Saturday, May 23, 2009

Many Animals Are Homosexual

So it must be 'Natural'

Have you heard that argument before? has posted a scientific response. Part of it follows:

"Paul L. Vasey, of the University of Lethbridge in Canada, nevertheless cautions:
For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn't natural. They make a leap from saying if it's natural, it's morally and ethically desirable. Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn't be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don't take care of the elderly. I don't particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes.[18]

The animal kingdom is no place for man to seek a blueprint for human morality. That blueprint, as bioethicist Bruto Maria Bruti notes, must be sought in man himself:
It is a frequent error for people to contrast human and animal behaviors, as if the two were homogenous. .... The laws ruling human behavior are of a different nature and they should be sought where God inscribed them, namely, in human nature.[19]

The fact that man has a body and sensitive life in common with animals does not mean he is strictly an animal. Nor does it mean that he is a half-animal. Man's rationality pervades the wholeness of his nature so that his sensations, instincts and impulses are not purely animal but have that seal of rationality which characterizes them as human.

Thus, man is characterized not by what he has in common with animals, but by what differentiates him from them. This differentiation is fundamental, not accidental. Man is a rational animal. Man's rationality is what makes human nature unique and fundamentally distinct from animal nature.[20]

To consider man strictly as an animal is to deny his rationality and, therefore, his free will. Likewise, to consider animals as if they were human is to attribute to them a non-existent rationality.

Saturday, May 16, 2009

Church Attacked for Protecting Children

Wednesday April 29, 2009

Groups Furious U.K.'s Faith Schools, Parents to be Given Exemption for Mandatory Explicit Sex-ed Program

by Hilary White


LONDON, April 29, 2009 ( - The British government announced this week that it will adopt the recommendations of homosexualist activists and pro-abortion groups to make explicit sex education a compulsory part of the national curriculum for all schools from primary school onward. The plan, however, has angered some of these same groups by allowing "faith schools" to teach traditional Christian sexual morality and allowing parents to remove their children from morally offensive classes.

Earlier this week, Children's Secretary Ed Balls said that, starting in 2011, personal, social, health and economic education (PSHE) will become a compulsory subject for all students in British schools from age four through the end of high school. Lessons will include those on "different types of relationships including same sex and civil partnerships" starting at age eleven. Previously schools were obliged only to teach lessons in human reproduction, contraception and puberty in science lessons and could opt out of the PSHE courses.

But some groups are outraged that the regulations will include an option for Christian schools to apply the "context, values and ethos" of their religion to the lessons and for parents to withdraw their children on religious grounds. Currently, about 0.04 per cent of children are withdrawn from sex education classes by parents and the government said that while the opt-out will remain in place, it will be kept under "constant review."

Terry Sanderson, head of the National Secular Society, called it "unfortunate" that the government is not forcing faith schools to teach the normalisation of homosexuality. The Society, an open opponent of Britain's religious schools, calls it one of their "primary aims" to completely abolish all religious education in Britain's education system.

Sanderson said, "The provisions for faith schools to tailor sex education to their own ethos will give religious zealots in schools a free hand to defame homosexuals and withhold essential information about contraception and abortion from children.

"It is unfortunate that the government didn't have the courage to face down religious demands, and the result will be that many children will be given a distorted view of sex and sexuality posing as religious doctrine."

Sue Sanders, a major figure in the homosexualist lobby, said that parents should be forced to have their children to attend the classes. Sanders, the founder of the campaigning group Schools Out and LGBT History Month, said, "It's fudging. It is supposed to be compulsory so it should be compulsory.

"It is the schools' duty to enable pupils to learn about diversity and equality but they can't do this if parents are permitted to remove their children from lessons. It is giving kids a double message."

Julie Bentley, chief executive of Family Planning Association, one of Britain's foremost abortion promoters, lashed out specifically at Catholic schools, saying that while religion and sex education are not incompatible, schools should not be allowed to interpret the rule "to mean they can tell young people, for example, that contraception isn't a matter of choice, [but that] it is simply wrong".

"We would like further assurances that when [the curriculum] becomes statutory, all schools will teach it responsibly, ethically and factually as a core subject," she said.

Simon Blake, national director of Brook, an abortion-promoting charity that lobbied to have the curriculum become compulsory, said, "Young people need to understand the law, that you can get contraception, that you can have an abortion, and understand the health benefits of practicing safer sex." Blake continued, "It would not be right for anyone to tell them that this is wrong, but it is OK for them to be told that some people believe it is wrong."

This is in line with a previous report by the government's Joint Committee on Human Rights that said religious schools, under the Sexual Orientation Regulations of the Equality Act, should not be allowed to teach Christian sexual morals "as though they are objectively true."

But the opt-out provisions in the new regulations are not enough to assuage the concerns of Christian leaders, who have warned that more, more explicit, and more "gay friendly," sex education for ever-younger students will result only in more family breakdown, higher teen pregnancy and abortion rates.

Norman Wells, of the Family Education Trust, said, "It is difficult to see how teaching children as young as 11 about same-sex relationships and civil partnerships fits in with a study of personal wellbeing. And many parents will be very concerned about the prospect of such lessons being imposed over their heads."

Simon Calvert of the Christian Institute said that "pressing the virtues of homosexuality" could lead to more "harmful" experimentation by children.

He said, "What we don't want to see is vulnerable young people being exploited by outside groups which want to normalise homosexuality."

Emphasis added by Ex-Gay Uganda

Legal Issues: Freedom of Speech

Legislation making it illegal to 'discriminate' against homosexual people by criticising their practices and lifestyle, is in place in many countries. In the USA as you can read earlier this month, such a Bill was rejected by the Senate because it would have outlawed criticism of Same Sex Marriage e.t.c. while still allowing criticism of heterosexual divorce, co-habitation e.t.c.

Those who favour legislation against criticism of the 'gay' lifestyle call the criticism 'hate-speech' and the 'crime' 'hate crimes'. In California such a Bill was defeated because it was felt 'gay rights' would have exceeded heterosexual people's rights.

It is this kind of ambush that the proposed legislation in Uganda is aimed at addressing.

In 2009 the debate moves to the UK. Read on.

© Catholic Action UK

[In the UK] The offence of ‘inciting hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation’ is part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (‘CJI Act’).

Lord Waddington successfully inserted a free speech clause into that Act, which clause 61 (formerly clause 58) of the Coroners and Justice Bill now seeks to remove. Clause 61 has been passed by the Commons. It reads as follows:

61 Hatred against persons on grounds of sexual orientation
In Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986 (c. 64) (hatred against persons on grounds of sexual orientation etc), omit section 29JA (protection for discussion or criticism of sexual conduct etc).

Section 29JA (which clause 61 seeks to omit) reads as follows:

29JA Protection of freedom of expression (sexual orientation)
In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.

The provisions of the Bill are likely to be considered in the House of Lords shortly after its Second Reading on 18th May.

‘Stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation’ carries a sentence of up to seven years’ imprisonment. Without highlighting the legal distinction between ‘discussion’ on one hand and the ‘stirring up’ of ‘hatred’ on the other, ordinary people will be frightened into silence, unsure whether they can challenge the new morality that seeks to normalise and promote homosexual practice.

Nobody supports the stirring up of hatred, but equally no reasonable person should object to peaceful criticism and discussion of sexual behaviour. Repealing this clause would remove the clear legal protection for such criticism and discussion from the face of the statute. Issuing Guidelines to police and prosecutors cannot hope to undo the damage this will cause. If clause 61 is passed, the consequences would include a climate of fear surrounding the mere discussion of sexual ethics and potentially the silencing of the Christian view.

Let us stand as Christians for our freedom to make a peaceful and reasonable case for biblical sexual ethics.

More Gay Culture in UK Schools

© Catholic Action UK

Sunday, March 01, 2009

Gay propaganda in schools

Action: parents must find out what is happening in their children's schools in the name of 'LGBT History Month' and protest, if necessary. It can't be stressed enough that the most gross propaganda is being shoved down children's throats in all sorts of subjects - it can come in anywhere in the school day.

From the Christian Institute.The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has invited the organisers of a controversial month-long drive to teach schoolchildren about homosexuality to a reception at 10 Downing Street.

LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender] History Month has taken place every February since 2005. It was conceived by 'gay rights' campaigners with the aim of educating pupils to recognise homosexuality as normal.

In the past it has tried to teach children that Florence Nightingale was a lesbian and that Isaac Newton was gay.

The organisers commend the efforts of one school in Stoke Newington in 2007. In a report on the school's events, the teacher responsible said: 'Six girls tried to walk out of the Year 9 assembly because they were Christians and their parents had said they were not to take part in any of the LGBT celebrations.'

The teacher said the girls were told 'students must not be racist, sexist or homophobic' and were made to attend the assembly despite their beliefs.

Its current suggested lesson plans include discussing genes, gender and the concept of 'intersex' in science, producing images of LGBT people in art, and exposing Leonardo Da Vinci's bisexuality in Design and Technology classes.

Since the repeal of Section 28 of the Local Government Act in 2003 there has been no statutory ban on the promotion of homosexuality in schools.

LGBT History is sponsored by several Government departments, police forces and other public bodies.

Women and equalities minister Harriet Harman, and MEP Michael Cashman, will also be present at the Downing Street reception.

Organiser Tony Fenwick said: 'This is a fantastic moment for the LGBT community; we really are on the threshold of something big.

'Who would have thought five years ago that a group wanting to put lesbians, gays, bisexuals and trans people into the National Curriculum would be welcomed by the Prime Minister of our nation?'

The organisers of LGBT History Month say: 'Schools have a crucial role in educating for equality. They have a responsibility to every pupil to ensure a safe and secure learning environment in which they can thrive. They have a responsibility to all pupils to prepare them for adult life in the real world.

'A key part of of the educational process is to ensure that the culture of our schools is inclusive and welcoming. Countering the prevalent assumption that everyone represented in the curriculum (including the hidden curriculum) is heterosexual becomes essential.'

They say: 'This focused month is uniquely placed as a national initiative encouraging staff and students alike to collectively challenge the homophobia and prejudice which is endemic in our society.

'Diverse images round the school that include LGBT people at work and as parents contribute much to set new norms.'

The organisers offer the following examples of how another school incorporated LGBT History Month into the curriculum.

* Maths lesson explored the work of Alan Turing, [a gay man], known as the Father of Computers.

* English lesson read James Baldwin [a gay man], and explored how his sexual orientation affected his work. Jackie Kay, a lesbian of black Scottish heritage is another fine writer pupils can study.

* Geography lesson explored population movement and discovered why and how LGBT people move to cities around the country and sometimes move to new countries.

* Religion class explored how various texts mention sexual orientation and gender and how people differ in their interpretation and behaviour and how these can be interpreted in terms of social harmony.

* Media lessons explored the images of LGBT people and why they are predominately young and male and white people.

* Science lesson discussed genes and gender and the concept of intersex.

* Art class used to produce images of LGBT people that could be used in the school

* Drama season used LGBT History as the basis of an improvised play to educate and entertain the whole school on the issues.

* Design and Technology lesson on some of Leonardo da Vinci's inventions, and remembering to expose his bi-sexual identity.

[Christian Institute]

Emphasis added by ExGayUganda

Parents Protest Gay Promotion in Schools

HOMOSEXODUS!'Gay' day squashed on campus. School administrators refuse participation in pro-homosexual event

Posted: May 19, 20088:48 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Nationwide outrage against public school participation in the "gay"-friendly 2008 Day of Silence resulted in hundreds of students boycotting the observance and some administrators canceling pro-homosexual activities.

Parent and community protests against school involvement made all the difference, Linda Harvey, president of
Mission America, told WND. "The Day of Silence Walk Out was extremely successful," she said. "In many high schools, hundreds of students stayed home. Here at Mission America, we had thousands of e-mails from both parents and schools, and more than 300 schools were taken off our initial list of those we believed would be sponsoring this pro-homosexual event."

The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, or GSLEN, has sponsored the nationwide silent protest every April for the last 12 years. The event is said to be a showing of support for "gay," lesbian, bisexual and transgender victims of violence and bullying. According to GSLEN's 2005 National School Climate Survey, four out of five LGBT children experience harassment in school. The organization claims 64 percent of "gay" students feel unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation and 41 percent because of their "gender expression."

Despite claims that the silent protest is organized by school-age children, Harvey said it is orchestrated by adults using local schools to portray homosexuality, bisexuality and transgender behaviors as lifestyles that are worthy of sympathy. She said activists claim to have been subjects of discrimination, and they try to portray them as a minority group, comparable to other racial, ethnic or religious groups.

"Homosexuality and these lifestyles are high-risk, dangerous and immoral behaviors," she said. "Homosexuality is not immutable. It is changeable, and it's something that shouldn't be promoted to kids."

GLSEN claims there are almost 4,000 homosexual clubs now in American high schools and middle schools. Harvey attributes the growth to unrelenting "gay" activism. She said some administrators hide DOS events from parents to prevent protest, but Mission America's list of participating schools helps concerned families stay alert. Parents must remain vigilant, she warned.

"Groups of parents and individuals need to sit down and talk with the administration if they have sponsored the Day of Silence and say we all of this pro-homosexual misinformation and propaganda out of our schools," she said. "We do not want the Day of Silence observed. If students want to do this, they should have to do it on their own time."

Harvey said the 2008 effort was the largest yet, as the organization united with major pro-family groups like the American Family Association. The Mission America website received more than 2 million hits in one day, forcing it to overload and crash from overwhelming public support.

"It was a huge deal for us," she said. "I had many of these principals say, 'I've had 80 calls from parents. You've got to get me off this list.' They were literally begging to get off this list."

The following are some incidents that took place during the silent protests and were reported by Mission America:

Phoenix, Ariz.: At Maryvale High School, a school announcement said the following: "Do you want to be "normal," just another faceless drone of society? Neither do we! Come to the GSA (Gay-Straight Alliance) every Wednesday after school in the lecture hall to learn how to be more accepting of your differences and the differences of others." Parents were not informed of the meetings.

Also in Phoenix, at Desert Ridge High School,
Arizona Republic reported that between 200 and 250 students stayed home. A parent who objected to the observance hosted a pool party for students who refused to participate. The father, Randy Bellino, told a Phoenix television station that someone sent a text message threatening to shoot his son, and police questioned a group of homosexual students who silently sat across the street from his home.

Kirksville, Mo.: A parent told Mission America that the Kirksville High School principal and superintendent laughed when she asked if her child could be excused from participating in the school's Day of Silence. According to the organization, she said, "They called me a narrow-minded bigot and refused to give excused absences."
Also in Missouri, more than 400 students protested by staying home from Raymore-Peculiar High School on the day of the silent observances.

Chaska, Minn.: At Chaska High School, the observance was extended into a full week of activities promoting "diversity." T-shirts were sold, and teachers were encouraged to join silent students in protest. Community events included a pow wow, discussion groups and a mayor's pizza dinner.

Also in Minnesota, Maple Grove school administrators reportedly told an 11th grade student he would be considered truant and his grades would suffer if he did not attend school.

Indiana: Despite parent protests, a public school participated in the observance, told parents it was "against the law" to cancel the event and insisted absences would be unexcused for the day.

Iowa: A school board member claimed that remaining silent to observe homosexuality would be no more disruptive than a "Christian wearing a cross" to classes.

Oklahoma: A principal said that if he did not observance of the DOS, he would not be able to continue Bible clubs and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes.

Milwaukee, Wis.: Germantown High School sold DOS T-shirts in the weeks prior to the event. An administrator claimed the day was not pro-homosexual, but a time to learn to tolerate all people. The school went so far as to show a clip of the movie "Exodus" and compare homosexual mistreatment to the Holocaust.

Snoqualmie, Wash.: At Mount Si High School, Pastor Ken Hutcherson of Antioch Bible Church led a protest against the day. Hundreds of students and their parents peacefully gathered outside the school, and
more than 600 students stayed home.
Tampa, Fla.:
Hillsborough County Commissioner Brian Blair called for parents to resist student participation in the day's events, saying homosexuals weren't the only ones who are bullied. Also in Florida, a principal threatened to give a student failing grades for the entire year if he did not participate in school that day.

Santa Barbara, Calif.: Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) of Santa Barbara introduced a resolution recognizing the day and a 15-year-old cross-dresser, Larry King, who was murdered at school in California, the Ventura County Star reported. The 2008 event was dedicated to Larry.

Providence, R.I.: At Feinstein High School,
130 students and teachers participated in the day. One boy called it "touching" and said a sea of gray T-shirts revealed a touching outpouring of support.

Houston, Texas: At Pershing Middle School, a 14-year-old planned a silent protest to honor her "gay" best friend.
Her mother supported her wholeheartedly.

Reisterstown, Md.: At Franklin High School, posters promoted "gay" marriage, calling dissenters "homophobic." The Christian Culture Club was banned from hanging posters with slogans or religious beliefs. The student president of the club protested, and to her surprise the school principal agreed to have the posters removed.

Emphasis added by exgayuganda.

Parents Penalized for Opposing Homosexuality in Schools

Parents face prosecution over school gay week protest
Parents who took their children out of school in protest at them being taught about gay, bisexual and transgender history could be prosecuted.
Last Updated: 4:06PM GMT 06 Mar 2009
Council bosses said the protest resulted in around 30 primary pupils missing school and had "taken action" against parents who pulled took their children out of George Tomlinson School in Leytonstone, east London, but refused to state what sanctions are being taken.
Pervez Latif, a 41-year-old accountant whose children Saleh, 10, and Abdurrahin, nine, attend the school, said his wife Shaheen, 38, was worried they could be taken to court.

He said: "My wife is very concerned she might be prosecuted.
"As yet we haven't heard anything from the council about whether they are taking action."
He said he knew of about 30 children who had been taken out of classes during the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Week after parents objected to their youngsters being encouraged to "celebrates the lives and achievements of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people in the community".
Under current laws parents can be prosecuted for failing to ensure their children attend school.
Mr Latif, from Leytonstone, said: "We were worried because weren't sure how they were going to teach our children these issues.
"We don't think it is necessary to teach it for a whole week and the children are so young. It is more appropriate for secondary school.
"Most children that age don't understand these things. When we took our children out of school we had to explain why - they didn't know what two parents the same sex meant."
A spokesman for Waltham Forest Council refused to reveal how many children missed lessons or what action would be taken against pupils but the council's website said parents of truant youngsters can be asked to sign a contract, given an on the spot fine or hauled into court.
The spokesman added: "As part of the borough's policy of promoting tolerance in our schools, children are taught that everyone in our society is of equal value.
"At George Tomlinson, parents were invited to meet with teachers and governors several weeks ago to discuss what work would be taking place throughout the national LGBT History Month, and how this work would be delivered.
"Regrettably, some parents chose to remove their children from school.
"The council does not condone any unauthorised absence from school and action has been taken."

Related Articles
· Cambridge Union elections overshadowed by homophobia row
· Gay 'Romeo and Julian' play
· Canterbury 'not gay enough'

Death Threats to Pro-Heterosexual Activists

Examples continue to surface of threats being made against parents who oppose the promotion o homosexuality in schools. The promotion is often in the form of a Day of Silence to protest the 'bullying' of homosexual students, or exhibitions to mark the acheivements of homosexuals in the community. Those parents who keep their children at home on those days, who do not want their children exposed to homosexual promotion are often targetted as this report shows.

Death threats target opponents of 'gay' promotion'Actions of Day of Silence supporters are speaking louder than the silence'
Posted: April 18, 200912:15 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh© 2009 WorldNetDaily

This message was handed to officials at a California pro-family organization, along with the accompanying picture

At least one pro-family organization that has opposed the pro-homosexual "Day of Silence" is being targeted with hate e-mails and telephone calls, including suggestions that officials go and kill themselves.

"You may not be gay, but you may be next," said one e-mail, which included a photograph of a casket, according to Karen England, executive director of the Sacramento-based Capitol Resource Institute. England said the hate has flooded in since her organization joined the "Day of Silence Walkout." She also confirmed to WND that she has filed a police report on the threats.
WND reported earlier this week on a multitude of organizations across the nation that oppose the DOS promotion in public schools sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network. Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute noted the goal cited by GLSEN is to reduce bullying on school campuses, especially bullying perceived as targeting homosexual students or those with other "alternative' sexual lifestyles.

"No one supports bullying," she told WND. "Every school has more than ample anti-bullying policies in place. … For GLSEN, the means by which they want to end bullying is to normalize volitional homosexual conduct."

England told WND that another message was, "I wish you would just go kill yourself."

"If this is the kind of atmosphere we get just for asking kids to stay home, in an e-mail, can you imagine what is like for kids refusing to stay silent?" she said.
She also said teachers should focus on academic subjects, not changing minds about sexual issues.

"The actions of Day of Silence supporters are speaking louder than the silence," England said. She said she is urging the walkout "because students should be free to support traditional marriage and relationships, without their peers seeing them as bigots."
The official day for the event is today, but opponents note some schools observe it on other days.
England said the Day of Silence "falsely equates being anti-harassment with being in favor of social activism in the schools. CRI strongly opposes all harassment. Teachers and students, however, should always be able to speak at school. The classroom is not an appropriate setting for social activism and protest."

England's organization has posted a video on YouTube, which also has been embedded here (Advisory: The video is not recommended viewing for children):

"Many people who support traditional values are called right wing extremists, and Homeland Security says it is concerned about us. Maybe Homeland Security should be more concerned about assessing the threats we are receiving than about us as a threat to others," England said.
GSLEN has sponsored the nationwide silent protest every April for the last 12 years. The event is said to be a showing of support for "gay," lesbian, bisexual and transgender victims of violence and bullying. According to GSLEN's 2005 National School Climate Survey, four out of five LGBT children experience harassment in school. The organization claims 64 percent of "gay" students feel unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation and 41 percent because of their "gender expression."

GLSEN claims there are about 4,000 homosexual clubs now in American high schools and middle schools.

Pro-'Gay' Bill Vetoed

'Sexual indoctrination' bill vetoed Gov. Posted: September 06, 20064:00 pm Eastern© 2009

One of three "sexual indoctrination" bills pending in California has been vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and family interest groups are ecstatic – so far.
"California families recognize this bill was an attack on religious freedoms in school," said Karen England, executive director of the Capitol Resource Institute, after the announcement today. "There are still several other bills on the governor's desk that also deserve his veto."
The bill vetoed today was SB 1437, which had been approved by the Legislature. It would have prevented any school teaching materials or activities from "reflecting adversely" upon homosexuals, bisexuals or transgenders.
Former Assemblyman Larry Bowler, R-Elk Grove, had told a rally just a day earlier that in his six years as a member of the Assembly Education Committee, "Never, never, in all the thousands of bills that I voted on in that committee, did I ever see anything even close to the destructive decadence of these three bills.
"The bills are not education, they are indoctrination, designed to inculcate our children and our grandchildren," he said.
"Thousands of Californians called, e-mailed and wrote letters to the governor urging him to veto this bill," said Meredith Turney, CRI's legislative liaison. "The governor heard their protests and vetoed a bill that would have seriously infringed upon students' religious freedoms."
Turney said the bill shows the legislature's priorities are out of synch.
"At a time when many California students struggle to pass the Exit Exam, the legislature is more concerned with advancing a radical political agenda than focusing on the basics: reading, writing, and arithmetic."
England said the bill was just "another attempt by radical homosexual activists to confuse children on matters relating to sexuality."
"The government has no business undermining the moral upbringing of children. Classrooms, where children are supposed to gain the fundamental tools of learning, should never be used to indoctrinate children for political purposes," she said.
There had been a rally in front of the California statehouse just a day earlier, sponsored by Campaign for Children and Families.
The crowd chanted, "veto, veto, veto," and called the governor's office on their cell phones to demand the vetoes. Officials later said the governor's office was adding more telephone lines because of the number of calls that flooded in.
Protesters also expressed their frustration with Schwarzenegger for his Aug. 28 signing of SB 1441, which will force religious colleges – if a single student is attending on a state grant – to promote transexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality.
CCF President Randy Thomasson said that "tramples the religious values of faith-based institutions."
"The Christian colleges are very afraid," Thomasson said. "They are huddling together talking about a plan of action."
Craig DeLuz, president of the Robla School Board, said SB 1437 would have allowed only "positive images of homosexuals in any context of education."
"Meaning that if you wanted to talk about the spread of AIDS, if you wanted to talk about high-risk sexual activities, male-to-male sexual contact could not be mentioned because you'll have violated SB 1437," he said. "But that's the truth! What kind of law hides the truth?"
CCF Latino spokesman Luis Goldamez was even more blunt... And if anyone needs to teach our children, it needs to be us parents..." he told the rally.
Thomasson had told WorldNetDaily at stake are the "hearts and minds" of 6.5 million schoolchildren in the state.

Sunday, May 3, 2009

Environmental Roots of Homosexuality

[copyright material of] The American Culture

Homosexuality Caused by Environmental Factors, Not Genetics, Studies Show

An important new study shows that efforts to force all of society to endorse same-sex marriages will increase the amount of homosexuality in a society. This should not surprise anyone, as that is quite obviously their intent.

Trayce Hansen, Ph.D., a licensed psychologist with a clinical and forensic practice who is a strong skeptic of the homosexual activist agenda, has published a provocative and informative article examining research from around the world which "finds that societies which endorse homosexual behavior increase the prevalence of homosexuality in those societies."

Although the orthodox opinion in the United States for the past couple of decades has been that homosexual behavior is genetically determined and therefore simply immutable for those who are involved in such activities, numerous skeptical scientists have pointedly questioned this notion, noting that the evidence strongly argues for environmental factors as being the vastly preponderant element in the choice of a sexual identity. Hansen summarizes this research as follows:

Extensive research from Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and the United States reveals that homosexuality is primarily environmentally induced. Specifically, social and/or family factors, as well as permissive environments which affirm homosexuality, play major environmental roles in the development of homosexual behavior.

Outlining some of the evidence against the theory that homosexual behavior is determined genetically, Hansen notes the following:

Twin study investigations of homosexuality were recently conducted in both Sweden and Finland. Such twin studies compare rates of homosexual behavior between different sibling groups who share varying degrees of genetic similarity (i.e., identical twins versus non-identical twins). By comparing such rates, twin studies help sort out the extent to which homosexual behavior is genetic and/or environmental. For instance, if homosexuality is genetic, then in cases where one identical twin is homosexual the co-twin should be homosexual nearly 100% of the time because identical twins share 100% of their genes.

But that is not what these two large-scale Scandinavian studies found. Both studies revealed that when one identical twin was homosexual the other twin was homosexual only 10% or 11% of the time. Such findings indicate that homosexuality is not genetically determined.

Instead of genetic factors, these Scandinavian studies concluded that unique environmental factors play the largest role in the development of homosexual behavior. The question as to which specific environmental factors contribute to homosexuality was not answered by these studies although some conclusions are offered by Danish and American research data to be discussed later in this article.

The genetic influence may be even less than this, Hansen notes:

[A]lthough the Swedish and Finnish twin studies are among the best to date, they still have wide margins of error. In fact, the margins of error are so wide it remains entirely possible that genetic factors play no role in the development of homosexuality. That remains to be determined, but what has been resolved is that the primary factor in the development of homosexuality is environmental.

In addition to family elements, which appear to be crucial in forming the choice of homosexual behavior, Hansen notes that the scientific evidence shows that whereas genetics has little and perhaps no influence on homosexual behavior, various factors in the social environment have a proven effect:

A Danish research investigation studied two million adults living in Denmark, a country where same-sex marriage has been legal since 1989. This study uncovered a number of specific environmental factors that increase the probability an individual will seek a same-sex rather than an opposite-sex partner for marriage.

For Danish men, the environmental factors associated with higher rates of homosexual marriage include an urban birthplace and an absent or unknown father. Significantly, there was a linear relationship between degree of urbanization of birthplace and whether a man chose homosexual or heterosexual marriage as an adult. In other words, the more urban a man's birthplace, the more likely he was to marry a man, while the more rural a man's birthplace, the more likely he was to marry a woman.

For Danish women, the environmental factors related to increased likelihood of homosexual marriage include an urban birthplace, maternal death during adolescence, and mother-absence.

Interestingly, this Danish research finds that urban birthplace and separation from the same-sex parent both were associated with same-sex marriage for men as well as women. (The latter finding supports psychological theories that have long asserted homosexuality is related to childhood problems—real or perceived—with the same-sex parent). In summary, this study finds that environmental factors that contribute to the development of homosexuality can be social and/or familial.

As Hansen notes, this evidence accords with what psychologists and physicians have known for many years (and which people have known for millennia) but was suppressed in recent years in the well-meaning but wrongheaded attempt to coerce people into accepting homosexuality instead of simply tolerating it, so as to ensure that homosexuals were not unduly harassed by people uncomfortable with their increasing prominence in society and open recruitment of people into that form of behavior.

The long record of human history shows conclusively that "rates of homosexual behavior fluctuate greatly," Hansen notes, varying over time and across regions and societies. There is nothing immutable about it, and there never has been.

Hansen then cites evidence identifying factors in the United States that have affected the choice of homosexual behavior:

For American men, the environmental factor most related to homosexual behavior was the degree of urbanization during the teenage years. Specifically, boys who lived in large urban centers between the ages of 14 and 16 were three to six times more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than were boys who lived in rural communities during those same ages. The authors offer the following possibility: "an environment that provides increased opportunities for and fewer negative sanctions against same-gender sexuality may both allow and even elicit expression of same-gender interest and sexual behavior (p.308)."

For American women, the environmental factor most associated with a homosexual or bisexual identity was a higher level of education. . . . [A] woman with a college degree was nine times more likely to identify herself as non-heterosexual than a woman with only a high school diploma. The specific elements that create this marked difference are unclear, but the researchers don't believe it's simply due to higher reporting of non-heterosexuality by more educated individuals. They believe one explanation is the fact that with more acceptance, even encouragement, of homosexuality at universities, more university women embrace a non-heterosexual lifestyle.

Hansen notes that the amount of homosexuality in a society is a choice by the members of that society, manifested in the norms and laws they adopt:

Social and cultural norms, as well as legal regulations, influence human behavior including sexual behavior. So not surprisingly, as the United States and other Western Countries have become increasingly pro-homosexual—socially, politically, and legally—they have experienced an upward trend in the number of individuals engaging in homosexual behavior. That trend will continue if we move beyond mere tolerance of homosexual behavior (which is appropriate) to formally honoring it by legalizing same-sex marriage.

Her conclusion constitutes a serious warning:

The legalization of same-sex marriage—which is being considered by voters in several U.S. states—is the ultimate in societal endorsement and will result in more individuals living a homosexual lifestyle.

One could certainly argue that having more homosexuals in a particular society is a jolly good thing indeed, but it's an argument that we should have openly, instead of having it imposed by government and through indoctrination in the schools and by the mass media. That argument, moreover, should be engaged without prejudice toward a predetermined conclusion, and with our decisions based on what we know, not on what some of us may wish were true. That is how we are supposed to decide things in places not gripped in the vise of tyranny.

If we truly want our society to have a greater proportion of homosexuals, we can decide explicitly to adopt policies, such as forced endorsement of same-sex marriages, that will bring about that end.

If not, such decisions should not be imposed on us.

'The Battle for Normality', A Book Review

The Battle for Normality: A Guide for (Self-)Therapy for Homosexuality

by Gerard van den Aardweg
150 pages


The author, a psychologist does not believe homosexuality is a result of genetics, birth defect or mental illness, but that it is learned behaviour. It has been described as excellent for thos who WANT to change and offensive for those who do not. Also as 'strong medicine'.

Christian Inclusiveness and Homosexuality

Father Thomas Williams, copyright National Review Online
[all emphasis added y exgayuganda]

This article gives an excellent teaching on maintaining the Catholic/Bible teaching on homosexuality while accepting homosexual persons.

sample paragraphs;

There is a difference between a church saying “We welcome all persons” and “We welcome all behavior.”

After all, two things distinguish Christian belief: a body of doctrine and a moral code. Following Jesus entails both. Jesus welcomed prostitutes, but he never welcomed prostitution. He was soft on adulterers, but unyielding on adultery.
After forgiving the adulterous woman, in fact, he adds: “Go and sin no more.” And the tax collector Zacchaeus, on encountering Jesus, promises to pay back all those he has cheated — fourfold. Jesus never welcomed cheating, but he did welcome reformed cheaters. This is not just a matter of semantic hair-splitting. Jesus came to call sinners but to condemn sin, much as a doctor heals sick people but eradicates sickness.

There is a problem with identifying people with their choices. Thieves are welcome in the church not as thieves, but as human persons.

When Jesus tells the chief priests and elders that “the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you” (Matthew 21:31), he is not winking at thievery and prostitution. He is responding, rather, to their willingness to acknowledge their errors and to change. The Church is absolutely inclusive toward persons (all are invited to enter) but not toward ideas or behavior. If our “inclusiveness” means that we are no longer able or willing to distinguish between good and bad behavior and to make universal moral judgments like “wife beating is bad,” then we have effectively abandoned morality.

Friday, May 1, 2009

Statistics and Facts, Be Informed

These and other such research results are listed in a readable form at

Political : Homosexuality

'Gay marriage' and homosexuality: some medical comments

By John Shea, MD, FRCP (C), John K. Wilson MD, FRCP (C), Paul Ranalli, MD, FRCP (C), Christina Paulaitis MD, CCFP, Luigi Castagna MD, FRCP (C), Hans-Christian Raabe MD, MRCP MRCGP, and W. André Lafrance MD, FRCP (C)
Issue: June 2005

Email This Article Printer Friendly Page

1. Background.

Despite the impression given by the media, the actual number of homosexuals is quite small. Essentially all surveys show the number of homosexuals to be only 1-3% of the population. The number of homosexuals living in 'common law partnerships' is even less, only 0.5% of all couples. This contrasts with 70% of all households with a married couple.

The pressure for introducing same-sex marriages comes from a very small section of society.

. According to Statistics Canada, 1.3% of men and 0.7% of women considered themselves to be homosexual.


. Recent studies in many different countries show that the prevalence of homosexuality is less than 3% of the population: In a US study, the prevalence of homosexuality was estimated to be 2.1% of men and 1.5% of women. (Gilman SE.Am J Public Health. 2001; 91: 933-9.) Another US study estimated the prevalence of the adult lesbian population to be 1.87%
(Aaron DJ et al. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003; 57 :207-9.)

In a recent British survey, 2.8% of men were classified as homosexuals (Mercer CH et al. AIDS. 2004; 18: 1453-8). In a recent Dutch study 2.8% of men and 1.4% women had had samesex partners. (Sandfort TG et al. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001; 58 :85-91.) In a New Zealand study, 2.8% of young adults were classified as homosexual or bisexual. (Fergusson DM et al. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999; 56 : 876-80)

. The number of homosexuals in essentially all surveys is less than 3%. (Statistics Canada found only 1% of the population who described themselves as homosexual.) However, the percentage of homosexuals among pedophiles is 25%. (Blanchard R et al.Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior 2000; 29: 463-78.)

Therefore, the prevalence of pedophilia among homosexuals is about 10-25 times higher than one would expect if the proportion of pedophiles were evenly distributed within the (hetero- and homosexual) populations.

More Medical Issues

The Health Risks

of Gay Sex


As a physician, it is my duty to assess behaviors for their impact on health and wellbeing. When something is beneficial, such as exercise, good nutrition, or adequate sleep, it is my duty to recommend it. Likewise, when something is harmful, such as smoking, overeating, alcohol or drug abuse, and homosexual sex, it is my duty to discourage it.

Read the doctor's advice at;

Legal Issues, Parliament Takes a Stand

Parliament Takes a Stand Against Homosexuality

A Correspondent

30th April 2009 started off as an ordinary day but ended on a high note. I got back home from town at lunchtime, hot and bothered. While I took a rest I got a telephone call to say the Anti-Homosexuality Bill was going to be introduced in Parliament. So I put my shoes back on and went. Mr Hashaka, MP (NRM) was going to seek Parliaments permission to move the Bill.

Two years or so ago another MP tried to move a Bill that would make it illegal to discriminate against anyone on the basis of his/her sexual orientation. Orientation, is not the same as gender. Gender means male or female. Sexual orientation, according to some, means whether one, regardless of gender, is attracted to males or females or both. Whatever the case, they argue, it is their right. And because it is the right of a man to marry another man and a woman a woman, the argument continues, people who have made such a choice must not be discriminated against for jobs, or in the workplace etc. It is called ‘inclusiveness’, or ‘multi-culturism’. Many churches in the USA are ‘inclusive’ and vote members of such unions on to their councils (unlike the Catholic church which encourages sacramental marriages by limiting the offices those in unsacramental) marriages can hold. One Pentecostal church now has a majority Executive of homosexual people and promotes homosexuality. Catechism 2358 states that homosexuality is a disorder and that many who have it find it a trial, but that they are entitled to pastoral care like any other church member. The American Council of Bishops in 2006 added, having this disorder does not diminish the worth of the individual. In other words the Church discourages homosexual acts while welcoming those who are erotically attracted to members of their own gender.

Last month (April 2009, the State of North Dakota had to debate a similar Bill. The Senate rejected it. According to Robin Weisz (Republican), the law would ban situations such as employers voicing their opinions on same-sex relationships, as this could offend lesbian and gay staff. He explained, “If this bill passes, I can still preach about [opposition to] divorce and living together, but I would no longer be able to have an opinion in my own place of business on whether homosexuality was a proper or improper lifestyle,....Their rights have now superseded my rights.”.

It is Uganda’s turn to make the choice. We arrived at Parliament bang on 3.30 when the reading was supposed to begin. They were still debating rural electrification in West Nile. Then they introduced the Bill banning Female Genital Mutilation. In the meantime I said the chaplet of Divine Mercy, asking Our Lord to grant our elected leaders the wisdom to lead and especially to discuss these two Bills. Three hours later it was our turn.

Before Hashaka, MP could proceed, Ogenga Latigo (FDC), Leader of the Opposition wanted to hear Government’s statement on Migingo Island. The Deputy Speaker, R. Kadaga ruled it was time to listen to Civil Society (that is us) before returning to government business. She pointed out some of its promoters had been waiting since 2pm. Then another MP, Erias Lukwago said it was not necessary to have the Bill as homosexuality is already illegal in Uganda and they only needed o amend the penal code. This time Latigo rose to defend the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. He said he had looked at the draft being circulated and this new Bill was aimed at i. outlawing promotion of homosexuality as has been reported in schools and ii. providing psycho-social care for the victims of sodomy. Alice Alaso MP (FDC) rose and gave a spirited defence of the Bill as did Isaac Musumba from the Government Front Bench. I think it was Hon. Nyakaana (we were not allowed to take notebooks in) who revealed the existence of a working paper called ‘Overhauling Straight America’ [insert any country] in which the authors describe the tactics to be used to promote ‘gay’ culture. He explained this is commonly known as ‘The Gay Agenda.’ Lukwago then withdrew his objection.

Finally, when Mr David Hashaka began to speak, he first acknowledged those who were instrumental in moving the Bill. He recognised the presence of Pastor Martin Ssempa, Stephen Langa and Bishop Oyet in the Stranger’s Gallery. He then acknowledged the presence of George Oundo who recently revealed tactics used by ‘gay’ activists to seduce school children and that the funds to do so came from abroad. (George’s revelations are ugly but then sin is ugly). Like Gideon of old, George the victim had his moment. God will love, save and use anybody who allows Him. Also present were the young boy Julius whose assault at the hands of a Youth Councillor in Entebbe was reported on Easter Sunday. His mother who found the councillor in the act was also there. Since making their relations, George, Julius and his mother have all been threatened by gay actvists. An MP rose on a point of information and recognised the contribution of Archbishop Luke Orombi in fighting he promotion of homosexuality world-wide and even breaking away from the branch of his Church that had adopted an ‘inclusiveness’ stance by ordaining a bishop who co-habits with a man.

The Bill was introduced and seconded by a number of speakers. As with the anti-female circumcision bill, the entire House was anxious to contribute to the debate. One MP mentioned the ‘Teenagers Toolkit’ published and distributed by UNICEF, which presents homosexuality as acceptable behaviour. Another MP revealed that a paper was presented at a Commonwealth Conference discussing homosexuality. It urged the Commonwealth to harmonise its laws relating to homosexuality. This of course means countries that do not yet allow it should consider decriminalising homosexuality, and enabling same sex ‘marriages’. He may have been referring to the Commonwealth Law Conference, 5-9 April (the papers are not available on the internet). The House was informed those countries that do not comply may find their foreign aid affected There was uproar as everyone said we are not going to be compromised for aid.

In the end, support for the introduction of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill was unanimous. Hashaka again thanked those who had contributed to fighting the vice and mentioned religious denominations including Roman Catholic, Anglican and others. I do not now how often the Parliament (NRM, FDC, UPC and Independent MPs) votes as a bloc in support of an issue but we witnessed it twice that day. I told you it was a special day.

We congregated in the twilight outside and had a prayer led by Oyet. I remember him thanking God that Uganda would not be destroyed now that its leaders were in obedience to Him on this issue. There we were, Catholic and Pentecostal of various stripes and others, standing hand in hand in prayer! What a moment of unity.

The final blessing was when Pastor Martin Ssempa said that since the death of the Uganda Martyrs and the spilling of their blood on this soil, Uganda has been anointed for leadership in this area. Amen to that.

You are encouraged to lobby your members of Parliament (some may have been absent) to support the bill when it is read in he next few weeks.

Medical Issues: higher risks for homosexuals

Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems
[copyright material] Written by Staff Writer
PDF Print E-mail
Sep 05, 2008


Summary: Recent studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals. We see higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse. This paper highlights some new and significant considerations that reflect on the question of those mental illnesses and on their possible sources.

The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its diagnostic list of mental disorders in 1973, despite substantial protest (see Socarides, 1995). The A.P.A. was strongly motivated by the desire to reduce the effects of social oppression. However, one effect of the A.P.A.'s action was to add psychiatric authority to gay activists' insistence that homosexuals as a group are as healthy as heterosexuals. This has discouraged publication of research that suggests there may, in fact, be psychiatric problems associated with homosexuality.

In a review of the literature, Gonsiorek (1982) argued there was no data showing mental differences between gays and straights--or if there was any, it could be attributed to social stigma. Similarly, Ross (1988) in a cross-cultural study, found most gays were in the normal psychological range. However some papers did give hints of psychiatric differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. One study (Riess, 1980) used the MMPI, that venerable and well-validated psychological scale, and found that homosexuals showed definite "personal and emotional oversensitivity."

In 1991 the absolute equality of homosexuality and heterosexuality was strongly defended in a paper called "The Empirical Basis for the Demise of the Mental Illness Model" (Gonsiorek, 1991). But not until 1992 was homosexuality dropped from the psychiatric manual used by other nations--the International Classification of Diseases (King and Bartlett, 1999)--so it appears the rest of the world doubted the APA 1973 decision for nearly two decades.

Is homosexuality as healthy as heterosexuality? To answer that question, what is needed are representative samples of homosexual people which study their mental health, unlike the volunteer samples which have, in the past, selected out any disturbed or gender-atypical subjects (such as in the well-known study by Evelyn Hooker). And fortunately, such representative surveys have lately become available.

New Studies Suggest Higher Level of Pathology

One important and carefully conducted study found suicide attempts among homosexuals were six times greater than the average (Remafedi et al. 1998). Then, more recently, in the Archives of General Psychiatry-- an established and well-respected journal--three papers appeared with extensive accompanying commentary (Fergusson et al. 1999, Herrell et al. 1999, Sandfort et al. 2001, and e.g. Bailey 1999). J. Michael Bailey included a commentary on the above research; Bailey, it should be noted, conducted many of the muchpublicized "gay twin studies" which were used by gay advocates as support for the "born that way" theory. Neil Whitehead, Ph.D.

Bailey said, "These studies contain arguably the best published data on the association between homosexuality and psychopathology, and both converge on the same unhappy conclusion: homosexual people are at substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression, and anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, and nicotine dependence...The strength of the new studies is their degree of control."

The first study was on male twins who had served in Vietnam (Herrell et al. 1999). It concluded that on average, male homosexuals were 5.1 times more likely to exhibit suicide- related behavior or thoughts than their heterosexual counterparts. Some of this factor of 5.1 was associated with depression and substance abuse, which might or might not be related to the homosexuality. (When these two problems were factored out, the factor of 5 decreased to 2.5; still somewhat significant.) The authors believed there was an independent factor related to suicidality which was probably closely associated with some features of homosexuality itself.

The second study (Fergusson et al. 1999) followed a large New Zealand group from birth to their early twenties. The "birth cohort" method of subject selection is especially reliable and free from most of the biases which bedevil surveys. This study showed a significantly higher occurrence of depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance abuse and thoughts about suicide, amongst those who were homosexually active.

The third paper was a Netherlands study (Sandfort et al. 2001) which again showed a higher level of mental-health problems among homosexuals, but remarkably, subjects with HIV infection was not any more likely than those without HIV infection to suffer from mental health problems. People who are HIV-positive should at least be expected to be anxious or depressed!

The paper thus concluded that HIV infection is not a cause of mental health problems--but that stigmatization from society was likely the cause--even in the Netherlands, where alternative lifestyles are more widely accepted than in most other countries. That interpretation of the data is quite unconvincing.

The commentaries on those studies brought up three interesting issues.

1. First, there is now clear evidence that mental health problems are indeed associated with homosexuality. This supports those who opposed the APA actions in 1973. However, the present papers do not answer the question; is homosexuality itself pathological?

2. The papers do show that since only a minority of a nonclinical sample of homosexuals has any diagnosable mental problems (at least by present diagnostic criteria), then most homosexuals are not mentally ill.

In New Zealand, for example, lesbians are about twice as likely to have sought help for mental problems as heterosexual women, but only about 35% of them over their lifespan did so, and never more than 50% (Anon 1995, Saphira and Glover, 2000, Welch et al. 2000) This corresponds with similar findings from the U.S.

Relationship Breakups Motivate Most Suicide Attempts

Next, we ask--do the papers show that it is gay lifestyle factors, or society's stigmatization, that are the motivators that lead a person to attempt suicide? Neither conclusion is inevitable. Still, Saghir and Robins (1978) examined reasons for suicide attempts among homosexuals and found that if the reasons for the attempt were connected with homosexuality, about 2/3 were due to breakups of relationships --not outside pressures from society. Similarly, Bell and Weinberg (1981) also found the major reason for suicide attempts was the breakup of relationships. In second place, they said, was the inability to accept oneself. Since homosexuals have greater numbers of partners and breakups, compared with heterosexuals, and since longterm gay male relationships are rarely monagamous, it is hardly surprising if suicide attempts are proportionally greater. The median number of partners for homosexuals is four times higher than for heterosexuals (Whitehead and Whitehead 1999, calculated from Laumann et al 1994).

A good general rule of thumb is that suicide attempts are about three times higher for homosexuals. Could there be a connection between those two percentages?

Another factor in suicide attempts would be the compulsive or addictive elements in homosexuality (Pincu, 1989 ) which could lead to feelings of depression when the lifestyle is out of control (Seligman 1975). There are some, (estimates vary, but perhaps as many as 50% of young men today), who do not take consistent precautions against HIV (Valleroy et al., 2001) and who have considerable problems with sexual addiction and substance abuse addiction, and this of course would feed into suicide attempts.

The Effect of Social Stigma

Third, does pressure from society lead to mental health problems? Less, I believe, than one might imagine. The authors of the study done in The Netherlands were surprised to find so much mental illness in homosexual people in a country where tolerance of homosexuality is greater than in almost all other countries. Another good comparison country is New Zealand, which is much more tolerant of homosexuality than is the United States. Legislation giving the movement special legal rights is powerful, consistently enforced throughout the country, and virtually never challenged. Despite this broad level of social tolerance, suicide attempts were common in a New Zealand study and occurred at about the same rate as in the U.S.

In his cross-cultural comparison of mental health in the Netherlands, Denmark and the U.S., Ross (1988) could find no significant differences between countries - i.e. the greater social hostility in the United States did not result in a higher level of psychiatric problems.

There are three other issues not covered in the Archives journal articles which are worthy of consideration. The first two involve DSM category diagnoses.

Promiscuity and Antisocial Personality

The promiscuous person--either heterosexual or homosexual --may in fact be more likely to be antisocial. It is worth noting here the comment of Rotello (1997), who is himself openly gay: "...the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes." Ellis et al. (1995) examined patients at an clinic which focused on genital and urological problems such as STD's; he found 38% of the homosexual men seeking such services had antisocial personality disorder, as well as 28% of heterosexual men. Both levels were enormously higher than the 2% rate of antisocial personality disorder for the general population (which in turn, compares to the 50% rate for prison inmates) (Matthews 1997).

Perhaps the finding of a higher level of conduct disorder in the New Zealand study foreshadowed this finding of antisocial personality . Therapists, of course, are not very likely to see a large number of individuals who are antisocial because they are probably less likely to seek help.

Secondly, it was previously noted that 43% of a bulimic sample of men were homosexual or bisexual (Carlat et al. 1997), a rate about 15 times higher than the rate in the population in general--meaning homosexual men are probably disproportionately liable to this mental condition. This may be due to the very strong preoccupation with appearance and physique frequently found among male homosexuals.

Ideology of Sexual Liberation

A strong case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself, in its most extreme form, is mentally disturbed. Remember that Rotello, a gay advocate, notes that "the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes." Same-sex eroticism becomes for many, therefore, the central value of existence, and nothing else--not even life and health itself--is allowed to interfere with pursuit of this lifestyle. Homosexual promiscuity fuels the AIDS crisis in the West, but even that tragedy it is not allowed to interfere with sexual freedom. And, according to Rotello, the idea of taking responsibility to avoid infecting others with the HIV virus is completely foreign to many groups trying to counter AIDS. The idea of protecting oneself is promoted, but protecting others is not mentioned in most official condom promotions (France in the '80s was an interesting exception). Bluntly, then, core gay behavior is both potentially fatal to others, and often suicidal.

Surely it should be considered "mentally disturbed" to risk losing one's life for sexual liberation. This is surely among the most extreme risks practiced by any significant fraction of society. I have not found a higher risk of death accepted by any similar-sized population.

In conclusion, then, if we ask the question "Is mental illness inherent in the homosexual condition?" the answer would have to be "Further research--uncompromised by politics --should be carried out to honestly evaluate this issue."

By N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D. (Author of "My Genes Made Me Do It")

Woman MP Asks Critical Question

Karooro Okurut

I would like to put in a thought or two in reaction to Kevin O’Connor’s article in Sunday Monitor of April 26, 2008 titled: “Some truths about homosexuality”.
In that article Kevin makes a lot of sweeping statements, most of which he did not back up with any authoritative evidence and which cannot in any way stand the test of scientific research and verified hypothesis.

Kevin claims that 10 to 20 per cent of humans are born homosexual. He also claims that homosexual tendencies are normal and harmless in kids and they will simply outgrow them and become normal heterosexuals. He criticises those who bash gays, alleging homophobia on one hand and hypocrisy on the other.

I would like to take him on, on these submissions.
First, if such a high percentage of people are born homosexuals, how come there is a huge deliberate effort by some of our “friends” in the western world to recruit young people into homosexuality?

There is abundant evidence that these “friends” send plenty of money and gifts to clubs here so as to suck the young unsuspecting youth into homosexuality.

I was personally involved in the counselling of some young boys who had been recruited. They told a long, harrowing tale of the recruitment exercise they went through. They were provided with nail polish and would paint only one fingernail as a sign of membership to the club!

The recruitment that is being carried out is so worrying; it’s like they are mobilising for a political party or army!

Kevin, evidence abounds all around pointing to this recruitment mania. I invite you to come with me and I show you living examples of this.

One cannot have hatred for these young recruits – oh no. What one feels is impotent pity and one can only feel deep hatred and revulsion for the recruitment officers.

The young men are innocent; it is those that are hiring them into it that are beastly.
Kevin, I am sure you have not seen some of the young men who have been ruthlessly sodomised.

I have seen some of them with bottoms oozing with pus, having been afraid to go for help because their tormentors had assured them that one word would get them killed.

So they suffer silently; their bottoms rotting away and the poor fellows beginning to walk like ducks, until some good Samaritan intervenes. This is not fiction.

There are also incidents reported in some institutions of higher learning where some homosexual lecturers sexually harass their students. When the students object the punishment is an outright fail – you say no to sodomy and you forget about getting a degree or diploma.

If the homosexuals could restrict their practice to consenting adults, then maybe society would not be so angry; for that is not as bad as pouncing on young innocent fellows and destroying their lives.

Kevin also alleges that teenage homosexual tendencies are normal and harmless; just give the kids time and they will simply outgrow those tendencies and become normal heterosexuals.

This is a sad and misleading falsehood.
As I mentioned above, I have been shown young boys whose anuses have been literally torn to pieces after being sodomised. These were not born homosexual.

They have been used by the dubious fellows going around recruiting these innocent kids. If they were born homosexual, how come the God of Heaven did not make them adoptive to the sexual act so that there would be no damage? And contrary to Kevin’s claims, there are no “harmless” gay tendencies that the kids will outgrow in due course.

Most of them never get out of the habit once they are initiated into it. The trend has been that in a school for example, those who were initiated into homosexuality in their first year, after they go on to Senior Two, simply wait to mete out the same treatment to the next batch of Senior One kids, in vengeance of some kind.

When the kids come in Senior One, - innocent and new in the school and not in a position to argue or understand what is going on, or even resist it – the bigger boys sodomise them. And the cycle continues.

One growing danger is that young men and women from well-to-do families are now peddling homosexuality in a romanticised way saying it is “cool” to be homosexual. Parents of such children are bleeding.

This country must wake up and sensitise the youth against this practice. We do not need to witch-hunt homosexuals. What we need to do urgently is to stop this recruitment that is going on; we must prevent the homosexuals in their quest to build an army or brigade, starting with the schools.

Permissive Sexual Environment, Features


Gay sex, ecstasy tablets, orgies and rapes to infect the unsuspecting with HIV virus, it all reads like some spinechiller. Only it is not fiction. A gay gang in Netherlands did act out such horrid fantasies. They allegedly trawled the internet to lure fellow homosexuals, drugged those ventured out and went on to rape them with the deadly AIDS virus.

Two of the three arrested reportedly said the very idea of infecting others with the virus excited them. Our mission is to promtoe unprotected sex as it is the purest form of relationship. This hangup about condoms could be destroyed only when the virus is rampant and everyone reconciles himself to that, one of the arrested has been quoted as saying.

An agonising soulsearching is on in Netherlands over its permissive sex milieu. Health Minister Ab Klink called the case "horrible", as the media splashed the news across its front pages yesterday. The matter came to light when police arrested three seropositive homosexual men after four victims, men aged 25 to 50, accused them of rape and premeditated bodily harm.

Ronald Zwarter, the police chief in the northern town of Groningen, where the alleged crimes took place, said two of those arrested, a couple aged 48 and 33, had confessed. Prosecution spokesman Paul Heidanus said the two who confessed would face charges of rape and "premeditated severe assault", which carries a maximum jail sentence of 16 years.

He said they would not be charged with attempted murder "because of a Supreme Court ruling that found AIDS should no longer be seen as an inevitably fatal disease, but rather a chronic illness". The investigation was continuing to determine exactly what crimes might have been committed by the third suspect, who Mr Heidanus said was involved in the sex parties.

A fourth man who allegedly supplied the three suspects with several litres of the date-rape drug GHB and ecstasy tablets was also arrested.