On the other hand, how long the vaccine remains efficacious has yet to be determined. It might ‘wear out’ after a few years, or not work as expected in the real world. Furthermore, in a just published study representing the largest follow-up to date, reactions to the vaccine have been more painful than assumed:

About three quarters (696 [78%]) of the participants reported pain at the injection site, with up to 11% of them recalling the pain as severe to very severe. The percentage of respondents reporting pain and pain intensity was inversely proportional to age. A third of respondents reported pain worse than that from other vaccinations. One hundred fifty-five participants (17%) reported bruising, and 127 (14%) experienced swelling. These effects were reported more frequently among those younger than age 18. [1]

Again, among girls, no one appears to have yet been seriously injured. But now the American Academy of Pediatricians is recommending the HPV vaccine for boys too. Is this warranted? Enter the homosexual connection. The FDA says

• At any time, about 1% of sexually active men in the U.S. have genital warts (from our 1983-84 survey, FRI would estimate that at least one-fifth of these cases occur among male homosexuals).
• Cancers of the penis, anus and mouth/throat are uncommon, and only some are related to HPV. Each year in the U.S. there are about:
• (1) 400 men who get HPV-related cancer of the penis
  (2) 1,500 men who get HPV-related cancer of the anus; most anal cancer occurs among male homosexuals, since they are 17 times more likely to develop anal cancer than men who only have sex with women
  (3) 5,600 men get cancers of the mouth/throat, but many of these cancers are related to tobacco and alcohol use, not HPV (we would estimate that a quarter to a third of the cases due to oral-sex exposure to HPV occur in male homosexuals).

Quite correctly, the FDA does not recommend the HPV vaccine (and the $4 billion cost) for boys! The reason is obvious. Unless a man engages in homosexuality, the serious conditions arising from HPV are so rare that it ‘doesn’t make sense’ to get vaccinated. But if one engages in homosexuality, perhaps the vaccine is worth the cost.

If the vaccine were essentially ‘free,’ had no adverse consequences, and protected forever against a significant and costly threat, no one would argue that it should not be adopted. But in the real world, no vaccine is free or without risk — and it is uncertain how long this vaccine protects against HPV. For girls, the case for vaccinating against HPV looks fairly good. Not so for boys. But if homosexuals and their supporters have their way, every child will get it.

[1] Naleway, et al. (2012) J of Women’s Health, 21(4): 425-432. doi:10.1089/jwh.2011.2895. (Quoted from http://profncampbell.wordpress.com, April 6, 2012)

Birth Rates by State/Region Show Where We’re Headed

The total fertility rate is a fairly good index of ‘where things are going.’ As of 2009, the latest year with complete statistics, the U.S. rate stood overall at 2.00 children per woman. A rate of 2.1 is ideal to maintain a populace, but small fluctuations are normal. So things are going much ‘as usual’ in the U.S. By contrast, the European Union is averaging about 1.6 children per woman.

There are, however, some sizeable regional differences even in the U.S. —

• The ‘birth champion’ state was Utah, with 2.5 children per woman. This is a contribution that will ‘keep on giving’ as the children age, get married, and have kids of their own.
• The state that contributed least was Vermont at 1.6, in step with the rest of New England. New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Maine reported rates of 1.7, and Connecticut and Rhode Island weighed in at 1.8. These are at or just above European rates.
• States contributing more than their share included Nebraska, Alaska, Idaho, and Texas at 2.3 children per woman.

Thus, the Republican-leaning, less-welfare tilted states generally contributed to future posterity, while the Democratic-leaning, more European-like, states generally ‘mooched’ off the future they provide.

America’s Teenagers Having Less Sex?

We hear about ‘hooking up’ (i.e., sex between girls and boys who don’t much know each other, but who want the ‘physical experience’). We see more and more explicit sex in the media and the internet. What effects are these phenomena having on our kids’ sexuality?

The U.S. government runs a large national survey about births, sexual activities, and numbers of partners every year. By comparing the answers to the same questions from 1988, 1995, 2002 and 2006-10, possible trends can be examined. Of course, this is what teens tell interviewers. We hope it is ‘true,’ but we can think of no reason why they would be less apt to tell the truth today than in the past. What was found?

Virginity: In 1988, 51% of girls and 60% of boys aged 15-19 said they were not virgins. Both figures dropped steadily over time so that by the latest time period, 43% of girls and 42% of boys reported non-virginity. This seems to confirm the delay in sexual debut that FRI has noted.

Had sex in last 12 months, 3 months, month: Of non-virgins, from 2002 to 2006-10 (earlier questionnaires did not ask these questions), about 2% fewer of both boys and girls reported sexual activity in 2006-10. For girls (boys were similar), 41% said they had sex in the last 12 months, 34% in the last 3 months, and 28% in the last month. Blacks reported higher rates than whites: for black boys the corresponding percentages were 49%, 38%, and 30%.

Numbers of sexual partners in the last year: For non-virgins, one partner was reported by 28% of girls and 21% of boys; 2-3 partners were reported by 10% of girls, 15% of boys; 4 or more partners were reported by 4% of both sexes. Reports of multiple partners were down in the most recent time period.

Earlier sexual debut and not living with both parents increased the chances that a child would engage in sex and report multiple partners. Further, as has been found in every such survey, the major reason kids gave for not having had sex was “against religion or morals.”

Reference: Vital and Health Statistics, Oct 2011.

Gender Identity Disorder (GID): Mind Over Matter

Everyone knows kids should not:

• Run and play in the freeway, even if they really, really want to;
• Buy colas or sugary snacks at school, even if they really, really want to;
• Refuse to obey their teachers, even if they really, really don’t want to;
• Refuse to wear clothes or spit on the floor at school, even if ‘this is who they are;’
• Masturbate in public at school, even if they really, really want to and they ‘need to;’
• Buy cigarettes or marijuana, even if they really, really want to;
• Refuse to go to school, even if they really, really want to;
• Have sex with their teacher or friends at school, even if they feel a deep need;

But, if they really, really want to pretend to be the opposite sex and require everyone else to support their fantasy, it is a fundamental human right!
How can someone else’s ‘fundamental human right’ trump your fundamental human rights of freedom of speech and association? How can a child’s ‘fundamental human right’ mean you cannot exercise your fundamental human rights as an adult? Welcome to the psychiatric world order, where fantasies — if endorsed by psychiatrists — trump social stability and everyone else’s rights to be left alone, to not associate with a nitwit, or to speak out against fools!

So with the Miss Universe pageant. Seems when contestant Talackova was a boy of 4, he decided he ought to be a girl. So he was allowed to start hormone therapy in Canada at 14, underwent mutilation at 19, and now at 23 is causing all kinds of trouble. He sued the pageant to be allowed to compete, even though he was not a ‘natural born woman.’ In the psychiatric world order, getting mutilated in the right way serves up career choices!

As psychiatry works toward displacing religious professionals as the chief ‘gurus’ of our society, the rules of life are changing. Religious professionals have generally believed that one is ‘destined by one’s genitals’ since God ‘made them thus.’ As such, excepting those few cases where children are born with ambiguous genitalia, those who deviate from conventional maleness or femaleness are to be pushed toward gender conformity. Naturalism (i.e., things are the way they are because of evolution) agrees with the religious viewpoint, differing only in ‘how it became so.’ The consensus of religion and naturalism led psychiatry to create a ‘diagnosis’ of gender identity disorder (GID) and attempt to ‘cure’ (i.e., dissuade, reorient) ‘victims’ of this malady.

Today, increasing numbers of mental health professionals — appealing to a notion that ‘the client’s mental state is always right’ — are declaring that just as ‘homosexuals are born’ with desires toward the same sex, so it is with those who pretend to be the opposite sex; they are also ‘born that way,’ so others must join in the pretence. Can such a fanciful, quasi-religious concept that one is ‘born with a mental disposition’ to want sex of a particular sort or to ‘be’ the opposite sex, trump naturalism, religion, and the human rights of others? So it would appear.

The United Nations just barely beat back an attempt to make the choice to flip one’s sex a ‘human right!’ Although GID is still a treatable and billable ‘mental’ problem (as with homosexuality), the profession is being pressured by believers of ‘client-centeredism’ to agree that such desires are ‘normal’ and that those with such fancies should be ‘treated’ by professionals and protected by laws so they can ‘reach their destiny.’ And if the claimants are children… well, how can innocence be wrong?

Of course, parents are also involved in creating their child’s career by taking him to professionals for ‘help’ and going along with shots and surgeries. If the parents endorse hormones and mutilation it puts them in front of a parade that is guaranteed to last. Without contributing anything but disruption to society, they (and their child) garner rafts of attention and endless platforms to spout about ‘justice and fairness.’

Marriage is weakening. In 1960, around the time the pill was introduced and the sexual revolution began, 72% of American adults were married. In 2010, that number was down to 51%! That’s a drop in ‘regulated sexual activity’ as well as a decline in ‘the best environment to raise children.’

The trend is most evident among minorities. In 1960, 74% of white adults were married. By 2010 only 55% were — a 26% decline. Hispanics have gone from 72% to 48% — a 33% drop; and blacks from 61% to 31% — a 49% decrease. A college education seems to dampen this decline somewhat, but attending college also reduces the production of children!

Why? Going to college and preparing for a career are among the reasons the current median age at first marriage has risen six years, up from age 20.3 for women and 22.8 for men in 1960. Many women are getting married toward the end of their reproductive lifespan, so their chances of having children or more than two children are smaller. Plus, with considerable effort (often involving ‘abstinence education’), the average age of sexual debut in the U.S. has been pushed back about a year and a half toward age 17 or 18.

As recently as 1920, the U.S. Census report listed girls aged 10 to 15 who were “married, working full time,” so this is yet another change toward shrinking pregnancy within the prime fertility window for U.S. women, and adding to our demographic dilemma. Thankfully, many people want to immigrate to the U.S., so the situation is not as bleak in America as it might be. However, the trend is not good when 28% of current U.S. households consist of only one person compared to only 9% in 1950.

In Japan, a greater dilemma is afoot. Sex is losing steam.

In 2010, the Japan Family Planning Association did a survey of 16 to 49 year olds. 36% of 16-19 year old males and 59% of like-aged females said they were “indifferent or averse” towards having sex (both somewhat up from 2008). Very few of these teens were married, so this statistic might strike some as virtuous. But to have babies, you’ve got to have sex. And to have sex, you have to want it. You must desire to meet, date, and perhaps marry to create babies. If enough ‘don’t care’ about all that, where will the babies come from?

There is no salvation from immigration — the number moving to Japan is tiny. And although Japan has a ‘sexy’ culture in many respects — ‘dirty comic books’ and websites abound, prostitution is seen as mostly OK — the interest in sex is still declining. One reason may be that ‘virtual sex’ is driving real sex out of many teenagers’ lives. Boys, especially, can become ‘addicted’ to porn and other sexual outlets, instead of chasing after the real thing.

In a society with a shrinking population, growing disinterest in sex is very disturbing news. The Japanese bedrooms of the married are ever quieter as well. 40% of the married said they had not had sex in the past month, compared to 36% in 2004. Top reasons checked for sexual quietude? “Reluctance after child birth,” “can’t be bothered,” and “fatigue from work.”

What does it profit a society to have lots of neat stuff and too few children?

Connection To Gay Rights

Like frogs in a kettle being slowly boiled to death, FRI frequently hears people — including those concerned about our cultural decline — suggest that the progress of gay rights is not worth a great deal of worry. After all, ‘the sky is not falling. The sun will always come up tomorrow.’ But no matter how ‘big’ or ‘small’ the crisis seems at the moment, the goal of proper social policy is to assure a future for society. As the birth rates of Western countries continue to fall, those who have supported gay rights seem oblivious to the contribution such ‘rights’ make to the decline. Even those who have ‘tolerated’ (or not vigorously opposed) gay rights do not seem to understand the implications.

But now the sky is starting to fall. From Xtra, a gay magazine in Vancouver, comes this:

“the gay rights movement is shifting norms in Canada. And with that comes a message to those who won’t evolve: your outdated morals are no longer acceptable, and we will teach your kids the new norm.” (10/20/11)

Canada produces 1.6 children/woman. Its future is thus doomed. Onward gay rights!

Led By The Child Who Simply Knew

That was the headline on the front page of the Boston Globe December 11, 2011. Consider the subhead:

“The twin boys were identical in every way but one. Wyatt was a girl to the core, and now lives as one, with the help of a brave, loving family and a path-breaking doctor’s care”

The Boston Globe serves one of the most educated populations of the U.S. — think Harvard, MIT, etc. Do these sophisticated folk want to be “led by a child?” Would they disrupt the lives of ‘regular kids’ to cater to a confused 4 year-old? Would they accept ‘as gospel’ the decisions of a program that started in 2007? Indeed, yes!

In one of the more incredible stories of subordination to the notion that ‘children know best,’ the same individuals, who denounce as ‘primitive’ beliefs statements such as ‘God created the world,’ disrupt society to cater to the whims of a 4 year-old!
[The whole story is on-line, and may well be worth your time to examine.]

At age 3,

“W favored pink tutus and beads. At 4, he insisted on a Barbie birthday cake and had a thing for mermaids. On Halloween, J was Buzz Lightyear. W wanted to be a princess.”

The parents

“decided to tell their story, they say, in order to help fight the deep stigma against transgender youth, and to ease the path for other such children who, without help, often suffer from depression, anxiety, and isolation.… We told our kids you can’t create change if you don’t get involved,”

says the father 53, “sitting in the living room of their comfortable home in a southern Maine community.”

When Wyatt was 4, he asked his mother: “When do I get to be a girl?’’ He told his father that he “hated his penis and asked when he could be rid of it.” Aged 5, at a “party for classmates and parents, W appeared beaming at the top of the stairs in a princess gown, a gift from his grandmother.” When first grade started, Wyatt carried a “pink backpack and a Kim Possible lunchbox.” Her parents eventually agreed to call ‘her’ Nicole instead of Wyatt. Precisely who is ‘disturbed’ here, the parents or the child?

When fifth grade started,

“Nicole showed up for school, sometimes wearing a dress and sporting shoulder-length hair. She began using the girls’ bathroom.… But one day a boy called her a ‘faggot,’ objected to her using the girls’ bathroom, and reported the matter to his grandfather, who… complained to the Orono School Committee, with the Christian Civic League of Maine backing him. The superintendent of schools then decided Nicole should use a staff bathroom.”

“To protect her from bullying at school, Nicole was assigned an adult to watch her at all times between classes, following her to the cafeteria, to the bathroom. She found it intrusive and stressful. It made her feel like even more of an outsider.”

Nicole and her parents filed a complaint with the Maine Humans Right Commission over her right to use the girls’ bathroom. The commission found that she had been discriminated against and, along with the Maines family, filed a lawsuit against the Orono School District. The suit is pending. “What Nicole and Jonas both went through in school was unconscionable,’’ says Jennifer Levi, one of the GLAD lawyers on the case. “Their one huge stroke of luck was having Kelly and Wayne as parents.’’

This madness is coming to your community. Who would ever have thought we would be ruled by children (and homosexuals)? Who could have imagined that the rights of normal kids and their parents would be trumped by the ‘rights’ of the sexually disturbed?

The recent 9th Circuit Court decision against the legality of Proposition 8 was, very unfortunately, deserved. It proves if your whole case hinges on a word — rather than substance — you are likely to lose even more than you went to court for. It also proves if you lie in court, you may just lose.

The court said:

It will not do to say that Proposition 8 was intended only to disapprove of same-sex marriage, rather than to pass judgment of same-sex couples as people. Just as the criminalization of ‘homosexual conduct… is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination in both the public and private spheres,’ so too does the elimination of the right to use the official designation of ‘marriage’ for the relationships of committed same-sex couples send a message that gays and lesbians are of lesser worth as a class — indeed, that they enjoy a lesser societal status.

Let’s face it. As a class — much like drug addicts — homosexuals ARE of lesser social worth. They go out of their way to disrupt society, cost more than they contribute, and disproportionately molest children rather than producing them as a result of their sexual activities. Proposition 8 stemmed from common knowledge of their lesser worth and push-back because of the disruptions they caused by demanding the same benefits as the married.

Remember the ‘smart folk’ from the conservative side who said ‘we have nothing against homosexuality, and we have nothing against homosexuals getting all the benefits of marriage. No, we just don’t want them to use the name “marriage” when they legally couple.’ That’s what the National Organization for Marriage, Focus on the Family, Alliance Defense Fund, etc. said publicly for the press. But that was only ‘half true.’ The supporters of these organizations wanted to stop gay rights. That’s what the vote was actually about.

Critics might note that some advertisements run by the conservative side strove to celebrate mother-father marriage while not explicitly criticizing those who engage in homosexuality. But to get out the vote and raise money (as Judge Walker noted and our side admitted in court), the pro-Prop 8 campaign also claimed:

If the gay marriage ruling [of the California Supreme Court] is not overturned, TEACHERS COULD BE REQUIRED to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage. We should not accept a court decision that may result in public schools teaching our own kids that gay marriage is ok. * * * [W]hile gays have the right to their private lives, they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else.

Despite the underlying effort to stem gay rights, proponents of Prop 8 carried this ‘we’re not against homosexuality’ strategy into the courtroom, offering essentially no evidence about the harms caused by engaging in homosexuality or by homosexual coupling — both of which would be encouraged by putting society’s stamp of approval on gay marriage. Much of the evidence presented by those challenging Prop 8, including claims that homosexuals were no more apt to molest children, were not rebutted by our side!

Proponents, including their key expert witness, went on record with

We have never disputed and we have offered to stipulate that gays and lesbians have been the victims of a long and shameful history of discrimination

and also allowed that permitting gay marriage would make society “more fair.”

So the 9th Circuit Court logically concluded:

Proposition 8 could not have reasonably been enacted to promote childrearing by biological parents, to encourage responsible procreation, to proceed with caution in social change, to protect religious liberty, or to control the education of schoolchildren.” (69)

And therefore:

Proposition 8 operates with no apparent purpose but to impose on gays and lesbians, through the public law, a majority’s private disapproval of them and their relationships, by taking away from them the official designation of ‘marriage,’ with its societally recognized status. Proposition 8 therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause.” (77)

Let’s try this again. Did the Circuit Court judges come to this conclusion merely due to their liberal and anti-traditional bias? Well, consider what our side claimed before Judge Walker in the original Prop 8 trial:

the inference of anti-gay hostility drawn by the district court is manifestly false. It defames more than seven million California voters as homophobic, a cruelly ironic charge, as noted earlier, given that California has enacted some of the Nation’s most progressive and sweeping gay-rights protections, including creation of a parallel institution, domestic partnerships, affording same-sex couples all the benefits and obligations of marriage.

In point of fact, pro-family groups sponsored ads in California back in 2000 promoting the view that domestic partnerships would be an OK alternative as long as gay marriage was not approved. Their attempt to cleverly navigate the political currents of gay rights back then has come back to bite them in this latest decision. For when you OK a parallel set-up that looks like marriage, with all the rights and legal privileges of marriage, but forbid use of the name ‘marriage,’ and then admit that homosexuals have been “victims of… shameful… discrimination,” why would a set of judges rule any differently than what the 9th Circuit just did?

As much as we might dislike it, the decision is merely the logical outcome of prior events in California, including key strategic blunders by pro-family activists and the Prop 8 legal defense team.

FRI has consistently said that you cannot ‘give away everything in the store but the sign’ and end up with a win. If you oppose gay rights, you might consider donating to FRI.

U.S. Obituaries Over 13 Years

6,737 obituaries from 18 U.S. homosexual journals, compared to obituaries from 2 mainstream newspapers

Statistics Denmark, 1990-2002

Official death tallies — Ever married individuals vs. ever homosexually-partnered (561 gays, 91 lesbians)

References:

• Cameron P, Playfair WL, & Wellum S (1994) The longevity of homosexuals: before and after the AIDS epidemic. Omega, 29:249-272
• Cameron P, Cameron K (2007) Federal distortion of homosexual footprint (ignoring early gay death?). Eastern Psychological Assn Convention, Philadelphia

Three Critical Facts

• Homosexuals comprise < 2% of adults
• 90+% of child molesters are male
• The Gay Report — 23% of gays reported sex with boys aged <16; 7% with boys aged <13

From Facts to Disproportionate Reality

• Human Rights Watch 2008 World Report — ~150 million girls, ~73 million boys “have experienced rape or other sexual violence”
• U.S., Canadian reports — girl/boy ratio also about 2:1
• 25-40% of molestations are thus same-sex, far in excess of the percentage of homosexuals

Homosexual Molestation in Positions of Authority

• ~43% of sex between teachers & pupils
• ~50% of sex between foster parents & foster children
• 21 group home sex scandals — 71% were same-sex

Sex With One’s Own Children

• Homosexual parents — 18%; Heterosexual parents — 0.6%

References:

• Sahil (2009) Cruel Numbers 2009
• Freund K, Watson RJ (1992) The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: an exploratory study. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 18:34-43
• Jay K & Young A (1979) The Gay Report. NY: Summit
• Cameron P (2007) Teacher-pupil sex, how much is homosexual? Empirical Journal Same-Sex Sexual Behavior;1:1-19 (on-line)
• Cameron P (2005) Child molestation by homosexual foster parents: Illinois, 1997-2002. Psychological Reports 96: 227-230
• Cameron P (2005) Are over a third of foster parent molestations homosexual? Psychological Reports 96:275-298
• Cameron P & Cameron K (1996) Homosexual parents. Adolescence 124, Winter, 757-776

Western society is at great peril. We have forgotten the importance of children — and our individual responsibility to marry, then bear and raise children. While any society needs to produce at least 2.1 children/woman to maintain its population, many Western nations have fallen far below that threshold. And even those with more stable fertility levels do not have enough children born and raised within the context of marriage (Figure 1). Because our situation is dire, something drastic must be done. This proposal is one possible solution.

Every road children walk and every school they attend are courtesy of their parents and society. While we use it all the time, the abstract term “society” tends to conceal the fact that society consists of your family and other people’s children. The diversity of products and services you need but can’t produce is courtesy of other people’s (usually adult) children. Our nations are filled with wonders created and maintained by other people’s children. Instead of living hand-to-mouth as so many of our ancestors, we have abundance due to what other people’s children created for our use.

Because other people’s children produced food, other people’s children have transported it, and still other people’s children have processed it, almost all of us have access to delights that couldn’t even be imagined in simple societies. Likewise for a host of commodities that march out of our stores every day.

Our children are often taught by other people’s children, we are defended by other people’s children. Our politicians, our doctors, our lawyers — all are other people’s children. Because each of us has benefited so much from the labor of other people’s children, fairness and justice require that each of us contribute children so that others can likewise benefit. And because we benefit from other people’s children’s willingness to produce more than they consume, fairness and justice demand that we do the same.
This reality underlay the Roman Empire’s law forbidding inheritances to the childless, Jews requiring leaders have a son, and St. Paul’s admonition that younger widows remarry and have children. Past leaders of our civilization agreed: Fairness and decency demand that those who benefit from the efforts of other peoples’ children share in the sacrificial burden of bearing and raising children.

Does this mean that the voluntarily childless are stealing from their neighbors? Absolutely. We have all benefited from society. Therefore each of us must do our best to help provide a stable framework under which all can prosper. The demands of fairness and justice boil down to three basic expectations of every able-bodied citizen:

• to not trouble society;
• to produce more than we consume; and
• to get married and have children.

The Risk Of Demographic Suicide

The decline in birthrates is a crisis across Western society. Not only have fertility rates dropped precipitously,¹ but more and more children are born out of wedlock (Figure 1).² Traditionally, sex — within the context of marriage — was supposed to provide society’s next generation. But with the exception of the U.S., first-world countries are failing to produce the 2.1 children per woman-in-her-lifetime required for civilization’s continuance. Furthermore, even within the U.S. — given that almost 40% of American babies are now born to unwed mothers — the U.S. married fertility rate (i.e., lifetime births per woman born in marriage) is less than 1.3.

No matter what level a society’s current wealth, too few replacement children assure a bleak future. While Europe has an overall fertility rate of 1.5 per woman, many countries — including Italy, Moldova, Spain, and Poland — are at 1.3 or below. So, unless things change dramatically and without an influx of immigrants, in about 35 years, populations in these countries will be halved.
Stores and factories will close for lack of employees, insurance companies will go bankrupt, farms will be left fallow, etc. In these nations, it is only a matter of years until their children will be required to tend the weak, and it will be impossible to honor “social security.” Given economic interdependence, the demographic collapse of any first-world country is likely to send tremors throughout the West. Italy’s demographic decline is — even today — sucking mothers and potential mothers from nearby, poorer countries like Moldova to care for its aged. The wealth that Italy currently has is sufficient to drain enough motherhood from Moldova to exacerbate Moldova’s own demographic crisis.

Within a few years — 15 or 20 at the most for countries with rates of childbearing at 1.3/woman or lower — the plight of the aged and infirm will weigh on everyone’s conscience. But unless highly sophisticated robots can be employed, almost nothing will be possible to relieve them. The young will be too busy tending the engines of production to spare the time required to tend the old. And the young will be tempted as well to ‘follow the non-reproductive path’ of their elders, rather than the more difficult and expensive task of getting married and raising children.

Adding to these difficulties is the growing tolerance and outright acceptance of both non-marital and non-procreative sex, including homosexuality. In some ways, homosexuality is both a cause and a symptom of the West’s demographic decline. That those who enjoy a sexual lifestyle to the exclusion of getting married and having children are accepted and even given protected status means that the old rules have been abandoned in favor of a ‘psychiatric viewpoint.’

The old rules demanded that every able person contribute to society by not breaking the law, working a productive job, and getting married and raising a family. Meeting societal expectations was the first priority. Under the ‘psychiatric model,’ the individual patient or client is the center of the universe. Because they need help, or comfort, or advice, the client’s interests predominate over the needs or interests of society, and not the other way around.

In a clinic or hospital, where psychiatrists or psychologists are paid to care for the ‘mentally disturbed,’ this model makes some sense. But now the worldview associated with the ‘psychiatric model’ has permeated into all of society. No one thinks twice about allowing individual desires or ‘needs’ to trump social responsibilities. We are a ‘free’ society, after all, and people can do what they want.

Unfortunately, no society can long endure that enables and endorses such self-centered madness. The more individuals that are permitted to ‘absent themselves from social responsibilities’ because ‘they are uncomfortable with or unfulfilled with marriage and family responsibilities’ (e.g., gays, lesbians, and transgendered), the more others will follow them. Of course, not all who follow will want to become homosexual. Rather, if one group — declared ‘normal and healthy’ by the mental health establishment — is given a pass from some of the basic social duties, then others have the right to expect the same treatment for their own ‘lack of fulfillment or discomfiture.’

At some point — a point many Western countries have already passed — too many people exercise their ‘right to be themselves’ to such a degree that too few children are born, especially within marriage. Feeling like ‘not having a child’ provides sufficient justification for preventing conception or choosing an abortion. Likewise, no longer being ‘happy in marriage’ justifies divorcing or having an affair. Given our highly efficient contraception and abortion techniques, the result is a society with not enough individuals willing to honor their marital and reproductive responsibilities.

We have transformed ourselves into a population bristling with individual ‘rights’ instead of responsibilities. And the result is that the West is currently headed toward demographic suicide. To be sure, some countries are ameliorating their lack of children by importing workers. Additionally, many of those imported — before they become assimilated and adopt a more individualistic, psychiatric mindset — produce more than the requisite 2.1 children/woman. But these children are only a generation or two away from being fully assimilated, and as such may be a ‘mixed blessing.’ They also tend to provide a false sense of security since their fertility patterns do not match those of the rest of the culture.

The raw fertility numbers also paint only part of the picture. Because of rising out-of-wedlock birth rates (Figure 1), increasing numbers of the fewer children being born in the West do not enjoy the security of having a married mother and father. As a consequence, many of these children will disproportionately engage in violence, substance abuse, non-marital sexual exploration (some homosexual), and in short, be expensive citizens. Some will be so expensive and so far from fulfilling their own social obligations that, from a social standpoint, ‘it would have been better had they never been born.’

A Practical Solution

If marriage with children can be made sufficiently attractive, many young adults will opt out of their high levels of promiscuity, some will manage to contain their same-sex sexual desires and not engage in homosexuality, and others will be less likely to use contraception or obtain abortions.

The following proposal assumes that individuals in any society seek three basic things: goods, status, and power. Society can adjust the financial, status, and power rewards and incentives associated with almost any behavior or achievement. For instance, in the age of technology, those who create new products are highly prized and are typically given ample amounts of both money and status. While those who are married with children cannot be given the level of financial and status rewards proffered to inventors of useful new products, they can be given solid doses of both. Further, the right to vote is an important power in a democratic society. Under our proposal, those who are married with children would attain an electoral power not available to others. And our scheme is largely ‘revenue neutral,’ requiring modest increases in taxes, but mostly simply shifting who gets taxed and by how much.

A Practical Proposal to Strengthen Marriage and Family

Major educational associations tell U.S. Supreme Court there is no “foundation in fact” to the claim that gay teachers “are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children”

The Empirical Truth

• Every comparative study indicates gay teachers are the most likely — and heterosexual female teachers the least likely — to sexually molest students
• Homosexuals comprise ≤ 4% of teachers, but far out-do their share of teacher-pupil molestations

Media News Reports, 1980-2006

• 902 teachers molested 3,457 students; 43% of perpetrators were homosexual



• Disproportionate homosexual ‘footprint’ around the world: Ireland (63%), New Zealand (62%), Canada (60%), Scotland (54%), Australia (48%), England (47%), U.S. (35%), Africa (26%), Asia (13%)

Survey of Principals

• 1400 principals asked about teacher-student sex complaints
• 7% reported homosexual contact, 13% heterosexual contact; 35% of all complaints were about homosexual teachers

Reports by Superintendents

• New York State — 225 reported cases of student sexual abuse by “professional staff;” 27% of abuses were homosexual
• North Carolina — 21 high school teachers disciplined for sexual contact with students in “past 3 years;” 29% were homosexual

Disciplinary Actions

• 199 teachers disciplined for molesting pupils in 10 western U.S. states
• 32% of perpetrators engaged in homosexuality

References:

• Amicus brief, p. 22, quoted in Cameron P, Cameron K, Landess T (1996) Errors by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Educational Association in representing homosexuality in amicus briefs about Amendment 2 to the U.S. Supreme Court. Psychological Reports, 79,383-404
• Cameron P (2007) Teacher-pupil sex across the world: how much is homosexual? Empirical Journal of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior, 1;1-19. (on line)
• Hechinger G & Hechinger FM (1978) Should homosexuals be allowed to teach? McCall’s 105(6), 100f
• Shakeshaft C & Cohan A (1995) Sexual abuse of students by school personnel. Phi Delta Kappan 76, 513-520.
• Wishnietsky DH (1991) Reported and unreported teacher-student sexual harassment. Journal of Educational Research 84, 164-169
• Rubin S (1988) Sex education: teachers who sexually abuse students. Paper presented at 24th International Congress of Psychology, Sydney, Australia
• Cameron P & Cameron K (1996) Do homosexual teachers pose a risk to pupils? Journal of Psychology 1996;130:603-613

• 2011 begins with news reports of the “corkscrew” murder: 21 yr-old male model murders his lover, a 65 yr-old Portuguese gay activist; cuts off his testicles with a corkscrew
• Shocking aberration? One-time event? Or part of a pattern?

Homosexuality and Violence Are No Strangers

• Top six U.S. serial killers were all involved in homosexuality
• Past 5 years: 22% of 2,281 male homosexuals reported gay-on-gay physical violence; 5.1% reported gay-on-gay rape

Disproportionate Domestic Violence

• Yearly domestic violence reports are disproportionately homosexual
• Married adults reporting domestic violence: men = 0.04%; women = 0.24%
• Homosexually-partnered adults reporting domestic violence: gays = 4.6%; lesbians = 5.8%

Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, 2004

• Homosexuals more apt to report being raped, robbed, or assaulted each year
• Homosexuals = 3.2%; heterosexuals = 1%

References:

Greenwood, et al (2002) Battering victimization among a probability-based sample of men who have sex with men. American Journal Public Health 92:1964-1969
Rennison CM (2001) Intimate partner violence and age of victim, 1993-99. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report, NCJ 187635. (www.ncjrs.org)
Beauchamp DL (2008) Sexual orientation and victimization: 2004. Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics

• Dr. Alfred Kinsey claims “37% of all men” had engaged in homosexuality; “10% were more or less homosexual”
• Gay activists and academicians treat 10% figure as fact; endlessly repeat it

The Problem

• Kinsey’s sampling method was woefully defective; heavily overloaded with prisoners, gay bars, and prostitutes; completely non-random
• Distorted picture of American sexual habits; severely overestimated the prevalence of homosexuality

Best Evidence Today

• < 2% of adults are currently ‘homosexual’ in large-scale probability surveys
• Sexual preference/orientation is not ‘fixed’ or ‘frozen,’ even in adulthood; some try or abandon many kinds of sex, including homosexuality

1996, US Centers for Disease Control

• National Household Survey of Drug Abuse, 12,381 non-institutionalized adults, aged 18-59
• 1.3% of men, 1.1% of women participated in homosexual activity during the past year

2004, Statistics Canada

• 121,300 adults
• “1.0% of Canadians aged 18 to 59 considered themselves homosexual, and 0.7% considered themselves bisexual”

2010, British Office of National Statistics

• 238,000 adults aged 16+
• Response rate close to 96%
• 1.6% of men, 1.3% of women said they were homosexual or bisexual

References:

1. Anderson JE, Wilson RW, Barker P, Doll L, Jones TS, & Holtgrave D (1999) Prevalence of sexual and drug-related HIV risk behaviors in the U.S. adult population: results of the 1996 national household survey on drug abuse. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 21:148-156. [CDC report]
2. Statistics Canada (2004) The Daily, June 15, Canadian Community Health Survey. [Canadian data]
3. Joloza T, Evans J, O’Brien R (2010) Measuring sexual identity: an evaluation report. Sept, Office for National Statistics [British data]
]]> http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2012/01/how-many-homosexuals-are-there/feed/ 0 http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2012/01/frr-dec-2011-%e2%80%94-rush-limbaugh-penn-state-and-free-speech/ http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2012/01/frr-dec-2011-%e2%80%94-rush-limbaugh-penn-state-and-free-speech/#comments Wed, 11 Jan 2012 22:53:42 +0000 kcmacstat http://www.familyresearchinst.org/?p=714 The ‘take away’ from the Penn State sex abuse scandal is that Rush Limbaugh, the most popular and well-known talk-show host, fears to address the issue of homosexual child molestation. From Nazi Germany to Communist China, the first cost of a dictatorship is loss of freedom of speech. In discussing the scandal, Limbaugh said the ‘elephant in the shower room’ was homosexuality; talking about it could “end my career” (11/18). He eventually called Jerry Sandusky a “gay guy,” but bent over backwards to assure his listeners that most of those who engage in homosexuality do not molest children.

For the past two decades the West has been under homosexual censorship led by two key opinion-shaping industries — entertainment and education (with extensive help from psychiatrists and psychologists). Both industries are disproportionately populated by homosexuals and are in the midst of boy-molesting scandals.

The entertainment industry — from actors to media personalities — is known as a homosexual bastion. Thus Elizabeth Taylor could claim “without gays there is no Hollywood.” No wonder that the list of 21 “most notable” 2011 ‘comings out’ published by the The Advocate — a major gay magazine — included 8 actors/musicians, 7 sports figures, and 3 reporters.

Does this clustering of homosexuals endanger boys? You bet. In August, Corey Feldman — a well-known child star — said he was repeatedly molested, and nominated pedophilia as “the number one problem in Hollywood.” He asserts that Hollywood’s child actors work for powerful ‘pedophiles’ who demand lots of sexual favors, but he wouldn’t ‘name names.’ This is one scandal the media is ‘letting die.’ Hmm, wonder why…

But the education scandal continues to boil. The Washington Post asked “why didn’t anyone at Penn State speak up” about Sandusky (11/10)?  It and the rest of the media would have us believe that Jerry Sandusky is the Bernie Madoff of pederasts. Even as everyone went along with Bernie for money, so Penn State covered for Sandusky — to protect the money-making football machine. But a ‘for the money’ explanation doesn’t quite fit all the alleged facts. On November 22, Paul McLaughlin reportedly testified that in 2005 he contacted Graham Spanier — Penn State’s recently fired President — and offered to share taped evidence that a professor Neisworth had molested him in the 1970s (which apparently led to a six figure settlement). He was allegedly told “don’t bother.”

‘For the money’ also doesn’t completely account for the cover-ups of assistant Syracuse basketball coach Bernie Fine by town police, Syracuse University staff, and ESPN. Fine’s apparent pederasty was revealed in a recorded tape with Fine’s wife given to all these parties back in 2001. Indeed, Onondaga County District Attorney William Fitzpatrick says Syracuse police — for the first time in his experience — are resisting his office’s attempts to obtain records in the investigation of now ex-coach Fine. And the similar boy molestations uncovered at the Citadel in South Carolina involved a camp volunteer.

Notice something? Universities have a preponderance of heterosexuals. But, the perhaps 8% or so of employees who practice homosexuality are responsible for the great bulk of the child molestations! Everyone knows that homosexuals go ‘where the boys are.’ Thus the Boy Scouts and Catholic Priest scandals. But the University and Hollywood scandals exhibit another rule — ‘where gays cluster, boys suffer.’

‘The Pill’ Freed Up More Than Heterosexuality

Everyone knows ‘the pill’ freed heterosexuals from social control — but it also (indirectly) freed those who practice homosexuality. Before the 1960’s, ‘everyone’ had to conform to a norm that guaranteed a future — each citizen was responsible to get married and produce children. This social milieu was self-reinforcing: ‘If I must be disciplined in my sex life, then everybody else should be as well!’ Thus the citizenry generally worked to suppress those with deviant sexual habits.

But that changed radically with the invention of ‘the pill.’ Shielded by the anonymity of modern life, the pill assured that those with heterosexual tastes could live their sex lives almost free from social discipline. Pregnancies would no longer reveal your liaisons, and no one knew whether you were childless by fate or choice. Good news for homosexuals, because if heterosexuals could ‘do whatever they wanted’ sexually, the notion of fairness inevitably pushed heterosexuals to agree with ‘why punish those with other harmless sexual tastes?’

Of course, ‘harmless’ is the operative word. Is homosexuality indeed harmless?

Evangelizing for homosexuality, the entertainment industry (joining the psychiatric professions) began to flood the media with the message that ‘homosexuality is different, yet harmless.’ Hollywood asserted that homosexual practitioners were just as stable, just as worthy of marriage, just as worthy of parenthood, etc. The combination of these two new realities — the pill and Hollywood promotion of homosexuality — is the key to understanding where we are today.

The question the West (and, increasingly, the rest of the planet) faces is, if one can have sex with whomever with relatively little risk, shielded from society by anonymity and from physical responsibility by ‘the pill’ (and other meds), can’t one also have the fun depicted on the screen? The answer evident from our current demographic crisis is a resounding ‘no!’ The West is failing to produce enough children, and especially enough kids socialized in married, intact homes. The rest of the world is on course to join us.

The only thing that might stop this train is to disprove Hollywood’s claim that homosexuality is harmless. To show instead that engaging in homosexuality, per se, leads to social disruption. Consider two chaps in the recent news: Sheriff ‘Hollywood Pat’ Sullivan and Rev. Eddie Long. Though husbands and fathers, each had homosexual interests which led them ineluctably into socially disruptive and harmful activities.

Sullivan, ex-Sheriff of Arapahoe county and head of security for Cherry Creek Schools, was arrested and charged in the building that bore his name. Seems he traded meth for homosexual sex, got involved in prostitution, and — still being investigated — possibly murder. Everybody was ‘shocked’ since Sullivan had kept his activities secret from all but (apparently) his wife. The possible murder involved a gay porn star who Sullivan helped get a job at a school whose security he supervised.

Rev. Long, who built up a 25,000 member church in Atlanta, is in trouble because his wife is threatening divorce. Why? Well, he settled claims against him by four men who claimed he had sex with them while they were boys. But it appears the money might not have been his. And so on…

Lies, drugs, theft, sex with the underage, and more in these stories. And consistent with these anecdotes, empirical statistical studies disproportionately associate harmful activities with homosexuality. Can you think of current news stories that parallel those listed above? Professors luring girls, Sheriffs trading drugs for sex with women, or Pastors breaking every vow to have sex with girls?

How does this square with Hillary Clinton’s claim on December 6 in Geneva that homosexual activities are harmless? And that because of its neutrality “the President has directed all U.S. Government agencies engaged overseas to combat the criminalization of LGBT… conduct.”

Homosexuality can only be considered ‘neutral’ by suppressing the truth. Look at Secretary Clinton’s claims before the UN-sponsored group:

Now, there are some who say and believe that all gay people are pedophiles, that homosexuality is a disease that can be caught or cured, or that gays recruit others to become gay. Well, these notions are simply not true.

“All” homosexuals are not child molesters. But in the best scientific samples, 22% of male homosexuals admit to child molestation and 14% have been caught doing it. Both of these figures are much higher than for heterosexuals. Only by believing lies could we accept Clinton’s claim that you “strengthen communities” by legalizing homosexuality!

]]> http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2012/01/frr-dec-2011-%e2%80%94-rush-limbaugh-penn-state-and-free-speech/feed/ 0