill yourself. They have this game: They start with the youngest prisoners and ask them their age,’ he continued. ‘If a boy says 13, they send 13 soldiers to him. If he says 16, the boy gets 16.’ The soldiers take turns raping the boys, Jimshade said. ‘They take them to an underground room and hold the boys down, and the whole house fills with screaming, and the soldiers yell louder than the screaming, like they are mad or crazy or have turned into wild animals. Sometimes,’ he said, his voice shrinking, ‘I still hear them.’”

One could wish this were an isolated event. Yet, last year in Pakistan, at least 61 boys were raped and murdered — 28 of them by groups of men, and at least another 431 boys were raped without being killed. [3] As these are the ‘reported’ incidents, we can be sure there were many more since families are not only ‘paid off’ for use of their boys, but also to shut up. As such, the ‘sexual tastes’ of a significant minority of Pakistanis are decidedly anti-social. Investigators have reported that a large minority of Pakistanis is very supportive of pederasty.

By comparison, we know that about a third of interviewed U.S. adult homosexual males approved of, and had sex with, boys. This is close to the figure the National Coalition for Child Rights’ reported — specifically, that 23% of Pakistani adults said they were “proud” of man-boy sex and “11% did not consider it wrong” (Rajabali, Khan, Warraich, et al, 2008). [4] Since Pakistanis are migrating all across the Western world, you have to wonder how much pederasty is now taking place in London or New York.

As horrible as pederasty is, adult homosexuality is also rampant in Afghanistan. A military study (reported by Fox News) found that Pashtun men commonly have sex with other men, admire other men physically, have sex with boys, and shun women socially and sexually — but don’t call themselves “homosexuals.” In one instance, a group of local male interpreters had contracted gonorrhea anally from each other but refused to believe they could have contracted it sexually “because they were not homosexuals.”

Apparently, according to the report, Pashtun men interpret the Islamic prohibition on homosexuality to mean they cannot “love” another man — but that doesn’t mean they can’t use men for “sexual gratification.” A U.S. army medic had to tell a local man how to get his wife pregnant. “When it was explained to him what was necessary, he disgustedly asked, ‘How could one feel desire to be with a woman, who God has made unclean, when one could be with a man, who is clean? Surely this must be wrong.’”

The contradictions abound. These Pashtun men apparently enjoy and are having anal sex, that is, sex with the body’s sewer system! Yet women are ‘unclean!’ And to top it off, the U.S. is allied with these Afghanis in order to defeat the Taliban — even though it is the Taliban that opposes pederasty.

Since the gay movement was partially inspired by prominent pederasts (e.g., Oscar Wilde, Paul Goodman, André Gide, Allen Ginsberg), if Islamic fundamentalists come to believe pederasty is part and parcel of ‘the Islamic truth’ (and millions of Muslims may apparently believe this), might they form an alliance with the gay movement? Consider Larry Kramer, co-founder of ACT-UP, who has contracted both Hepatitis B and HIV (from adults) in his homosexual travels. While he doesn’t mention pederasty…

Gay Liberation (or Gay Lib) is the name used to describe the radical lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered movement of the late 1960s and early to mid 1970s in North America, Western Europe, and Australia and New Zealand. …“Oscar Fingal OFlahertie Wills Wilde (October 16, 1854 – November 30, 1900) was an Irish playwright, novelist, poet, and short story writer. …In those instances where children do have sex with their homosexual elders, be they teachers or anyone else, I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it, either because of a natural curiosity that will or will not develop along these lines, or because he or she is homosexual and innately knows it. This is far from ‘recruitment.’ Obviously, there are instances in which the child is unwilling, and is a victim of sexual abuse, homo- or heterosexual. But, as with straight children anxious for the experience with someone of the opposite sex, these are kids who seek solicit, and consent willingly to sex with someone of the same sex. And unlike girls or women forced into rape and traumatized, most gay men have warm memories of their earliest and early sexual encounters; when we share these stories with each other, they are invariably positive ones.” [5]

What Aziz and Jimshade said doesn’t quite fit Kramer’s optimistic scenario. Nor does it fit the thousands of boys being kept in sexual slavery in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and beyond. Clearly, some Muslim men have developed and written about sexual tastes that include boys. For instance, Sufyan at-Thawri (d. 783) wrote about sexual temptation “if every woman has one devil accompanying her, then a handsome lad has seventeen.” Or Hanbalite jurist Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 1200): “He who claims that he experiences no desire when looking at beautiful boys or youths is a liar, and if we could believe him he would be an animal, and not a human being.“ Much of this is undoubtedly driven by cultural norms, but FRI has also noted the apparent inclination of those who enjoy homosexuality to include youth in their activities, regardless of culture.

Beyond Bacha Bazi, a 2009 study of 170 Pakistani truck drivers and their 169 helper boys [6] reported that “almost all” of the boys ended up having sex with the mostly-married drivers. Further, older helper boys often raped younger boy-helpers. Principal investigator, Dr Muhammad Tufail, said athough having sex with female prostitutes is fairly common, “drivers prefer young boys.”

All of this evidence — both anecdotal and otherwise — should give significant pause to the notion of a great one-world ‘melting pot’ of cultures, traditions, and practices championed by our liberal elite. That Muslims and Christians; Americans, Pakistanis, and Afghans; homosexuals and heterosexuals, etcetera, etcetera, can all live in ‘perfect harmony.’ Indeed, one of the obvious successes of Christianity was driving institutionalized pederasty out of society. As the West rejects Christianity, it becomes more and more accepting of homosexuality. Are we headed back to a highly violent and ugly past?

References:

1. Kennedy M (2004) Open secrets: In Pakistan, sex between men is strictly forbidden by law and religion. But even in the most conservative regions, it’s also embedded in the society. Boston Globe, July 11.

2. Gettleman J (2002) The untold war: prisoner of Jihad. LA Times, July 21

3. Sahil (2009) Cruel Numbers 2009 (http://www.sahil.org/abt_publications_cruelnumbers.html).

4. Rajabali A, Khan S, Warraich HJ, Warrich MR, Khanani MR, Ali SH (2008) HIV and homosexuality in Pakistan. Lancet Infectious Diseases 8:511-515.

5. Kramer L (1981) Reports from the Holocaust. NY: St. Martin’s, p234.

6. Imran M (2010) The News International, February 19

By Paul Cameron, Ph.D. and Kirk Cameron, Ph.D.

Summary: Over at least the past 30 years, a “shadow homosexual network,” including outposts in the Pentagon, has been established within the military. Homosexuality has significantly disrupted the military mission. Sexual activities, including homosexual flirtations, favoritism, and rapes have become part of the military subculture.

This report updates our original compilation of evidence on this issue, published in 1993. That original report indexed the degree to which those who practice homosexuality have troubled the U.S. Armed Forces, utilizing several lines of evidence:

• Heterosexual versus homosexual military violations in 1953-54;
• Review of the 1990 pro-gay Humphrey-Studds study, featuring first-person reports of homosexuals who had served;
• Review of contemporary media accounts of homosexuals in the service; and
• Independent polls and surveys conducted by FRI of those who served and their experiences with those who practiced homosexuality.

Despite more recent media attempts to highlight a fundamental shift in both public and military opinion when it comes to service by open homosexuals, the evidence we compiled in 1993 is still very relevant today. It is also consistent with our latest study[1. Cameron P and Cameron K (2010) Family Research Institute special report: gays in the military — the sordid facts. Colorado Springs: Family Research Institute, posted at www.familyresearchinst.org], which not only reports additional, corroborative first-hand testimony, but also examines all cases of sexual assault investigated by the Department of Defense (DoD) in 2007 through 2009. Our statistical analysis of these new data indicates that:

• Gays and lesbians were at least 3 to 9 times more apt to be investigated for sexual assault on fellow service personnel than were non-homosexual service men and women.

Bottom line: Allowing homosexuals to openly serve would almost certainly exacerbate these disruptions.

Introduction

Media-acclaimed gay historian Randy Shilts wrote in 1993 that:

“Over the past twenty years, as the gay community has taken form in cities across the nation, a vast gay subculture has emerged within the military, in every branch of the service, among both officers and enlisted[2. Shilts R (1993) Conduct unbecoming: gays and lesbians in the U.S. military. NY: St. Martin’s, p. 3].”

Is this true? If so, is it a good thing, just ‘OK,’ or a threat to the military? There are lots of strong opinions about gays in the military, but the facts are hard to come by. This special report presents facts policy makers ought to consider as they address this issue.

Homosexual apologists argue that open homosexuality would have no real effect on the military mission. They argue in fact that it would be a good thing, letting gays ‘be themselves’ without harassment, while creating no problem for others. They suggest that blacks were unjustly discriminated against, but now, thanks to integration, black soldiers are as good in the aggregate as white ones. ‘Let us integrate,’ say homosexuals, ‘and the results will be similar. Sexual integration is a win-win situation.’

Yet some clear differences between blacks and homosexuals are evident. For instance, Shilts describes the following scene in the Pentagon:

“In the bathroom on corridor 6, just inside the five-acre central courtyard, men literally stood in line outside the stalls during the lunch hour, waiting their turn to engage in some hanky-panky[3. Shilts, p. 184].”

No one ever claimed that when blacks were excluded from the military they longed for the ‘right’ to have sex in bathrooms (in this case at the Pentagon). They just wanted to be treated the same as other soldiers. Yet Shilts bragged about the fact that homosexuals in the Pentagon had taken over at least one of its public restrooms. If homosexuals are “literally” standing in line outside the stalls during the lunch hour waiting their turn to engage in quasi-public sex, it appears that straight soldiers must have to use another restroom if they need it for the usual purposes.

‘On the job,’ most manage to focus on work. For most employees, lunchtime is for lunch — and maybe for a bit of socializing. Yet, three or four hours after getting to work, the homosexuals Shilts was describing were:

• “standing in line” to have sex in public bathroom stalls, and
• apparently didn’t consider what they were doing disruptive.

Is it plausible that those who spend their lunchtime doing sex might carry their sexual interests into the barracks or the field? Apparently so, as the evidence in this report will document. Of course, perhaps Randy Shilts was describing only a temporary phenomenon. Is there any evidence of problems with homosexuality in the military in the past?

Past Problems With Homosexuality

Consider sexual crimes in the military during 1953-1954. Homosexuals break military regulations if they engage in sodomy. Heterosexuals break them if they engage in adultery or rape. A comparison of the numbers of sodomy cases versus the numbers of rape and adultery cases within the Armed Forces for a given period would provide an index of how “troubling” homosexuality was as compared to heterosexuality. Such tallies appear not to exist in the public record. However, The Digest of Opinions from the Judge Advocates General of the Armed Forces lists rulings in regard to evidence for each of these three kinds of offenses. If we assume that numbers of pages and page-space devoted to rules of evidence occur as a function of the numbers of cases of sodomy, rape or adultery in various court proceedings, we can build an indirect index of difficulties with sexual offenses. That is, we assumed that the number of pages devoted to evidence regarding a problem was proportionate to the number of problems it created in the military.

Out of the 3,045 pages of opinions in Volumes 3 through 6 for the period July 1953 through June 1954[4. The digest of opinions from the judge advocates general of the armed forces. (1953-54) U.S. Department of Defense, Vols 3-6], rules about evidence in sodomy cases are mentioned on 20 pages. Evidentiary rules about adultery are mentioned on 2 pages and rape on 39 pages. By this admittedly indirect measure, we would estimate that about 2% of the total legal case-load in the military during this period involved sexual offenses (i.e., 61/3,045= 2.0%).

Furthermore, sodomy accounted for 0.66% of the total pages v. 1.35% for illicit heterosexual activity. This must be weighed against the fraction of homosexual men in the military at the time. As of 1996 and beyond, the best estimates are that less than 2% of the male military force is gay [1]. So even if as much as 2% of the military was homosexual in 1953-54, that 2% accounted for 33% of the sexual offenses resulting in disciplinary action. On the other hand, heterosexuals, who made up at least 97-98% of military personnel, accounted for 67% of the sexual trouble.

1990 Humphrey-Studds Study

More recent evidence is consistent with the past. Consider the Humphrey-Studds study, conducted by homosexuals about homosexuals, and published by Mary Ann Humphrey in 1990. [5] Homosexual former Congressman Gerry E. Studds wrote the foreword and his office provided editorial and technical support. His aide, Kate Dyer, also helped with the project.

The study was designed to present the most favorable view possible of homosexuals in the military. It is unabashedly pro-gay:

“The oral histories in this book provide more personal evidence that gays are good workers in the military. We do a good job, we are not security risks, and there is no reason to kick us out[5. Humphrey MA (1990) My country, my right to serve: experiences of gay men and women in the military, world war II to the present. HarperCollins: NY].”

Of 130 volunteers obtained through notices placed in various gay papers and an appearance by Humphrey on TV, only 42 of the interviews (i.e., 32%) — 28 men and 14 women — were included in the final report. Apparently, it was difficult to find suitable interviewees, since 3 of the 42 (i.e., 7%) were editors of gay journals or full-time gay activists, and 6 (i.e., 14%) had engaged or were engaged in legal action against the military’s anti-homosexual policy. Additionally, the brother of subject #22 worked for Congressman Studds.

The 28 men ranged in age from 25 to 75 with a median age of 44.5, and the 14 women ranged in age from 24 to 67 with a median age of 42.5. The combined sample had a median age of 44 — about 10 years younger than veterans-in-general; in 1988, the average age of U.S. veterans was 54.4[6. Statistical abstract of the United States (1990) Table 566]. The study consisted of excerpted interviews covering the subject’s stint in the service. A summary of the results is given in Table 1.

Table 1. Humphrey-Studds Summary Results

The interviews frequently trace a similar pattern of rebellion against military rules for both gays and lesbians. The number of each subject is given first in the following examples:

(#4) Male, 65, honorable discharge, enlisted. “The smokestacks on the destroyers were hollow, and there is a platform on the top of them, perfect security [for sex]…” (p. 22) Had sex on and off duty with sailors and civilians. “One of the techniques, which I outrageously developed, was merely crawling in with somebody and engaging them in sex and leaving them as if nothing had ever happened. You don’t say anything; you pretend it never happened. As so long as you never discussed it, it never happened.” (p. 22) “The rebellion I did was to take the system and use it against them, consciously. I was what they called a sea lawyer — it’s a term they used. I knew the rules and used them against them.” (p. 26)

(#5) Male, 54, undesirable discharge, enlisted. “Ship life had its advantages, too. They had dividers between the individual showers, but there were no shower curtains or anything and the sinks were right in front, so it was rather cruisy.” (p. 29) “…in Norfolk, I met a lieutenant junior grade in the Naval Reserve who subsequently became my lover… It was a real good situation — until he was murdered [in New York City by a hitchhiker whom he had taken to his home]!” (p. 30) Claimed sex with enlisted and officers.

(#11) Male, 65, honorable discharge, enlisted. Had sex while in military. “In the Enlisted Men’s Club [at Fort Bragg], the john was very active and guys would meet in there to have sex. If not right there, out somewhere, out in the fields, in the pitch-dark. You could have a new experience every five minutes. The pace — I’d never seen anything like it before in my life.” “I’d score any number of times on these crowded [troop] trains.” (p. 57) “Some of the best soldiers I knew were gay.” (p. 58)

(#12) Male, 42, honorable discharge, enlisted [at the time, was Washington State Representative, 43rd district; later died of AIDS]. Went to Naval Justice School; “it was heaven for a gay person… while at school, I was involved with a couple of guys.” (p. 63) “We had a game where we’d have four or five gay guys go together, spot somebody in a club, and if you were interested, you would be on… who would get him first. I had the award for getting the highest-ranking officer in bed with me. He has since become a brigadier general.” (p. 64) “After [being caught in the bushes with a guy] I would use the courtroom! It was locked, but because of my position, I had a key. If I met somebody, we’d go back to the courtroom. It was air-conditioned besides, so it was nice.” (p. 68) “I think I worked harder and performed better” [than most in the service]. (p. 70)

(#17) Male, 40, dismissed under conditions less than honorable, officer. When asked if I was homosexual “there was no hesitation — I lied.” (p. 108) “I met this private, E-1, who came from Puerto Rico. This became my first sexual encounter in the military.” (p. 109) He disliked some of his superiors: “They might have been my superiors in terms of rank, but they were idiots…. I was known as a communist outspoken queer,…” (p. 110) “I had become very sexually active with a number of soldiers on the post.” (p. 111) “I was outraged that the military could spring this kind of charge on me four days from being discharged.” (p. 112) “We called every active officer in Special Forces, Airborne Europe, to testify either on my behalf or against me, and figured that we cost the government over a million dollars. On top of that I got paid for my own court martial, which permitted me to take home over ten thousand dollars.” (p. 115) “[A]fter the trial itself I slammed open the door of the adjutant’s office and said, ‘I’m not leaving until I’ve had my say. You kicked me out of the service — there’s nothing you can do to me, you f___ing a__hole!’ I was screaming at him; then I turned, went into the colonel’s office, and repeated my act. I said, ‘You’re a bunch of motherf___ers!’ I was very angry. I’d done nothing wrong.” (p. 116)

The lesbian material is similar:

(#29) Female, 48, honorable discharge, enlisted. “I actually became involved with the same sex around age thirteen or so…. During my formative years I was a rebel,…” (p. 123) “[W]e were a hot item for about two months; then she got with someone else. Since she had whet my appetite, the rest of the time seems to be a blur of women. The service became an awakening for my sexuality….” (p. 124)

(#30) Female, 43, honorable and undesirable discharges, enlisted. She was adopted, claimed her new father sexually abused her. “[M]y first affair occurred in the military, just doing what I was told. She was the leader of our troop.” p. 101 “[W]e dated with two men because of appearances.” “I had several [lesbian] sexual encounters but I wasn’t the instigator.” (p. 102) Alcohol began to become a problem: “I went into a coma.” (p. 103) “Most of that action, the attentions were coming from the sports teams that I associated with on my new base… had sex with an officer.” (p. 104)

(#31) Female, 53, honorable discharge, officer. “As the years rolled on, networking worked real well for me. That’s right. Networking. I had friends in the Pentagon. If I was going to another assignment, I’d call up one of my friends and say, ‘If I go to so-and-so city, who should I be looking for?’ And they’d say, ‘Colonel So-and-so, Major So-and-so.’ They’d give me the names. So I knew. And they would tell them if their friends were there, ‘Hey, she’s coming here.’ So you walked into a place and everybody knew each other. We protected each other. When we needed an escort someplace, gay men and women would escort each other.” (pp. 131-32) “In 1982, my career ended with an honorable discharge and full benefits. I retired as a full colonel, an O-6. I was very pleased by my achievements over those twenty years.” (p. 133)

(#32) Female, 46, undesirable discharge, enlisted. “[W]e were too paranoid to do anything on base, so we’d go off base whenever we could, which started the development of a close physical relationship…. [We went AWOL] for eight days. Although our sexual exploits for those eight days were unbelievable,…” (p. 135) “The pressures of my ouster and the bleak outlook for employment caused me to turn to the bottle…. I don’t even know how I became pregnant…. After four years Margo finally left me and got married…. knowing I was now the one responsible for a soon-to-be-born infant. If I hadn’t conceived and had my child, I probably would have killed myself in a car accident or something like that.” (p. 137)

(#33) Female, 42, undesirable discharge, enlisted. “I joined the U.S. Navy. It was there that I had my first lesbian experience. We met for the first time in boot camp.” (p. 144) After a few affairs “I got frightened and decided to cover my tracks. I ran a number on my soon-to-be husband, but he was thrilled when we tied the big knot…. It shouldn’t come as a great shock that our marriage lasted about six weeks. After that I really started my other lesbian relationships.” (p. 145)

(#34) Female, 67, honorable discharge, enlisted/officer. Was married to a man when she joined the Army, although she had sex almost exclusively with women. Served under Gen. Eisenhower and told him that she would be next to the top of the list to be discharged if he tried to get rid of lesbians in the WACs [and his secretary at the time would go to the top of the list]. (p. 40) He relented. She became hooked on drugs, tried suicide. “[Gays] are probably the best soldiers.” (p. 42) Had lesbian sex with a number of fellow soldiers.

(#40) Female, 24, honorable discharge, enlisted. Didn’t realize her feelings until she had enlisted and was propositioned. “We would go when her lover wasn’t there, but when she did find out, she came back and threatened to kill me. But I felt so strongly about the one I was seeing, that wow, this was it, this was love, it didn’t matter.” (p. 223) “I started coming on to this lieutenant.” (p. 224) “Although I didn’t like sneaking around, that was the fun of it…. I was one of the best soldiers they had.” (p. 226)

(#41) Female, 32, enlisted, currently a military recruiter. Got involved with a girlfriend in gay bars, decided she was gay. “Sidestepped that god-awful question about homosexuality. I lied.” (p. 243) She got married to cover for her homosexuality — “he was a good friend and knew I was gay. We were really best friends, and we had gotten married as a cover for me. He really didn’t need it and shortly afterward, left for a different base. Nevertheless we were still legally married.” (p. 245) Got artificially inseminated, lives with her lover and is trying to find a gay father to “cover” for her.

(#42) Female, 57, undesirable discharge, enlisted. Lied about her homosexuality. “But, by God, when I got into basic, I thought I had been transferred to hog heaven!” (p. 11)

Since presumably only the best of the Humphrey-Studds sample was described, one can only wonder about the disruptiveness of the 88 who were not included. In spite of rather obvious violations, many protested that they had “done nothing wrong” and that they were “the best soldiers.”

Bradley P. Grant, Deputy Staff Judge Advocate at Aviano Air Base, Italy, who has prosecuted dozens of homosexual and drug-abuse cases for the Air Force, noted in an April 4, 1993 interview that: “the commander is almost always surprised, even shocked. Both drug-users and gays usually got high ratings and are often considered quite competent[7. Grant BP (1993) Personal communication].” Given the foregoing testimonies and the perspective they betray, it is no wonder taking over a Pentagon restroom for public sex is ‘no big deal’ from a homosexual perspective.

Media Accounts of Homosexuals Who Served

Numerous accounts sympathetic to the homosexual cause have appeared in the mainstream press. These accounts accept the homosexual lifestyle as reason enough to violate military laws and rules.

For instance, The Wall Street Journal (April 12, 1993) devoted a page and a half to 34-year old James Edward Kennedy, a former Army lawyer who “kept a good cover” about his homosexuality[8. Wall Street Journal (1993) April 12]. The WSJ recounts how “his gay officer friend showed him how he could lead an active, gay life in the Army…. [and] introduced Capt. Kennedy to an underground network of gay men and women in the service, from high-ranking officers on down.”

When Capt. Kennedy learned that Army investigators were going to comb local gay bars, he “called his senior officer friend — who frequented the bars — and warned him to stay away.” At no time did the WSJ, which is often moralistic about abuses of office, suggest that this was an instance of malfeasance.

The New York Times story[9. Schmitt E (1992) Military’s gay subculture: off limits but flourishing. New York Times, December 1] (by Eric Schmitt, December 1, 1992) “Military’s Gay Subculture: Off Limits but Flourishing” paints much the same picture as recounted by the homosexuals in the Humphrey-Studds study.

It tells of how “scores” of homosexuals flock to “Friends Lounge,” adjacent to “Camp Lejeune, the largest Marine Corps base on the East Coast” even though it has been declared “off limits to the installation’s 43,000 marines and sailors.” “Individual base commanders vary widely in how strictly they enforce the ban…, particularly when it involves gay bars and organizations that are situated off base.”

“The commanders of Camp Lejeune are clearly aware of the bar’s existence but have not done anything to shut it down or round up its patrons for years…. And in an effort to help them deal with the hostility they face, an underground network of gay military groups, as well as a string of bars and clubs, has sprung up to lend support and provide contacts to gay men and lesbians at bases around the country.

“The network has evolved in a variety of ways, from exchanging telephone numbers on computer bulletin boards to working together at AIDS-prevention clinics. In large metropolitan areas, like Washington or Atlanta, gay soldiers say it is easier to blend in and tap gay civilian advocacy and support groups….

“Other gay soldiers and sailors say tight-knit circles of friends reach out when a member transfers to a new base.

“‘When I went to San Diego from Norfolk, my friends here called their friends there, and I had a ready-made network when I arrived,’ said a 34-year-old Navy lieutenant commander who is now in the Washington area.

“In addition, an array of large national organizations, from the American Civil Liberties Union to the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, offer advice and legal counseling to gay members of the military who are threatened with being discharged for homosexuality.

“‘Don’t tattle,’ advises one pamphlet distributed by the Gay and Lesbian Military Freedom Project, an umbrella group of gay rights organizations. ‘Giving names may actually make things worse for you. Investigators may try to bluff you into thinking that giving names will help you, when in truth, they may have nothing against you unless you give names….

“Here in Jacksonville, gay men and lesbians say there are several small groups of gay enlisted personnel and officers. Military regulations prohibit fraternization between enlisted personnel and officers, whether they are homosexual or heterosexual.

“One social group of about 30 gay marines and civilians, called Oasis, serves as a social anchor and a fundraising organization for some of the area’s gay men. New members are closely screened to prevent military investigators posing as gay service members from infiltrating the groups. “There’s a camaraderie here,’ said one 30-year-old sergeant who belongs to Oasis. ‘It’s like we’re all a family, and we can understand what each other is going through.’”

At the Friends Lounge, “Patrons are checked before a locked door is opened.” “At the Oar House, a gay bar two miles from the Norfolk Navy base in Virginia, the bar’s president, Frank Belcher, said surprise visits by the Naval Investigative Service ended seven years ago. ‘Usually we had a call from the base telling us they were coming,’ said Mr. Belcher. ‘Homosexuals are everywhere in the military.’”

The pro-homosexual sympathy of the press extends even to the ban on their sexual behavior. Thus the Seattle Times (March 1, 1993) lauded Steve Marose[10. The Seattle Times (1993) March 1], who was convicted on three different counts of sodomy including “conduct unbecoming an officer.” Marose complained ‘If they lift the ban, you can be gay, but you’ve got to be a monk.’ The Times commented that Marose “didn’t kill somebody. He loved somebody instead.”

Each of these major newspapers reveals attitudes that are sympathetic not only to lifting the ban against homosexuals, but to permitting homosexuals to violate military rules and regulations if it interferes with their sexual desires and activity. Lifting the ban is presented as only a first step.

Since these earlier newspaper reports, dozens of newspapers have editorialized in favor of gays in the military in 2005, 2006, and 2009. Their accounts are almost identical in tone and substance to those cited above.

FRI Surveys

Given the relative lack of hard data on this issue, FRI performed a number of surveys to answer some important questions:

1. Some claim that there are no significant problems associated with homosexuality in the military. Nationally syndicated columnist, Ellen Goodman[11.  Goodman E (1993) Mail suggests men’s biggest concern over gays in military: being ogled. Omaha World-Herald, January 25] asserted that “between 5 percent and 10 percent of the military is estimated to be gay right now” so “if showers are such a charged venue, barracks such a threatening situation, how come the problem hasn’t already wrecked morale and created dissention in the ranks? How come it’s come up so rarely?”
2. What proportion of those in the armed forces have been sexually approached by homosexuals and how many have experienced some sort of disruption because of homosexual activity?
3. A spokesman of former President Clinton charged that conservative, Evangelical Christians were the major force driving the opposition to homosexuals in the military. Do evangelical Christians who served in the military have a different opinion of homosexuality and report different experiences with homosexuals than those who never served?
4. Women are disproportionately prosecuted for sodomy in the armed forces as compared to men. Is this reflective of greater proportions of lesbians than gays in the military?
5. The Los Angeles Times (February 28, 1993) poll of 2,346 currently serving members of the military[12.  Los Angeles Times (1993) February 28] reported that 16% of men approved and 76% of men disapproved of dropping the ban (i.e., a 1:5 ratio), 35% of women approved and 55% disapproved (not quite a 1:2 ratio). Are service women more frequently than service men in favor of dropping the ban?

Generally, past performance in school is the best predictor of success in college. Likewise, performance on past jobs is often the best predictor of success on a new job. We therefore considered it likely that past interactions with homosexuals in the military would provide useful information about how the presence of open homosexuals would affect the military.

To address these questions, we performed a systematic, national, random phone survey; two random mail surveys; and a hand-delivered, anonymous questionnaire survey of those serving at accessible military bases.

Method

Phone survey: We generated a systematic random phone sample of 654 adults who had served in the military, conducting the survey from January 31 through February 21, 1993, using the white pages of phone books in the Washington, D.C. suburbs; central Virginia; Cape Cod, MA; the northern part of the San Fernando Valley, CA; Napa, CA; Vallejo, CA; Redding, CA; San Francisco, CA; Seattle, WA; Boise, ID; Lancaster, PA; and Denver, CO. We supplemented the sample with another draw of 50 interviews from Washington, D.C. during early April. Because we did not use lists of those known to have served or currently serving, each completed interview took, on average, about 15 calls. About half of the potentially eligible respondents refused to be interviewed.

Female interviewers and even male interviewers were often “shielded” by male respondents from the “explicit details” of experiences with homosexuals. So although the responses from the phone survey were in line with similar surveys regarding serving with homosexuals, they were ‘light’ on detailed experiences. Because a number of those interviewed refused to elaborate further and/or alluded to tragic events, the numbers of beatings, seductions, attempted rapes, molestations and killings of homosexuals may have been underreported.

Mail surveys: 25,000 questionnaires were sent to vendor-generated “random samples” from a 530,000-member list of veterans (largely officers); in addition, 5,000 questionnaires were sent to a list of 120,000 “activist evangelicals” and the memberships of a number of conservative Southern Baptist churches. Of the approximately 4,500 questionnaires mailed to, and apparently received by, veterans (first sample), 460 were returned, 451 of which provided enough information to be useful (i.e., about a 10% return rate). Of the 16,500 questionnaires mailed to veterans in the second sample, 1,067 were returned, 1,031 of which were useful (i.e., a 7% return). Of the approximately 4,300 questionnaires mailed to the evangelical Christian sample, 221 were returned, 214 of which provided enough information to be useful (i.e., about a 5% return).

Since we expected that the evangelical Christian list might only contain about a third as many members qualified to respond as the military list, both lists generated similar levels of response from the target population. Respondents provided their own postage, and were asked their age, sex, number of years and highest rank in which service. They also were asked the following questions, after which they were asked to sign their name and provide their phone number:

“Currently, homosexuals are not allowed to serve in the military. In general, would you say that you favor or oppose allowing homosexuals in the military?”

“Did anyone ever make a homosexual pass or attempt homosexual relations with you during a tour of duty?”

“Did you ever encounter/experience a homosexual incident during a tour of duty?”

“Would you say that incident, or those incidents, was a major disruption, a minor disruption, or no disruption at all with regard to the normal operation of the command or unit?”

“Now, tell us about the first incident (and only the first). Be specific. Be sure to detail what you actually saw, heard or experienced.”

Active Duty Survey: Volunteer active-duty individuals in Michigan, Washington, Virginia, and Colorado hand-carried questionnaires onto posts in those states. Generally, all the individuals in the units in which these individuals served filled out the questionnaire. No names or identifiers were employed. A total of 79 men and 4 women were surveyed.

Results

A summary of the results from the FRI surveys are presented in Table 2.

Phone Survey: 678 men were interviewed. Four percent strongly favored, 15% favored, 14% were uncertain, 18% opposed and 50% strongly opposed permitting homosexuals into the U.S. military.

Were they approached homosexually? 16% said that they had been approached for homosexual sexual relations. Of those who provided details, 7 were enlistees approached by another enlistee, 2 enlistees were approached by an officer. 10 (21%) of these events were considered major disruptions.

Did they experience any homosexual incidents? 19% said that they had experienced a homosexual incident. Of these, 41 (45%) were considered major disruptions. 20 were propositions or attempts at sex by enlistees upon enlistees, 7 were advances by officers against enlistees.

Outcomes: ‘Nothing’ was done to 30 (28%) of the offending homosexuals, 19 (17%) were discharged, 11 (10%) were shunned, 10 (9%) beaten or hit, 7 (6%) were transferred and 3 (3%) were killed.

Retired Military, Evangelical Christians: 214 men returned partially or completely filled-out questionnaires.

Opinions: 4 (2%) strongly favored, 1 (<1%) favored, 3 (1%) were unsure, 7 (3%) were opposed and 199 (93%) were strongly opposed to admitting homosexuals into the U.S. military.

Personally approached for homosexual relations? 27 (14%) of 199 reported having been approached for homosexual relations while on a tour of duty. Of those who provided details, 8 solicitations or molestations of enlistees were by enlistees, 6 by civilians and one by an officer on an enlistee. More of these incidents were rated as “minor” or “not at all” severe than were rated “major” disruptions.

Experienced a homosexual incident while on a tour of duty? 32 (16%) of 194 reported experiencing at least one homosexual incident. About half (16 of 34) of these incidents were judged “major” disruptions of the command or unit. 24 of the incidents involved enlistees engaging in or seeking homosexual sex with enlistees, 6 involved officers seeking or engaging in homosexual sex with enlistees.

Outcomes: 6 (19%) of the 31 approaches, rapes or molestations by homosexuals resulted in the homosexual being beaten or physically assaulted for his efforts. In a little less than half of the incidents, the individual attempting homosexual relations was discharged, but shunning and/or reduction in morale were noted as well.

Retired Military, mail responses: 451 men in the first sample and 1,031 men in the second sample returned partially or completely filled-out questionnaires.

Opinions of the combined sample: 58 (4%) strongly favored, 60 (4%) favored, 14 (1%) were unsure, 55 (4%) opposed, and 1288 (87%) strongly opposed admitting homosexuals into the U.S. military.

Personally approached for homosexual relations? 12% of the 1,353 who responded reported that they had been approached for homosexual relations while on a tour of duty. We could determine the ratings of some of these approaches because it constituted the only homosexual “incident” for the respondent. Most of these experiences were rated “not at all disruptive” of the mission or unit because it often involved a civilian or a situation that the respondent felt he could handle (sometimes violently).

Experienced a homosexual incident while on a tour of duty? 319 (24%) of the 1307 that responded reported such an incident. Most (58% of 293) of these incidents were considered “major” disruptions of the command or unit. 119 of the incidents were initiated by or involved enlistees; 55 were initiated by or involved officers and, with 7 exceptions, featured officers attempting homosexual relations with enlistees. Since the ratio of officers to enlistees is about 1:6, homosexual officers appeared to disproportionately exploit their rank for sexual purposes.

Outcomes: At least 39 (12%) of the approaches, rapes or molestations by homosexuals resulted in violence against the offending homosexual (and other violence was implied in other responses). In at least 34 “nothing” was done. In 206 (65%) of the incidents, the individual committing or seeking homosexual relations was discharged. Shunning and reduction of morale were also mentioned by respondents. Homosexuals were told that what they were doing was OK in at least 6 (2%) of the incidents (and one homosexual enlistee claimed that his officers and units knew of his homosexual activities and were totally accepting of them — he even sent us a copy of his discharge papers as proof).

Active Duty:

Opinion: 3% of the 79 males on active duty favored or strongly favored homosexuals being admitted, 3% were uncertain, 18% were opposed and 77% were strongly opposed.

Homosexual approach? 9 (12%) of 78 reported having been homosexually approached.

Experienced a homosexual incident? 28 (35%) of 79 reported having encountered a homosexual incident. 17 of these were considered major disruptions and 7 minor. 8 of these incidents involved enlistees with enlistees; officers attempting to or sodomizing an enlistee was reported twice. 7 of these events happened in the showers or while someone was sleeping or drunk.

Outcomes: 16 of the offending homosexuals were discharged, 2 were beaten, one was pushed in front of a car (but not killed).

Women: In the phone survey, women who had served made up 3.7% of the sample. Three (12%) were strongly in favor, 7 (27%) were in favor, 3 (12%) were unsure, 5 (19%) were opposed, and 8 (31%) strongly opposed to homosexuals in the military. Three (12%) of 26 reported having been homosexually approached and 10 (45%) of 22 said that they had encountered a homosexual incident while on a tour of duty (one of these incidents was considered major, 3 minor, and one “not at all” disruptive). One respondent indicated that she was a lesbian. Females compared to men in this survey were (X²= 5.36; df=2; P <0.03, one-tailed) more accepting of homosexuals in the military.

In the second mail survey, the 26 females (2.5% of the sample) were more supportive of gays in the military than the men were: 2 (8%) strongly favored, 5 (19%) favored, 1 (4%) was opposed and 18 (69%) were strongly opposed. Females were less opposed to dropping the ban than were men [X² = 7.9, P <0.02]. 3 (12%) of 26 said that they had been approached for homosexual relations and 3 (12%) of 26 said they had experienced an incident involving homosexuality during their tour of duty. One reported an organized lesbian “nest” [where all cover for each other].

Table 2. Summary of FRI Survey Results

Discussion

1. Is homosexuality a problem in today’s U.S. military?

To those like Ellen Goodman, who argue that homosexuality doesn’t really affect the functioning of the military today, and most certainly won’t when accepted, it is noteworthy that between 12% and 16% of men reported homosexual approaches and 16% to 24% encountered a homosexual incident during their service. The results for women were similar. Over half of these incidents are of considerable significance for a fighting force, with many involving serious breaches of morale, military authority, and chain of command. These same data call into question the claims of homosexual spokespersons that opposition to their open inclusion is merely based upon “bigotry.” The presence, power and extent of the “homosexual network” within the U.S. military appear to be considerable.

2. Are homosexuals engaging in as much disruption and sex in the military as the Humphrey-Studds study suggests?

The Humphrey-Studds study presents a chilling view of the influence of homosexuals on the military. The same degree of rebellion and disruption depicted in the Humphrey-Studds study fills the surveys FRI received. In fact, the two sets of reports are opposite sides of the same coin: the very activities that homosexuals regarded as entertaining were experienced as distressing and disruptive by those who had served.

Here are some of the testimonies FRI received (note their similarity to reports by homosexuals in the Humphrey-Studds study) —

“In 1938, I was with a S/Sgt [staff sergeant]. He said he had to pee so we stopped and I started to join him. Immediately he clamped his mouth on my penis and told me that he would bite it off unless I discharged into him. I was afraid and 18 and just avoided him from then on.”

“In 1940 I was a 20 year old S/Sgt with my own private room. At the time we were requested to allow new S/Sgts to share our rooms. I drew a new S/Sgt who was transferred from the field artillery. The night of the incident, he entered my room while I was asleep in my bunk and started to put his hands on my legs and lower body. I awoke with a start, immediately jumped up and ordered him to stay in his bunk.

“He made another attempt to grab me and I tossed him to the floor. I picked up a service shoe and told him not to dare get out of his bunk. He told me that he shaved with a straight razor and he was going to cut my throat while I slept. Since he was a much larger and older man, I never slept that night.”

1944: in a latrine, “pvt tried to seduce 1st Sgt. First Sgt beat pvt nearly to death. It was reported that the pvt ‘fell down a flight of stairs.’”

1961: (near San Francisco) “a very young WAF (in her late teens) was assigned to my Squadron. She was fresh, exuberant and full of enthusiasm, so I was somewhat surprised to discover she had gone AWOL for two days. She was apprehended in the vicinity of the Base and although she offered no explanation, I merely administered a verbal reprimand and returned her to duty. A short time thereafter, she again went AWOL. After about three weeks, she was located in her parent’s home. This time on the advice of her family lawyer, she returned to the Base to tell the sordid story of having been propositioned, harassed, threatened, and in the present day vernacular: ‘hit on.’

“She identified a couple of WAF NCOs from the Squadron as her lesbian tormentors. The OSI quickly moved in and a lesbian network was badly shattered as other WAFs came forward to testify to the OSI.

“In the future, however, emboldened by an acceptance label, the greatest punishment will more likely be meted out to the ‘straights’ who forcibly resist unwelcome advances made by those who are protected.”

1955: “a major picked up two lumberjacks — went to a motel — and they beat the hell out of him.”

1942: (Guadalcanal Invasion) “Japanese fleet was coming in and shelling us. A large number of casualties was expected. I had to call back to Div. Hdqts to get a relief for the homo that was missing, who I was informed, was with his ‘boyfriend.’ I was chief of the 1st Pioneer battalion and doing field duty and I had ‘no’ help.”

1957: “I noticed my clerk (a blue-eyed blonde) began to smell rank of sweat and seemed nervous and inattentive after 3 days on the job after transfer in…. I had another female clerk who I knew talk to her — but it took her 5 weeks on the job to [tell me] of her 1st day at Barlsdale female barracks and being raped in the shower. Yes, I helped her and worked with base authorities to trap her lesbian barracks chief and female officers to be put out of service… many others came forward after we caught them.”

1969: (Hunter’s Point) “said he was going crazy, felt like a ‘rapist in a girl’s dorm’ having to watch all the nude guys.”

1982: (Ft. Carson) “steady stream of men [to this cross-dresser’s room], no one would go within 20 ft. of him. Shunned. Busted after pass at Col.’s driver.”

1975: (Barracks, Goppingen, Germany) “Too many lesbian incidents to describe. Involved fraternization…. Good soldiers had to be disciplined because of retaliation against homosexuals. My integrity was stretched!”

1951: (Korea, front line) “oral sex between EM, jeopardized security of their unit if enemy had infiltrated their area.”

1985: “An E-7 cook was giving preferential treatment to two male subordinates in the mess hall, and then coercing them to go to hotel rooms with him.”

1956: “An E was approached by another E. It was not reported. They had a blanket party for him [threw a blanket on him and beat him] and that ended anymore incidents to my knowledge.”

1963: “An E made a pass to another E and the homo was thrown off the balcony. Homo was hospitalized for a long time. The E received punishment for actions.”

1972 (Iwakuni, Japan) “A sailor approached me as I left the mess hall and said he wanted to do some disgusting things. I hit him in the mouth. He fell down. End of incident.”

1943: “Two were approached by fellow cadet — [they] beat him to a bloody pulp.”

1964: (Homosexual Tokyo commander?) “Reports to IG were fed back to commander. The whole situation smacked of a circle of homosexuals protecting each other. The IG took no action. One captain, naval academy grad, eventually left the service in disgust. One captain threatened the commander with real harm. A major went psychotic out of pure frustration. It was a disaster. I believe the greatest danger is the tight allegiance homosexuals have to each other. It will transcend the chain-of-command, will negate promotion-on-merit, etc.”

1940: “I threw the gay over the railing and into the lake 16 feet below. I was not charged with anything.”

1954 to 1957: (Ft. Hood) “a ring of homos who assembled a service club. An officer was assigned to the 1st Armored division, reported in one day, went AWOL the next to meet his 18-yr-old lover in D.C. Both apprehended by MPs. The resulting investigation resulted in one officer committing suicide, several court martials.”

1949: (WAC training center, Ft Lee, VA) “three lesbians trying to recruit another WAC who rejected their advances, [she] was badly injured by the lesbians.”

“Practically all our cases involved homosexuals and their passive partners. The passive partners were all in their late teens. From this experience, I learned that homosexuals are very disturbed people, often bordering on the fringe of mental instability. In each case, the active homosexual wrote detailed accounts of their involvement in homosexual conduct, and each indicated that their homosexuality was a learned social/sexual behavior taught by family members at a very early age. The passive member usually indicated they were seeking an added sexual experience.

“A young sailor committed suicide, and the subsequent investigation by the NIS revealed that my medical Department was made up mostly of homosexuals. Because of a recent change in policy by the Bureau of Naval Personnel, young recruits were assigned to shore duty before going to sea. I had over 150 young sailors in their late teens. They presented a very fertile field for homosexual conduct. The NIS investigation found out that the assignment desk at Norfolk, VA was occupied by a homosexual and he was loading my command.

“Throughout my career as an AF Nurse I watched young talented women leave the service because of these homosexuals who have their own society within the corps. As they get higher in rank they become more dangerous, giving good assignments and OER’s [i.e., performance report] to only their own kind. Spouses cannot write one another’s OER but these lovers do it constantly…. Much talent has been lost to the service through young potentials leaving to avoid being molested.

“Homosexuality is recruited not created! I have refused assignments rather than be rated by a gay member.”

1951: (AG Div, Hq TRUST, Trieste, Italy) “Some homosexuals managed to get into position in the TRUST personnel Division where assignments, promotions, exam questions, etc. were meted out to their favored few at the expense of others.”

1946: (Ft Sam Houston) “One man murdered his lover when he learned he was leaving the service. He then committed suicide.”

1953: (Ft Bliss, TX) “During the night one E slipped over to another sleeping soldier’s bunk and started massaging his privates. The sleeping soldier had been drinking pretty heavily on the weekend, awoke finally and when he realized another man was massaging his penis, he reacted violently. The homo had been approaching several other enlisted men in the company and had been warned to stay away. When the fighting awoke several sleeping soldiers and they found out what had happened, several men threw the homo enlisted man through the window and window-frame of a 2nd floor window. The H was treated at the hospital for multiple bruises and a broken nose and broken collarbone. All were punished for the incident…. homosexual behavior will take priority over a man’s required disciplined behavior… and he will split the cohesiveness and fighting camaraderie of any military unit to which he is assigned.”

1928: (7th Observation Sqd, France) “The squad threw the homosexual offender out of a window which resulted in bodily injury requiring hospitalization and rehabilitation. The squad had to pay the property damage of the window of the bldg.”

1973: “Whenever gay personnel were processed for discharge, they had to be given temporary assignments or work outside their units. As an Adjutant General Officer, I was the one who had to find the interim assignment or job. Nobody wanted them; they disrupted the whole assignment process. They ruined morale in their new, temp assignments. Knowing they were leaving the Army, they didn’t give their best efforts. They took up ‘space’ but didn’t produce.”

1955: (Tripler Army Hospital, Honolulu) “Gay hospital man, in a ring including ships cook on my ship, took a 10 year old sick male child and performed oral sex on him. This was the same ward our children would be patients in while we were at sea with no communications (I was a submariner).”

1965: (Storeroom aboard ship) “One E, was unable to extract a bottle from his rectum, which led to a medical evacuation problem.”

1943 (USS San Juan in the Pacific) “A chief gunners mate attempted to get into the bunk of a young sailor. The entire crew became so angry the chief was confined to the brig for his personal safety.”

1944: (Greenham Commons, UK) “barrack residents came in to find a cook and a supply man in bed committing sodomy. They beat them within an inch of their life.”

1965 (El Toro, CA) “My NCO counter-intelligence chief was found to be a transvestite who had falsified investigations of homosexuals within the command. He was covering the homosexual activities of a woman marine officer. He was allowed to leave the service without prejudice because of his large involvement with classified materials.”

1988: “homosexual sailor committed suicide via Russian Roulette.”

1938: (Presidio, Monterey, CA) “It was discovered that a certain troop had a homosexual in its rank. Turned out several more were discovered. Troop morale went down. The other troops looked at that troop as part of outcasts.”

1943: (Ft Huachuca, AZ) “A homosexual EM tried to get in the bunk of another. The other EM in the barracks were awakened. The homosexual was badly beaten by a number of my EM. He was hospitalized. I refused to identify or prefer assault or battery charges…. command pressure [was] applied to all officers and Non-Coms to disclose identities of those who administered the beating. [no one would]”

1952: (Dharam, Saudi Arabia) “While anal sodomy was performed the lower individual suffocated (his head being in a pillow).”

1942: “Aboard an amphibious assault ship prior to landing on Guadalcanal. Sailor and marine contact…. Disturbed combat unit just prior to combat operations.”

1951: (Kwajalein, Is) “An ONI investigator was sent to Kwajalein to conduct an exhaustive investigation. We learned that the group had expanded rather rapidly with people transferred to the island covertly and with individuals (straights) pulled into their ranks by intimidation, drunkenness, etc. We found the group had been operating secretly for several months. They had their ‘queens’ and operatives who were actively involved in recruiting new members. Some young men stated they had fallen prey to the active participants mostly while drunk.”

1961: (Sacramento) “OG shot himself after being arrested for cross-dressing. He also had children living with him.”

1993: “I am a practicing homosexual… Grow up all of you and join the real world. Fight a purposeful cause that will really help people — or are you secretly like me?”

3. Are opinions about homosexuals in the military driven by bias or experience?

The overall results from the FRI surveys suggest that those who have the best experiences with homosexuals, where the intrusion is not too sharp, offensive or serious, are the most inclined toward admitting homosexuals to the military. The more frequent sour experiences with homosexuals apparently motivates the opinion of those who strongly oppose their entry into the services. In the 1992 TROA [The Reserve Officers Association] survey, those who favored or strongly favored admission of homosexuals reported only one major incident, 24 minor incidents, and 18 other incidents that were not disruptive. By contrast, those who opposed or strongly opposed letting homosexuals serve reported 180 major incidents, 98 minor incidents, and 30 other incidents that were not disruptive (X² = 82.7, 6 df, P <<0.0001]. Thus, as in our studies, those who opposed homosexuals in the military were more apt to report negative experiences with them.

4. Are Evangelical Christians driving opposition to homosexuals in the military?

The evidence from our research comes from two mail surveys — of retired military and Evangelical Christian retired military personnel. The opinions and experiences of Evangelicals who served versus others who served were, overall, far more similar than different. Even accounting for the fact that respondents who send in questionnaires (with their own postage) probably care more deeply about an issue than those who were contacted by phone, there was only a slight, non-significant tendency for Evangelicals to more frequently express opinions against dropping the ban against homosexual service. Otherwise, their reports were pretty much indistinguishable from non-Evangelicals who served.

5. Is lesbianism a greater problem among females in the services than homosexuality is among men?

The females in our surveys were more frequently in favor of dropping the ban [women accounted for 3.7% of the respondents of our phone survey, 2.5% of the mail samples, and 4.8% of the active-duty survey]. The reports we got from both men and women suggest that homosexuality may be more frequent among female members of the armed services.

Post Office Bars Mail Critical of Gays in Military as ‘Obscene’ and ‘Treasonable’

March 17, 2010

Colorado Springs, CO: You can’t send mail disagreeing with President Obama on gays in the military!

So Family Research Institute (FRI) discovered March 4. The Post Office refused to send FRI’s mail saying it was ‘obscene’ and ‘’incited forcible resistance against the government!’

The Post Office has rejected mail in the past, but never for both being obscene and inciting violence.’ So this FRI mailing becomes the nation’s first ‘two-fer.’

“Something dangerous for free speech is going on,” said Dr. Paul Cameron, FRI’s chairman. “Our Colorado Springs think-tank has mailed newsletters for 28 years without censorship — until President Obama ordered the military to accept homosexuals. Our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The notion that the post office has the right to deem controversial speech unworthy of being mailed is ridiculous. How can the Post Office refuse to deliver our scholarly critique when it delivers a host of sordid magazines on a daily basis? If the Post Office can refuse our mail, whose is next?”

So what was in the mailing?

No threats were made, there was no encouragement to violate any laws. There was no description of sexual acts, no photographs or other depictions of anything.

Not even a call to rebellion – just an interview with a female military recruit who relates her 2009 experiences regarding taking basic training with a fairly large number of lesbians; analysis of gay historian Randy Shilts’ report about a gay bathroom in the Pentagon; and excerpts from a retired navy captain’s letter to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs describing his experiences with homosexuals aboard his naval vessel.

Yet our newsletter just got banned for obscenity and incitement to violence. And there is nothing ‘obscene’ or ‘treasonable’ in it (read it at www.familyresearchinst.org).”

The following letter was part of a FRI mailing that was rejected by a US Postal Inspector for being “obscene” and for inciting “forcible resistance against the government.” The mailing also included our February 2010 newsletter, discussing ‘gays in the military.’ FRI believes the reaction of the Postal Service is both unwarranted and unfounded. Judge for yourself…

February 2010

Dear Supporter,

Well, a Democrat is President, and gays-in-the-military is up again for debate!

This month’s newsletter deals with this issue, as do the excerpts of the following Feb. 8 letter from a Captain to Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

“This letter is in response to your shocking statement last week that you advocate homosexuals openly serving in the military services. I seriously question the wisdom of your position… I am a retired Navy Captain… and… in my more than 31 years of active duty, I commanded two ships, served as Executive Officer on two ships, commanded Coastal Squadron ONE (Swift Boats) in Vietnam, and was Chief Staff Officer on an Amphibious Squadron.… I received a Juris Doctorate from the Hastings College of Law. Like you, I encountered homosexuals throughout my Navy career and in civilian life. Unlike you, I do not find they are more deserving than non-homosexuals or that they constitute a viable or necessary body of troops for the defense of our country.

“My experience is Naval… the best analogy to a ship at sea is a prison…. During my enlisted service, homosexuals seemed to be a clumsy lot. They had a tendency to repeatedly fall headfirst down an engine room ladder. Some were even known to trip on deck and “fall” overboard. The crew had a way of policing themselves to eliminate homosexual advances.… It has been my experience that if sexual favors are available aboard ship, some enterprising sailor, petty officer, or officer will find a way to take advantage of the offer. There is usually a senior/junior relationship in such exchanges and the senior partner will reward the junior with preferential treatment, such as duty assignments, watches, leave, liberty, and advancement. Such preferential treatment can’t be hidden from other crewmembers and tends to destroy the chain of command, discipline and morale. If a Chief Petty Officer, for example, is having sexual relations with a non-rated sailor, it will have an adverse impact on those petty officers between the two in the chain of command.… That sexual misconduct in the Navy exists to this day is obvious. I recall that a lesbian ring was discovered on the USS NORTON SOUND back in the late 60’s or early 70’s. At about the same time my wife, now a retired Navy Commander,… was aware of many cases of homosexuality involving the WAVES assigned to the Barracks. I also recall that one of the cruisers returning from the First Gulf War reported 40% of the female crewmembers were pregnant after a six-month deployment.

“In all my years of service, I never encountered a Commanding Officer who ‘asked’ a subordinate if he was a homosexual…. In regard to heterosexual behavior, the UCMJ also proscribes common law marriage under the heading of Unlawful Cohabitation (with or without evidence of sexual intercourse). It sanctions adultery and prostitution (for both the prostitute and the patron). In the case of an officer, merely “consorting with a notorious prostitute” constitutes an offense, again even without evidence of sexual intercourse. The problem is that common law marriage is legal in 11 states and the District of Columbia. I don’t believe that adultery is a criminal offense in any state today. And in my home state of Nevada, even prostitution is legal. I don’t recall you asking Congress to legalize heterosexual sodomy, adultery, prostitution, or common law marriage. There are many punitive articles in the UCMJ that have no relationship to the satisfactory performance of military duties, yet you single out homosexuals for preferred treatment. Again, I must ask ‘why?’

“The argument I hear most often expounded by the homophiles is that the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy deprives the military of outstanding young men and women who want nothing more than to defend their country and that they have the ability to operate a radar, or a gas turbine, or a gun as well as a heterosexual. That can’t be true.… But, even if it were true, are homosexuals really worth the administrative problems they would create by their mere existence? The Navy, today, does not willingly accept GED holders… Minor criminal records are a bar to enlistment. Visible tattoos and piercings are not permitted. Are these aberrations more damning than sodomy? Is it your contention that cohabitors, adulterers, prostitutes, young men and women with tattoos, those with only GEDs, or the obese cannot serve as well as homosexuals? If so, what is your empirical evidence to support such an argument? If we get to pick and choose which laws we uphold, which laws are next on the line to ignore? Carnal Knowledge? I would think a service man or woman who has sex with a minor (Carnal Knowledge) could perform military duties as well, if not better, than a homosexual. At least we don’t have children in combat, or in the military at large, for them to accost.…

“Have you considered the likelihood that some of the homosexuals will request sex change procedures… Do you also advocate same-sex marriage or ‘partnerships?’  Will the homosexual’s partner be entitled to dependents’ benefits, including health care, BAQ, military base access, and commissary and exchange privileges? Will they be entitled to military housing? Would they be entitled to sex change procedures at government expense?

“While serving as Executive Officer on USS CATAMOUNT (LSD-17) in 1967, one of the Radarmen was arrested by local police. While inventorying his personal effects a photograph of the sailor performing fellatio on another male was discovered. The police turned the photo over to the Shore Patrol, who forwarded it to me. During an investigation it was determined that five of the ship’s Radarmen were involved in a male prostitution ring. They declared that while in Radarman Class ‘A’ School at Treasure Island, their instructors convinced them that they could augment their military pay by providing homosexual services to gays in San Francisco. They took advantage of the opportunity presented and continued such activity in San Diego. CATAMOUNT sailed absent several Radarmen and the Class ‘A’ School lost several instructors. Are these otherwise competent Radarmen the type of sailors you want on your ships? I hope not!

Lawrence R. Jefferis, Captain, U. S. Navy (Ret.), Las Vegas, NV 89117

Can whining, posturing, and screaming about ‘rights’ get those who are dysfunctional into the cat bird seat? Seems so — at least for most liberals. Straights can’t have sex in the barracks but gays might pull it off. Those whose sexual activities disproportionately spread disease, cost everyone else money and security, and seldom produce children are on the cusp of getting preferred status.

Please, send FRI $25 or more this month and we will send you a copy of our latest statistical report about rapes in the military – drawn from official Defense Department reports! Plus, a complete copy of Captain Jefferis’ letter.

How about it, will you help FRI fight this latest madness? Please respond today! We, and the U.S. Military, need your support…

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.”

The risks homosexuals pose for the military are evident in an interview we recently conducted with a woman in basic training. Homosexuals are sensing that whining and complaining about their lack of rights, along with sheer persistence, are about to win them the prize. Homosexuals may care about protecting the country, but that care is almost always trumped by their homosexual compulsions. See if you can identify the compulsive behavior in the following interview recorded February 1-2, 2010. The female enlistee we spoke with was recalling her 2009 experiences in Basic Training:

Woman: “My experiences in BCT and AIT with homosexuals was and is awkward! Of course at first I didn’t know who was lesbian and who wasn’t, so I didn’t think much of who I was showering with. Then, noticing that they were looking at me a little too much made things clear as to their preferences.

“It was uncomfortable in so many ways. When your only choice is to shower in very close quarters with 60 other females, it is already embarrassing enough. Add that over half of them are lesbians, and you end up with very difficult feelings. It is like I was showering with 40 males staring at me and making comments. That isn’t acceptable for males to do to females in the military, so it shouldn’t be for females to do to each other!

“Living with them and changing clothes near them made me self conscious and uncomfortable. The ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy is practically void because everyone tells. You don’t even have to ask. What made it worse was when males talked about our bodies — things that the homosexual females had told them…. having a female whistle at you is not appreciated!”

Comment: If young men and women showered together, dressed together, etc. — how much ‘serious business’ could be accomplished? The answer is the same as to why single-sex schools generally produce better learning. When you are on ‘sexual alert’ you spend energy avoiding or seeking sexual attention. The military is focused on smashing and killing enemies. Given the age of most soldiers, sexual interest is necessarily ‘along for the ride,’ but getting trained and doing your job are both compromised by the easy availability of sex (e.g., STDs in WWI disabled almost as many as were wounded).

Dr. Cameron: How many of the women in your group have been discharged or processed for discharge because of homosexuality?

Woman: “Well there were 60 females that I stayed in the same barracks with, and 60 more down the hall. Out of the total 120 females, I know that at least 50 were found to be homosexuals. Many more we weren’t sure about.

“It really depended on what they did openly that determined their punishments. Some that actually got caught in sexual action were chaptered out of the army. A chapter 11 I believe. Others that were caught kissing or hand holding were given company grade article 15’s which gave them 14 days extra duty. The ones that were chaptered ended up even more openly homosexual because they had nothing to lose at that point. The ones that had article 15’s had two different outcomes. The ones that didn’t want to be in [the armed forces] just continued to misbehave so they could get chapter packets. Others really wanted to be in the military so they kept their preferences to themselves. All in all, I would guess that about 20 got chaptered out and 30 had article 15’s. The main problem was that the chapters had to remain in basic training until their packets went through and were approved. So some stayed in for all 12 weeks and caused trouble the entire time.”

Comment: The rates of lesbianism implied by this enlistee are much higher than polls suggesting that about 8% of servicewomen engage in homosexuality. Perhaps this is an anomaly or an unusual unit or training discharges are not counted. Or perhaps this enlistee was speculating without knowing the hard numbers.

Dr. Cameron: Was there any instance or instances of officer (NCO) or otherwise having sex with one or more of these recruits?

Woman: “No one in my company had sexual relations with their NCOs or chain of command. My whole battalion was really squared away. I’m not sure about any of the others.”

Dr. Cameron: Was there any hanky-panky between any of the recruits and officers?

Woman: “No, there was no fraternization between privates and NCOs [non-commissioned officers] in my company but I heard rumors about it in another company. That wasn’t homosexual, though. The private was given UCMJ action for her conduct and did not graduate. The drill sergeant did not accept her offers.”

Dr. Cameron: Were you approached to participate in lesbian activities?

Woman: “I was approached several times by lesbians who wanted me to participate in their nonsense. Of course, I immediately reported that back to my drill sergeant. I do think you need to know that the cadre at basic training did everything they could do to stop the homosexuals and they gave us frequent briefings on harassment and homosexuality and how it was not acceptable. My platoon’s drill sergeant was our company’s EO and she was always doing all she could to help those of us that were being pressured.”

Comment: Right and left lesbians were being warned, disciplined, and discharged. Yet they almost all persisted. Homosexual sex overwhelms rationality, overwhelms the desire to serve, and pushes aside a sense of propriety and scale.

Other Testimony

The Washington Post², ‘campaigning’ as it were for homosexuality, led a recent story with the tale of a 26-year-old male homosexual. He admitted ‘dating’ another soldier in the combat arms battalion — that is, he was breaking military law against sodomy. Yet this homosexual bragged that he “won hearts and minds among my brothers in arms because I did my job well and went above and beyond. I was respected.” The Post story did not suggest his mates knew he was sodomizing another soldier — who knows what they would have thought if they knew? But the Post rhapsodized that:

“Underground gay communities have emerged at bases across the United States and even in war zones. In Iraq, one e-mail group maintained by gay troops includes a database where soldiers post their instant-messaging screen names and the base where they’re stationed. Dozens have profiles on gay dating sites, some posing in uniform.”

What are these ‘communities’ for other than illegal homosexual sex? Why would the Washington Post — self-proclaimed guardian of Washington — praise disruptive lawlessness?

Randy Shilts, acclaimed historian of the gay movement (he died of AIDS at 42), lauded similar single-minded lawlessness.³ But in one incident he placed the ‘fun and games’ at the Pentagon:

“In the bathroom on corridor 6, just inside the five-acre central courtyard, men literally stood in line outside the stalls during the lunch hour, waiting their turn to engage in some hanky-panky.” (p. 184)

Assuming Shilts was reporting accurately, these homosexuals were apparently on the job. Yet they were so consumed with sex that they stood in line waiting their turn to engage in sodomy. Do heterosexuals do this? Not many in FRI’s experience. If homosexuals can’t control themselves at the Pentagon, what happens when the bullets fly, or during the many hours of ‘down time’ in training, traveling, waiting for orders, etc? [Re-read the interview with the female enlistee above.]

President Obama is pushing for a change that no ‘third party’ reports would be permitted to lead to dismissal of homosexual service personnel — effectively repealing the current federal law against sodomy in the armed forces. Thus, if two homosexuals have sex in the shower — as long as one of them doesn’t complain (and that is unlikely) — it will be considered ‘OK.’ The woman we interviewed could still report being ‘hit on,’ but she would not be able to object if three gals had sex next to her in their bunk. Would she have the right to complain if they also engaged in the grunts and groans homosexuals like to make in their parades, or would she merely put herself in line for more sensitivity training?

How many ‘straights’ want to serve under conditions where homosexual sex — in public or semi-private — is protected, but heterosexual sex is not? Some, perhaps. But many would simply not sign up or would leave. When the dust settles, who will end up defending the U.S.? How many will be left besides homosexuals and those who can tolerate being around them?

Conclusion

Given the foregoing testimony, does it make sense to let homosexuals serve openly or otherwise in the armed forces?

To homosexuals, it makes plenty of sense. Sex would be highly efficient and they would be quartered with any number of potential partners. They would be allowed to ply their compulsion in a veritable ‘candy store.’ And fellow service personnel who gave them grief for their ‘need to be who they are’ would be punished.

For the rest of us? No way. A sex-saturated military would have a hard time getting out of bed, exiting bathrooms and showers, maintaining discipline, etc. No nation can expect to survive that trusts its protection to the sex-obsessed.

Despite the evidence, President Obama seems determined to get rid of DADT. But at what risk to the U.S. military? This report examines very recent data on sexual assault reports in the military, as compiled by the Department of Defense (DoD)⁴, as well as telling and relevant testimony from eyewitnesses who have served. None of the evidence suggests much has changed since DADT was enacted, or that there is any justification for removing the ban on open service in the military by homosexuals.

Proportion of Homosexuals in U.S. Military

To examine the relative risk of homosexual assault by military personnel, estimates are needed of the composition of the armed forces by sexual orientation. Since the military formally excludes those who engage in homosexual sex, no official records are kept, and DADT forces those with homosexual preferences to keep quiet or else face expulsion. To sidestep this obstacle, we used weighted estimates from two federal self-report surveys: the 1996 National Household Survey of Drug Abuse (NHSDA; 12,381 respondents aged 18-59) and the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG; 12,571 respondents aged 15-44). Each survey asked about military service (though the NSFG only asked this question of men), and each indexed same-sex sexual behavior.

Homosexuals were counted as those who said they had had ‘same-sex sex in the last 12 months.’ To account for the lack of female respondents in the NSFG on the subject of military experience, figures from DoD were used to assume that 13.5% of military personnel was female in 2002. Results from the two surveys are presented in Table 1, along with an adjusted average of the two. To compute the adjusted average, both sets of survey estimates were first proportionally scaled to match the percentage of female military personnel in 2002. Then the scaled female estimates from the NHSDA were imputed to the NSFG prior to simple averaging.

This adjusted average was taken as the basis for assessing the relative risk of homosexual sexual assault, although the proportion of homosexuals is likely somewhat elevated due to the non-inclusion of active military personnel in the sampling frames of both federal surveys. Table 1 also includes a newer estimate computed by Gates⁵, published under the auspices of the pro-gay Williams Institute at the UCLA Law School. It employs different national surveys, but still utilizes an indirect method of estimation. It also uses tallies as of 2008 for the proportion of women in the U.S. military. These have steadily risen in recent years.

The estimates for male homosexuals with military service are fairly similar, while the more recent estimate of lesbians from the Williams Institute is somewhat higher than that derived from the NHSDA. This could be due to increasing proportions of lesbians (and/or women in general) in the military (see, for instance, the testimony below) or simply a sampling fluctuation attributable to the small samples of lesbians captured in national surveys.

Table 1. Estimated Prevalence of Homosexuals in U.S. Military

DoD Sexual Assaults Involving Military Personnel, FY2007, FY2008, FY2009

Table 2 compiles sexual assaults reported by DoD for 2007, 2008, and 2009 in so-called “unrestricted reports.” The notation “X on X” signifies the category/sex of perpetrator versus the category/sex of victim. Our analysis assumes that all same-sex sexual assaults were committed by homosexuals and that all opposite-sex sexual assaults were perpetrated by heterosexuals. Given the nearly 3 million individuals serving across the armed forces from year to year, the number of sexual assault reports is fairly small. However, most analysts assume that sexual assault is a highly underreported crime, and DoD makes this assumption as well within the military. Therefore, the figures reported in Table 2 are likely to represent only a fraction of the actual number of assaults.

Table 2. Sexual Assault Reports Across DoD for FY2007 — FY2009

Relative Risk of Homosexual Sexual Assault

To gauge the relative risk of sexual assault involving military personnel by homosexual practitioners, we computed approximate odds ratios⁶ in FY2007, FY2008, and FY2009 for the categories of total assaults and ‘Service on Service’ (signifying an intra-service assault). Estimates were computed separately for male and female perpetrators. These results are presented in Table 3 and 4. Table 3 utilizes our estimates of the proportion of homosexual servicemen and servicewomen, while Table 4 employs the Williams Institute estimates.

In each table, the odds ratio represents the relative odds that the actions of a homosexual practitioner would generate a sexual assault report compared to the actions of a non-homosexual, same gender counterpart. Thus, in 2007 for intra-service assaults, male homosexuals were nearly 6 times as likely to be perpetrators as heterosexual males (note that this is a statement about relative risk and not a statement about absolute numbers of cases; the odds ratios are designed to adjust for the large differential in raw numbers of heterosexual and homosexual service members). The confidence intervals assume — as does DoD — that the reported assaults are only a sample of the true number that occur each year; further, that there is year-to-year variance in the number of reports. They do not fully account for the fact that the composition of the military by sexual orientation has been estimated, rather than already known. Any confidence interval containing the value 1 suggests a non-significant (NS) difference in risk of sexual assault. Entire intervals exceeding 1 suggest a significant increase in sexual assault risk due to homosexual practitioners.

Regardless of which estimates of homosexual prevalence in the U.S. military were used, Tables 3 and 4 indicate a significantly higher relative risk of sexual assault by homosexuals than by heterosexuals, for all three years. For males, the increased odds range from 3 to over 9 times the risk. For females — comparing lesbians versus heterosexual females — the increased odds are even greater, ranging from 4 to over 100 times the risk. Each comparison was highly statistically significant (p < 0.001). Results for intra-service (i.e., “Service on Service”) sexual assault reports are also graphed in Figures 1 and 2.

Table 3. Odds Ratios of Sexual Assault Risk Using FRI Prevalence Estimates

Table 4. Odds Ratios of Sexual Assault Risk Using Williams Institute Prevalence Estimates

Eyewitness Testimony

Corroborating the data above on disproportionate risk of homosexual sexual assault in the U.S. military are the following three sets of eyewitness testimony. The first is a personal interview we conducted with a woman who left basic training in late 2009. Second is the testimony of Col. Richard H. Black (USA Ret.) - as reported in the Washington Times - who, from 1992-1994, served as Chief of the Army’s Criminal Law Division at the Pentagon. Lastly, we document the testimony of Randy Shilts, acclaimed as perhaps the premiere historian of the gay movement.

The personal interview was recorded February 1-2, 2010 by Dr. Paul Cameron. The comments from a woman-in-training, speaking about her experiences in 2009, have been slightly edited to protect her identity:

Woman: “My experiences in BCT and AIT with homosexuals was and is awkward! Of course at first I didn’t know who was lesbian and who wasn’t, so I didn’t think much of who I was showering with. Then, noticing that they were looking at me a little too much made things clear as to their preferences.

“It was uncomfortable in so many ways. When your only choice is to shower in very close quarters with 60 other females, it is already embarrassing enough. Add that over half of them are lesbians, and you end up with very difficult feelings. It is like I was showering with 40 males staring at me and making comments. That isn’t acceptable for males to do to females in the military, so it shouldn’t be for females to do to each other!

“Living with them and changing clothes near them made me self conscious and uncomfortable. The ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy is practically void because everyone tells. You don’t even have to ask. What made it worse was when males talked about our bodies - things that the homosexual females had told them…. having a female whistle at you is not appreciated!”

Dr. Cameron: How many of the women in your group have been discharged or processed for discharge because of homosexuality?

Woman: “Well there were 60 females that I stayed in the same barracks with, and 60 more down the hall. Out of the total 120 females, I know that at least 50 were found to be homosexuals. Many more we weren’t sure about.

“It really depended on what they did openly that determined their punishments. Some that actually got caught in sexual action were chaptered out of the army. A chapter 11 I believe. Others that were caught kissing or hand holding were given company grade article 15’s which gave them 14 days extra duty. The ones that were chaptered ended up even more openly homosexual because they had nothing to lose at that point. The ones that had article 15’s had two different outcomes. The ones that didn’t want to be in the [armed forces] just continued to misbehave so they could get chapter packets. Others really wanted to be in the military so they kept their preferences to themselves. All in all, I would guess that about 20 got chaptered out and 30 had article 15’s. The main problem was that the chapters had to remain in basic training until their packets went through and were approved. So some stayed in for all 12 weeks and caused trouble the entire time.”

Dr. Cameron: Was there any instance or instances of officer (NCO) or otherwise having sex with one or more of these recruits?

Woman: “No one in my company had sexual relations with their NCOs or chain of command. My whole battalion was really squared away, I’m not sure about any of the others.”

Dr. Cameron: Was there any hanky-panky between any of the recruits and officers?

Woman: “No, there was no fraternization between privates and NCO’s in my company but I heard rumors about it in another company. That wasn’t homosexual, though. The private was given UCMJ action for her conduct and did not graduate. The drill sergeant did not accept her offers.”

Dr. Cameron: Were you approached to participate in lesbian activities?

“I was approached several times by lesbians who wanted me to participate in their nonsense. Of course, I immediately reported that back to my drill sergeant. I do think you need to know that the cadre at basic training did everything they could do to stop the homosexuals and they gave us frequent briefings on harrassment and homosexuality and how it was not acceptable. My platoon’s drill sergeant was our company’s EO and she was always doing all she could to help those of us that were being pressured.”

Col. Richard H. Black (ret.)

Col. Richard H. Black (ret.) wrote the following column in the Washington Times on February 2, 2010⁷:

“President Obama’s promise to repeal the ban on gays in the military has caused tension among those responsible for military discipline. Former Marine Commandant, Gen. Carl E. Mundy, and 1,160 retired admirals and generals strongly oppose the change.

“Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was tasked by the President with implementing the change. But that task has proven difficult. On Jan. 15, 2010, The Washington Times reported that ‘Adm. Mullen was unable to get the full backing of other senior leaders during an unusual meeting of the top officers from each branch of the military….’ There are good reasons why top officers, including the current Marine Commandant, Gen. James T. Conway, oppose the change.

“From 1992-94, I served as Chief of the Army’s Criminal Law Division at the Pentagon.  During that time, Pres. Clinton ignited a firestorm when he tried to force DOD to admit known homosexuals into the military. Key obstacles were the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Department of Defense regulations stating that ‘homosexuality is incompatible with military service.’ The UCMJ prohibits indecent assaults, indecent acts, indecent liberties with children, and sodomy. Each of those rules makes good sense in the unique military environment.

“Even as Congress was wrestling with Clinton’s proposal on gays, officials were dealing with a major homosexual scandal at Ft. Hood, Texas. Gays had advertised a Ft. Hood restroom as a gathering spot for casual consensual sex. In just seven days, criminal investigators observed 60 men publically committing serious acts on post. Officers, NCOs and enlisted personnel participated. Many wore uniforms displaying their insignia of rank. The Army dealt with the matter discreetly, and the Chief of Public Affairs referred to it as a ‘potentially explosive issue.’ It was ‘explosive’ because it contradicted the Administration’s campaign to portray gay GIs as ‘perfect gentlemen - a boon to the force.’

“At the Criminal Law Division, facts contradicted that party line. Worldwide criminal reports documented serious offenses being frequently committed by homosexual GIs. To be certain, gays weren’t the only soldiers committing crimes. But the Administration’s proposals would have placed homosexuals in situations of forced intimacy, where same-sex attractions invite serious trouble.

“Activists claim the risk of crimes from same-sex offenders is no greater than it is between servicemen and women. But they are wrong. Women are not required to sleep and shower under the watchful eyes of men.

“Gays dismiss concerns regarding privacy in showers and in the barracks. But the risk is high. At Ft. Sill, Oklahoma in 1991, two homosexual recruits caught a lone soldier showering at night. They violently sodomized the soldier, forcing him to submit by strangling him with a bath towel. At the time of trial, the victim was hospitalized under psychiatric care.

“Recruit training is especially problematic. Male recruits had to physically subdue one homosexual drill instructor at an Army base to keep him from raping a male recruit as that recruit struggled to escape out a second-story window. At Marine boot camp, an aggressive female recruit was discharged for sexually touching and soliciting fellow Marines. Her intimidating manner caused fear and distrust throughout her platoon. At Quantico, a company gunnery sergeant sexually attacked a young officer candidate who had stayed back at the barracks while his platoon was out training.

“Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, spoke firmly against dropping the ban on homosexuals, stating that it would cause ‘disruption’ and ’serious problems.’ (Skelton opposes repeal of ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ TheHill.com Jan. 15, 2010.) Ike Skelton is correct.

“And assaults aren’t the only problem. Few things threaten unit cohesion more than consensual sex between gays while others are present. The Ft. Hood incident demonstrates how public sex among homosexual officers, NCOs and men destroys respect for rank. How would men respond to such officers and noncoms in battle?

“If widespread misconduct of that severity could happen with the prohibitions now in effect, how much worse would it become if consensual homosexuality were lawfully sanctioned - and made the subject of sensitivity training?

“Discipline will suffer if gays are permitted to serve. I learned the importance of discipline on the drill fields of Parris Island and during fierce fighting with the 1st Marine Regiment.  Later, in the disciplinary collapse following the Vietnam War, I spent many years helping rebuild discipline in the Army. Experience shows that highly-disciplined units are important in garrison - and vital in battle.

“President Clinton practically brought down his presidency trying to lift the ban. After an exhaustive national debate, the U.S. House of Representatives determined that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. Congress then enacted Title 10 U.S. Code Section 654, which states that homosexuals are ineligible for military service. That ban is an essential element of military discipline. It must be retained.”

Randy Shilts, Gay Historian

Col. Black’s testimony jibes well with that provided by Randy Shilts⁸, acclaimed historian of the gay movement. Shilts reported that restroom shenanigans similar to those at Ft. Hood occurred at the Pentagon:

“In the bathroom on corridor 6, just inside the five-acre central courtyard, men literally stood in line outside the stalls during the lunch hour, waiting their turn to engage in some hanky-panky.” (p. 184)

No one ever reported that when blacks were excluded from the military they longed for the ‘right’ to have sex in public facilities. No, they simply wanted to be treated as soldiers. Yet Shilts exults in the fact that gays in the Pentagon had taken over at least one of its public restrooms. Further, that gays “literally” stand in line outside the stalls during the lunch hour, waiting their turn to engage in quasi-public sex.

Whether Shilts got the exact location of the bathroom correct is irrelevant. Psychiatrists and psychologists contend that homosexuals, their desires, and their activities are ‘normal,’ making discrimination against homosexuals ‘unfair.’ Yet how many ‘normal’ individuals spend their lunch hour engaging in quasi-public sex?

Most people manage to focus on work while they are ‘on the job.’ According to Shilts, not so these homosexuals, who were apparently willing to ’stand in line’ for sex. While Shilts decried the ‘prejudice’ that people have against homosexuality, what kind of prejudice is it when there are members of the military who feel not only a necessity to “stand in line” for sex on their lunch break, but who also don’t consider what they are doing as disruptive to military life?

Shilts documented what he considers all kinds of involvement by homosexuals in the military, from gay admirals to graduates of all three military academies, to serving in the astronaut program.

“Over the past twenty years, as the gay community has taken form in cities across the nation, a vast gay subculture has emerged within the military, in every branch of the service, among both officers and enlisted.” (p. 3)

Unfortunately, those who engage in homosexuality seldom do the hard work of getting married and raising kids, and have to live off the efforts of those who do. The evidence is clear that homosexuals in the military are at much higher risk for perpetrating sexual assaults, and that they are disruptive to military life. Yet, homosexuals claim that ‘civil rights’ should allow them to openly join the military should they so choose. Indeed, they claim theirs is a struggle against the ‘prejudiced’ and ‘bigots.’ The sordid facts say otherwise.

References

Nevertheless, here we are with a distinct possibility of losing the Prop 8 trial in California. Why? Largely because many on the pro-family side of the aisle want to win only if they can show positive advantages to heterosexual marriage while simultaneously not criticizing homosexuals, their unions, or their actions. The Wall Street Journal quoted Andrew Pugno, general counsel for Protect-Marriage.com, as saying “We do not have to show that same-sex marriage would harm traditional marriage - but just that traditional marriage is a reasonable tool to promote the public’s interest.” (WSJ, 1/22/10, A5)

David Boies, co-lead attorney for the homosexual plaintiffs “said he set out to prove that marriage was an important right, that gays were harmed by being denied that right and that marriage wouldn’t be hurt by extending it to same-sex couples,… ‘We’ve proven all three of those.’ In response, defense lawyer Pugno said his side would present evidence from experts that traditional definitions of marriage between heterosexual couples have special benefit for children and for society.” [WSJ 1/23/10, A3]

In our view, there are essentially three strategies in any trial about social policy. You can demonstrate that: 1) what you are against is harmful to society; 2) what you are for is harmed by what you are against; and/or 3) what you are against is inferior to what you are for (or that what you are for is superior to what you are against).

The first two strategies necessitate proving that something is harmful, dangerous, or injurious. They are the strongest arguments because almost everyone understands that something harmful or bad for society should be stopped/prevented/regulated/criminalized/marginalized/etc. Arguing that something you support is merely ‘better than’ or ’superior to’ what you’re against is the weakest argument. It is weakened further if you don’t invoke strategies (1) and (2), because your silence implies that those arguments are not true or might not be true.

At least from the media reports, plaintiff attorney Boies feels he has carried the first two strategies, while Pugno feels content to try to prove the third. On the January 25^th Hugh Hewitt radio show, an Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) spokesman repeatedly asserted that all they had to do to win - given the well-worn rules of ‘how the law is supposed to be’ - was to prove that conventional marriage was better than ‘gay marriage.’

But what if the court regards this potential violation of ‘human rights’ as exceptional (as Brown v. Board of Education in 1954), and not subject to the ‘usual rules?’ The court might regard this contest as a debate about public policy. In that setting, since the gay marriage supporters have ‘proven’ that arguments (1) and (2) are not true by default (since no rebuttal was offered, (1) and (2) must not have legal merit), and the Prop 8 supporters have proven that (3) is true, a 2:1 split might cause the court to render a decision against Prop 8 as the most reasonable judgment. In other words, if there is no proof that homosexuals and their couplings are harmful to society, and no hard evidence (only speculation) that acceptance of homosexual marriage dilutes the value of real marriage, what is to prevent the court from seeing the issue strictly in terms of civil rights and unwarranted prejudice against homosexuals?

Amazingly enough, FRI has solid empirical evidence that (1) and (2) are true: that are there are real harms associated with homosexuality and homosexual marriage. But that evidence is being deliberately neglected. Why?

Some on the pro-family side undoubtedly are pursuing this strategy because they don’t want to ‘offend’ gays, lest they or others think they are ‘unloving and harsh.’ Some are worried that homosexuals might refuse to attend ‘ex-gay ministries’ if they expose their activities and reinforce the basis for the contempt in which many hold homosexual practitioners. Others want to take what they consider ‘the high road, criticizing no one, just standing for the good.’ Whatever the motivation, Jesus was not arrested and crucified for saying that ‘the current system is OK, only my way is better.’ Just about every social or religious reformer makes that kind of claim. Instead, Jesus harshly criticized the moral authorities of his day.

Those who want to color the world happy forget that there is a time for animus and a time for reconciliation. Animus toward those who seek to corrupt society and seduce children is a good thing. ‘Playing only nice’ with vandals results in courtroom losses, and leads others to think that (1) and (2) must not be true.

Over the last three decades, I and my colleagues have been the only ones publishing empirical data on homosexuality in refereed scientific journals, with an aim at giving serious and balanced attention to the traditional perspective. We have demonstrated, among other things, disproportionate child molestation by homosexuals, the unhealthiness and excessive hazards and social costs of homosexuality, and that AIDS education is too inefficacious to warrant its social and financial expense. Further, we have contributed more empirical data than anyone else even in those areas where other traditionally-minded researchers have published findings on this topic. Important examples include homosexual parenting and homosexual unions. In particular, the evidence we have compiled in regard to homosexual couplings suggests they are worse for society (and the participants) than are heterosexual unions, because homosexual couples do more biologically troubling things to each other, reduce their promiscuity slightly if at all, and thereby spread disease more efficiently.

If anyone had hard evidence that my and my colleagues’ methods of doing science were faulty or that one of our publications was incorrect, it would be reasonable for them to publicly attack them or it - after all, we have published in a public arena, where such attacks are not only ‘fair game’ but part of the scientific process. Successful attackers would gain some scientific credibility by such a ploy. Indeed, scientific careers and reputations have been made by demonstrating flaws in others’ research publications.

But if we and our research are attacked simply because we are disliked or critics don’t agree with us, or because we are considered ‘too harsh,’ it’s a whole different ballgame. Because our research is almost all that stands between opponents of the gay agenda and being dismissed as ‘mere spokesmen for unsupportable, archaic opinions’ (or less kindly, ‘Bible thumpers’), neglecting our research seriously risks undercutting any scientific or empirical opposition to the homosexual movement.

Although it is self-serving, given the realities of our times, if the pro-family side is to have any chance of prevailing in situations where scientific facts could determine the outcome of a contest over homosexuality (e.g., in a court or legislature), prudence would demand that our research should not be attacked or neglected except for scientific malfeasance.

Prop 8: Behind the Scenes

The Prop 8 trial in California is an exemplar of this troubling situation. In substantial part because of long-term animus toward me by the gay community, ex-gays and their sponsors, and the academic community, I am not an expert witness, nor has our research been consulted or utilized.

Consider what Michael Lamb, head of Cambridge University’s Department of Social and Developmental Psychology, testified (from various newspaper and wire services):

“Walker asked one of the most striking questions of the day - what the rash of pedophile priests suggested about the abilities of gays and lesbians in bringing up children. ‘You’ve testified that there is no reason to protect children from lesbians and gays,’ said Walker. ‘How do you square your statement with that phenomenon,’ the judge asked. ‘I don’t want to convey the fact that homosexual individuals never abuse children, simply that they are no more likely to do so than heterosexual individuals,’ Lamb replied. ‘In addition, he said no evidence exists that gays or lesbians were more likely to sexually abuse children.’”

Though we were not asked to testify, the truth is that we have published a number of studies - in peer-reviewed journals including The Journal of Psychology and Psychological Reports - that buttress the belief that those who engage in homosexuality are considerably more apt to molest children. Some of the evidence is from government-collected data (regarding, for example, teachers and foster parents), some from systematic compilations of media reports, some from self-report. All are consistent with higher rates of molestation by gays and lesbians. We have also referenced a number of studies conducted by other researchers that suggest the same.

“Lamb said there was no evidence that children with gay parents were more likely to become gay themselves or become victims of sexual abuse or incest.”

Despite Lamb’s claim of “no evidence,” our study, published in the peer reviewed journal, Adolescence, and cited in the Massachusetts gay marriage case (Goodridge v. Dept of Public Health, 2003), demonstrated both more frequent adoption of homosexuality and experience of sexual abuse from their parents by children with homosexual parents. The findings from this study have never been disproven, indeed they look as ’solid’ today as when they were published in 1996.

Likewise, my 2006 paper, published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Biosocial Science, showed that children with homosexual parents were considerably more apt to themselves adopt homosexual preferences. The same is true of a number of our publications in the peer-reviewed journal Psychological Reports.

When Lamb in his testimony dismissed Dr. Walter Schumm’s published work in Psychological Reports because “It was published in a journal where one has to pay to have it published, so it’s not really considered part of the literature,” he was incorrect (but apparently not challenged by the Prop 8 lawyers). Not only do the studies in Psychological Reports have to be peer-reviewed by other scientists to be published, but page costs are in fact quite common in science and professional journals.

Further, my work about domestic violence in same-sex partnerships, published in Psychological Reports, was considered authoritative enough to be referenced when the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics published its report on the topic in 2004¹ utilizing Canadian census data. Indeed, my paper, which summarized the literature to date and which brought in some findings from a number of relatively ‘unknown’ sources² was given ‘pride of place’ as references go:

“[homosexuals] experienced higher rates of spousal violence compared to heterosexual. Fifteen percent of gays or lesbians and 28% of bisexuals reported being victims of spousal abuse in comparison to 7% of heterosexuals. These findings are consistent with previous research (Cameron, 2003).”³

In the political correctness of our day, it is difficult to publish research that doesn’t support the gay agenda. Indeed, findings that don’t agree with the homosexual agenda are as popular in scientific publications as those that don’t support the notion of man-made global warming. So most of our work is published in less prestigious journals, but each is peer-reviewed. Having a study published in a prestigious journal is better for one’s reputation, to be sure. But the facts that are reported are what’s important, not necessarily the journal in which they are housed.

Indeed, having the facts and knowing the facts are crucial to any trial. Lawyers often naively assume that ‘a trial is always about the law, just as it says here in my law books.’ FRI has assumed instead - and history bears this out - that courts will become judges of social policy. So when David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values, testified that allowing gay marriages would weaken the institution - likely leading to lower marriage rates and higher divorce rates for heterosexuals, as well as possible social acceptance of polygamy - he said what he should have. But when asked whether same-sex weddings could benefit gay couples and their children and Blankenhorn responded, “I believe it would be likely to do that,” it was more than a stumble.

The evidence, about which Blankenhorn appears not to have been briefed, suggests that having one gay parent is poor, but having two is worse. Why worse? One reason: because the child can never get away from a dysfunctional parent. If the ‘team’ splits up, the child must travel back and forth to both. Think of the former lesbian - now heterosexual - mother in Virginia. While in her ‘lesbian phase’ she was in a ‘domestic partnership’ with a woman in Vermont. When they split up, the lesbian demanded to see the child. A Vermont judge has ruled that the lesbian should have primary custody because the ‘now heterosexual mother’ won’t share the child. She and her child are hiding from the law.

If you will read the testimonies of lesbians’ children on our website Children of Homosexual Parents Report Childhood Difficulties (http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/children-of-homosexual-parents-report-childhood-difficulties-2/), you will see no reason to believe that two poorer parents are better than one. Indeed, two give a ‘double dose’ of homosexual examples and double the pressure to ‘convert.’ Two also typically have more gay contacts; the risk is thereby increased that the child will be influenced or seduced.

What is best for the child is to have NO gay parents. One is bad, two is worse. One wonders how the lawyers defending Prop 8 left Blankenhorn ‘out to dry’ on this issue. Alas, instead of a published scholar, the pro-family side chose an activist as an expert. When this goes up to the U.S. Supreme Court, our side’s record will be weak indeed.

Guilt By Association

For some time now, homosexuals and their supporters on the Internet have referred to me and our organization as “discredited,” backed up by the likes of Wikipedia and other sites (Wikipedia clearly depicts what the homosexuals who monitor and contribute to it say). This, coupled with personal appeals and attacks by homosexuals, ex-gays, and the supporters of ex-gay ministries, has led some in the pro-family movement to ignore, neglect, and/or stop referencing our work.

One example: a large pro-family organization secretly (or, at least, unbeknownst to us) decided many years ago to stop referencing our research in any way and to pull all citations to us from its publications and website. An Executive Vice-President from this same organization recently told a large gathering “although Paul Cameron uses different words than Fred Phelps, Paul holds nearly the same view” and “[our ex-gay ministry] is led by those who have been homosexuals,… who have been called every ugly name that an unthinking person, a person like Paul, can call a homosexual.”

Needless to say, given attacks on us like these by the best-connected and most vocal defenders of traditional marriage, it is little wonder that the legal team defending Prop 8 was not directed our way, nor that they would disregard the empirical evidence we have compiled over the past 30 years. Yet it would appear that the pro-family movement is ‘cutting off its nose to spite its face.’

Indeed, the Prop 8 trial in California could easily be construed as ‘a situation that rises above mere legalities.’ In too many recent cases, liberal notions of ‘civil rights,’ ‘human rights,’ and ‘non-discrimination’ have trumped long-standing legal precedent. If it is so construed - by the judge, the 10^th circuit, or the U.S. Supreme Court - then ‘our side’ will pay dearly for having ceded arguments (1) and (2) to gay rights activists.