Since Mar 11, 2009

view home page, enter name:
The greatest mystery of the internet:

Those taking the time to tell you they don't care about the subject you posted.

If they DON'T care,why did they read the post in the first place?

Liberals tell us that the Bible has no place in modern life because it was written 2000 years ago and doesn't apply to today's world because "It's the 21st century now...."

Well,the other day I overheard two liberals "reasoning" that Obama's war on guns is justified because the Second Amendment was written over 200 years ago and doesn't apply to today's world because "It's the 21st century now...."

My Grandmother always said that when people don't know what they're talking about or don't have any facts to back them up,they just tell you what year,decade,or century it is......

.....or cry "racist"!


.....Just a lonely conservative from Massachusetts.What has happened to this state?We’ve gone from being the home of great patriots like John Hancock,Paul Revere,and John Adams,to a breeding-ground of bozos like Teddy “Splash” Kennedy,John “Gigolo” Kerry,”Cadillac” Deval Patrick,and Bawney Fwank..........from the Boston Tea Party to transgender pride parades.Whatever you may have heard about this state,I’m here to tell’s much,much worse!



Caution!I have troll-b-gone....and I'm NOT afraid to use it!

Troll B Gone 2 Pictures, Images and Photos

...and screw Obama!


Unemployment Yearly Average - Bush Administration vs Obama administration and Clinton administration

Clinton-Avg. unemployment rate during presidency 5.2%

1993 6.9

1994 6.1

1995 5.6 (Republicans take over congress)

1996 5.4

1997 4.9

1998 4.5

1999 4.2

2000 4.0

Bush -Avg. unemployment rate during presidency 5.2 %

2001 4.7

2002 5.8 ( after 9/11 attacks)

2003 6.0

2004 5.5 (starting to come back down)

2005 5.1

2006 4.6

2007 4.6 (democrats take congress Jan 2007)

2008 5.8

Obama-Avg. unemployment rate during term 9.5%

2009 9.3 (democrats control all 3 branches of government)

2010 9.7



The Ugly Truth Of The Gay Agenda:

Of the gay activists talking points concerning gay "marriage",(and their whole agenda,for that matter) ,there are three arguments in particular that they repeat ad nauseum that I now would like to poke a few holes through.

They are:

1)Their lifestyle won't be taught in schools.

2)It won't affect anyone else.

3)It won't affect churches or private organizations.

Won't be taught in schools?

.................. Queering the Schools

By Marjorie King

City Journal | Thursday, May 29, 2003

At a high school in prosperous Newton, Massachusetts, it’s "To B GLAD Day"—or, less delicately, Transgender, Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian Awareness Day. An advocacy session for students and teachers features three self-styled transgendered individuals—a member of the senior class and two recent graduates. One of the transgenders, born female, announces that "he" had been taking hormones for 16 months. "Right now I am a 14-year-old boy going through puberty and a 55-year-old woman going through menopause," she complains. "I am probably the moodiest person in the world." A second panelist declares herself an "androgyne in between both genders of society." She adds, "Gender is just a bunch of stereotypes from society, but I am completely personal, and my gender is fluid."

Only in liberal Massachusetts could a public school endorse such an event for teens, you might think. But you would be wrong. For the last decade or so, largely working beneath public or parental notice, a well-organized movement has sought to revolutionize the curricula and culture of the nation’s public schools. Its .. to stamp out "hegemonic heterosexuality"—the traditional view that heterosexuality is the norm—in favor of a new ethos that does not just tolerate homosexuality but instead actively endorses experimenting with it, as well as with a polymorphous range of bisexuality, transgenderism, and transsexuality.{4860645F-FBDD-40F7-82BB-776984BBD8AE}

(April-2005)-"The Little Black Book-Queer In The 21st Century",distributed in Massachusetts schools!

In Brookline,Ma., a transsexual told first-graders how his penis was cut off and he became a woman. With no sense of irony, the Globe called it "sex-change counseling." Parents, never notified, had to comfort their terrified children.

Ashland children were instructed to play homosexuals in a skit. As reported in the Middlesex News on April 1, 1994, one boy's line was: "It's natural to be attracted to the same sex." Girls were told to hold hands and pretend they were lesbians.

As reported widely in Massachusetts in 1992, at a required assembly in Chelmsford, an instructor used four-letter words describing the joys of anal and oral sex. The children then licked condoms.

At Newton North High School, the high-school language department, on one pretext or another, had showed Ma Vie en Rose, an R-rated film about a "homosexual" child. Pupils learned how "Ludo enjoys being a girl. Borrowing mommy's red high heels, her lipstick, her earrings … yummy!" Trouble is, 7-year-old Ludo is a boy, even if he is pretty in pink. -Freshmen learn about masturbation and sodomy in a required course that uses street language, as if proper vocabulary would ruin the educational experience. A large mural in a corridor depicts two girls holding hands, reading something called "Romea and Juliet."

Framingham pupils found themselves answering this Orwellian questionnaire:

1. What do you think caused your heterosexuality?

2. When did you first decide you were heterosexual?

3. Is it possible heterosexuality is a phase you will grow out of?

4. Is it possible you are heterosexual because you fear the same sex?

5. If you have never slept with anyone of the same sex, how do you know you wouldn't prefer it? Is it possible you merely need a good gay experience?

6. To whom have you disclosed your heterosexuality? How did they react?

7. Why are heterosexuals so blatant, always making a spectacle of their heterosexuality? Why can't they just be who they are and not flaunt their sexuality by kissing in public, wearing wedding rings, etc.?

In Lexington, a parent discovered that her 13-year-old could borrow a book telling how gay men at the opera can socialize with "the backs of their trousers discreetly parted so they could experience a little extra pleasure while viewing the spectacle on stage." Her school purchased it with health funds.

» Silver Lake's freshman health text says: "Testing your ability to function sexually and give pleasure to another person may be less threatening in the early teens with people of your own sex." And, "You may come to the conclusion that growing up means rejecting the values of your parents." Pupils were ordered to keep the book at school and never take it home.

» Needham High School violated the parents'-rights law by concealing from parents a schoolwide assembly in which a girl described her first lesbian kiss and rhapsodized about lesbianism. Teachers continued the discussion in homeroom. They also broke the law by failing to tell pupils of their right not to attend. Later, the gay club's faculty adviser announced, in poor English, that parents' decisions to remove their children next year would not be honored, as the "assembly (taught no) moral or religious beliefs."

» After a "Homophobia Week" of mandatory assemblies in Beverly, a 14-year-old told her father he was a "homophobe." She had learned that homosexuals have a right to marry and adopt children. Parents were not notified. A boy wrote to a local paper: "I felt disturbed and nauseated. I witnessed biased testimonies by gays and the public mocking of a priest in our auditorium."

http://www. undergroundjournal. net/igroops/theunderground/adminpages/Its-1984-In-Massachusett

(Oct. 13, 2008) -- A group of San Francisco first-graders participated in a field trip to attend their lesbian teacher's wedding, officiated by Mayor Gavin (any two-some) Newsom.

(March 2007) -- Freshmen were told not to tell their parents about Deerfield (Ill.) High School's pro-gay seminar and were required to sign a confidentiality agreement.

(March 2007) -- A Massachusetts high school banned parents from attending a seminar for students on how they can know they are homosexual.

(April 27, 2005) -- A Massachusetts father was jailed after requesting that his 6-year-old son's school notify him when it discussed homosexuality or transgenderism.

(February 23, 2007) -- The judge in the Massachusetts case ordered the teaching of the homosexual lifestyle to children in public schools.

Homosexuals brainwashing our children in elementary schools

Getting into vulnerable kids' minds:

Massachusetts schools using "safe zones" to counsel children who feel different - maybe they should "come out" as gay!

At colleges across the country, Christian groups have lost their accreditation for refusing to accept homosexuals as officers. Thus -- at schools founded by Christians and endowed by Christians – Christians are forced to choose between their faith and the ability to hold meetings on campus.

And don't forget the "Day of Silence"- (2008)

FISTGATE-May,2000-Students Given Graphic Instruction In Homosexual Sex

Will not affect you?

· In New Mexico, a same-sex couple filed a "human rights" complaint against a photographer who declined to photograph their "commitment" ceremony-notwithstanding that New Mexico has neither gay "marriage" OR civil unions. The photographer lost and was ordered to cough up more than $6,600 in attorneys' fees. Before the ruling, the couple hired a different photographer from the myriad of other ones available, but still chose to retaliate against the first photographer for her lack of moral approval.

Oklahoma state rep.Sally Kern,after speaking out about the gay agenda,recieved so many threatening emails that she had to be issued a bodyguard.

August,2007-Four firefighters (sued) the city of San Diego for being forced by their superiors to attend the annual "Gay Pride" parade where they endured a barrage of sexual taunts and lewd gestures.

San Diego's fire chief, Tracy Jarman, is an open lesbian who called the July 21 parade a "fun event" in which "all employees are encouraged to participate." But the firefighters said, unlike previous years, they were ordered into uniform to participate in the parade in their fire truck, despite their repeated protests.

June,2007-St. Petersburg, Fla., officials made good on their plan to limit free speech at the city's homosexual festival by arresting five Christians for carrying signs "wider than their torsos" outside the officially designated protest area.

Outside State House at June 14,2006 Marriage Amendment vote:

Mother with 9-year-old son charged with assault and battery after reacting to sexual-laced verbal attack by homosexual activist. Woman was targeted, set up, and provoked because of sign she held.

March,2009-In Canada,"A group of six Canadian gays are taking on "homophobia" in Canada's healthcare system by filing a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission."

Canada,2005-"Man and Woman", "Wife", "Husband", "Widow", "Widower" Banished From all Ontario Law

Terms, when referring to spouses, are banned from all government programs, services, documents.

October,2007-'Mom' and 'Dad' banished by California- Schwarzenegger signs law outlawing terms perceived as negative to 'gays'.


· In Georgia, a counselor was fired because she referred a woman in a same-sex relationship to another counselor for relationship advice. The second counselor provided service that the woman herself characterized as "exemplary." Yet she still demanded—and obtained—the first counselor's termination for her lack of moral approval.

· In California, a woman in a same-sex relationship sued a doctor who declined to artificially inseminate her, claiming discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation." The woman misrepresented her marital status to the doctor, who has a policy not to perform the procedure on unmarried women regardless of their "orientation." Other doctors successfully performed the procedure, and she has since borne three healthy children, yet the woman continues to demand the first doctor's moral approval in court.

- The University of Toledo fired an African-American administrator for writing a letter-to-the-editor complaining about homosexuals being compared to blacks. ("I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman," Crystal Dixon wrote to the Toledo Free Press .) University of Toledo President Lloyd Jacobs determined that Dixon's exercise of her First Amendment rights was an intolerable violation of the school's non-discrimination policy -- thereby discriminating against adherents of the Judeo-Christian ethic.

-(February 2008) -- A professor was fired from San Jose Evergreen Community College after being accused of providing an "offensive" answer out of the textbook to a student's question about heredity and homosexual behavior.She had essentially asked if people were "born gay",and the teacher truthfully answered that no one really knows.... but THAT was an un-PC answer.

- (May 29,2008) Colorado Governor Bill Ritter, a Democrat, signed a law allowing men to use women's bathrooms and locker rooms, based on so-called sexual-identity (a man who feels like a woman, wants to be a woman or thinks he is a woman). Under the state's new "transgender nondiscrimination" law, restaurants and other public accommodations that try to keep men out of the ladies room are subject to a fine of up to $5,000 and a year in jail.

Hewlett-Packard fired a Christian employee for posting near his cubicle a sign with Bible verses relating to the prohibition of men lying with men. This was in response to a celebrate-sexual-diversity poster put up by the company. Hewlett-Packard does not celebrate diversity of opinion.

-Thomas Meeker, who worked as a systems engineer for Rockwell Collins in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, was fired for refusing to submit to "diversity training." Meeker, who wasn't discriminating against anyone, said that as a Christian he couldn't participate in a program that celebrates what the Bible calls sinful. Rockwell Collins said that when it comes to bending the knee to the new sexual ethic, conscience is no excuse.

-The American Red Cross fired an employee, Michael Hartman, for expressing his disagreement with homosexuality. Hartman had been a volunteer and donor for the Red Cross for over 30 years when he became an employee at the San Diego, California, center. He had been there for about eight months when, in the latter part of May 2005, a mass e-mail was sent to employees reminding everyone that June was Gay and Lesbian Pride Month and employees were encouraged to "observe" the celebration.

The e-mail, distributed by Chief Diversity Officer David Wilkins, stated, "It is my pleasure to announce that June will be recognized as Gay and Lesbian Pride Month at national headquarters…It is only fitting that we reinforce our organization's commitment to inclusion…by recognizing this important group and celebrating the many accomplishments they have made to our organization…I'd like to take this opportunity during the month of June to encourage field units to extend their reach into gay and lesbian communities."

As a Christian, Hartman was concerned by the e-mail and expressed his sentiments to his female supervisor, "who did not care." He then e-mailed several head administrators, who immediately called him into the Red Cross regional center in Pomona, California. Hartman was reprimanded and told that his e-mail was "not appropriate."

He was put on "administrative leave" from work and called into a meeting with administrators. James Hartline, an ex-homosexual who is now a Christian conservative activist, went with Hartman to the meeting to serve as a form of representation. The administrators refused to see Hartman unless he was by himself, and when he insisted upon having counsel at the meeting, he was dismissed and told that they would "reschedule" a time to speak with him. Two days later, he received his termination notice.

-Recently,at San Jose State University,school administrators discontinued blood drives on campus to protest the FDA's "discriminatory" ban on gay men giving blood....a "discrimination" based on the fact that a homosexual's HIV risk is 60 times greater than that of heterosexuals.Now,apparently,this is the choice that the PC police want to give you...bleed to death from lack of an available blood supply,or risk getting AIDS from infected blood.It seems that in these PC times,the rights of homosexuals to not be offended trumps your right to not get AIDS from them.

related article-

April , 2008 -Dozens of lesbian activists at Smith College climbed in through windows and stormed the podium in a riot scene shortly after Ryan Sorba began a speech on his upcoming book, The Born Gay Hoax. The melee forced an end to the speech before a packed hall in the library on the Northampton campus. Uniformed police officers and a plainclothes security guard were in the room but mostly just stood and watched. Rather than take action against the rioters, the officers and a university official walked to the podium and ordered Sorba to leave the room "for his own safety."

There were no arrests and no charges of disorderly conduct. This would seem to be a clear violation of the Massachusetts’ Civil Rights statutes.

In California, an employer can be fined $150,000 for firing a man who comes to work in a dress.

In Philadelphia, in 2004, Christians with a group called Repent America were arrested for holding signs and peacefully witnessing at a city-sponsored gay pride event. The City of Brotherly Love wanted to prosecute them for a laundry list of felonies, including criminal conspiracy. If convicted, each could have faced up to 47 years in prison.

Fortunately, a judge dismissed the case.

Won't affect Churches or private organizations?

Recently, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a unanimous resolution condemning the Catholic Church for not placing children for adoption with so-called same-sex couples.

(July 5, 2004) -- The pastor of a Swedish Pentecostal church in Kalmar, Sweden,was sentenced to one month in prison by a Swedish court, for "hate speech against homosexuals" for a sermon he preached citing Biblical references to homosexuality.

July 8, 2008 -A homosexual man is suing two major Christian publishers for violating his constitutional rights and causing emotional pain, because the Bible they publish refers to homosexuality as a sin.

(December 3, 2007) -- The pastor of an Alberta Canada Church wrote a letter to the editor of his hometown newspaper in which he said homosexuality is immoral and physically dangerous for those involved in it. The Humans Rights Commission ruled to silence the pastor and prevent him from any further speech against Homosexuality.

Canadian ministry fined over $23,000 for firing employee actively engaged in lesbian relationship.(May-2008)

· In New Jersey,a lesbian "couple" sued a Methodist organization because it would not allow them to celebrate their civil union ceremony on its property.

In addition to forcing the organization to disregard the rules set down in the United Methodist Book of Discipline, which states that gay unions cannot be performed in church buildings, the lesbian thugs also wanted cash "for economic loss, humiliation, and,[of course] mental pain."

The justification for this outrage is the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, which has been interpreted to mean that homosexuals must be granted their increasingly arrogant demands, however unreasonable.

Almost as disturbing as the use of these feel-good discrimination laws to inflict depravity on a church is the contempt shown for private property. According to Garden State Equality, which imposes the interests of "the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community," the church's property is in fact public property "by virtue of having been used by the public for many years."

The women could have held their ceremony anywhere—and eventually did hold it somewhere else—but they filed a complaint anyway because they loathed the ministry's lack of moral approval.Seriously, this is on par with demanding that the NAACP hold a KKK rally at their HQ in Maryland.

-In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities, the largest provider of adoption services in the commonwealth, was forced to end this aspect of its work because it refused to arrange for children to be adopted by homosexual couples. Thus an affiliate of the largest church in America was prevented from doing vital work because it would not go along the absurdity that children placed for adoption don't need a mother and a father.

-In Philadelphia, the local Boy Scout council was told to pay $200,000 a year for rent on office space on city property that is provided to other charities free of charge.(This was spear-headed by a homosexual city councilor,by the way). This is the latest in an ongoing vendetta against the Scouts for winning a 2000 Supreme Court ruling confirming the group's right to bar homosexuals from leadership positions.

The Boy Scouts -- an organization that has done incalculable good over its 98-year history of helping boys navigate the perilous waters of adolescence -- are being punished for not encouraging male homosexuals to take pre-pubescent lads into the woods on overnights...... It's funny,but a lot of the very same people that condemned the Catholic Church for having allowed predatory homosexual priests to destroy the lives of young boys,villifies the Boy Scouts for trying to prevent the very same thing from happening in their organization.

Instructor of Catholicism at UI claims loss of job violates academic freedom

An adjunct professor who taught courses on Catholicism at the University of Illinois has lost his teaching job there, and he claims it is a violation of his academic freedom.

Kenneth Howell was told after the spring semester ended that he would no longer be teaching in the UI's Department of Religion. The decision came after a student complained about a discussion of homosexuality in the class in which Howell taught that the Catholic Church believes homosexual acts are morally wrong.


Calculating HIV and Syphilis Rates for Risk Groups:

CDC Analysis Provides New Look at Disproportionate Impact of HIV and Syphilis Among U.S. Gay and Bisexual Men.

AIDS has been diagnosed for more than half a million MSM. Over 300,000 MSM with AIDS have died since the beginning of the epidemic. MSM made up more than two thirds (68%) of all men living with HIV in 2005, even though only about 5% to 7% of men in the United States reported having sex with other men.


1 JUNE 2010

HIV and AIDS among

Gay and Bisexual Men

Same-Sex Violence

Domestic violence occurs within same-sex relationships as it does in heterosexual relationships. The acronym LGBT is often used and stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender.

11% of lesbians reported violence by their female partner and 15% of gay men who had lived with a male partner reported being victimized by a male partner. Patricia Tjaden, Symposium on Integrating Responses to Domestic Violence: Extent and Nature of Intimate Partner Violence as measured by the National Violence Against Women Survey, 47 Loy. L. Rev. 41, 54 (2003).

Of the LGBT victims who sought services from the New York City Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project, 36% of clients in 2003 and 38% of clients in 2004 filed police reports regarding intimate partner violence.

Diane Dolan-Soto & Sara Kaplan, New York Lesbian, Gay, Transgender and Bisexual Domestic Violence Report, at 6 (2005), available at

Eighty-eight percent of victims in 2003 and 91 percent of victims in 2004 reported experiencing prior incidents of abuse, with the majority (45 percent and 47 percent, respectively) reporting having experienced more than 10 prior incidents.

Diane Dolan-Soto & Sara Kaplan, New York Lesbian, Gay, Transgender and Bisexual Domestic Violence Report, at 5 (2005), available at

One survey found that same-sex cohabitants reported significantly more intimate partner violence than did opposite-sex cohabitants. Among women, 39.2% of the same-sex cohabitants and 21.7 of the opposite- sex cohabitants reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a marital/cohabiting partner at some time in their lifetime.

Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep’t of Just., NCJ 181867, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, at 30 (2000), available at

15.4% of same-sex cohabiting men reported being raped, physically assaulted and/or stalked by a male partner, but 10.8% reported such violence by a female partner.

Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep’t of Just., NCJ 181867, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, at 30 (2000), available at

According to the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs:

6,523 incidence of lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender violence were recorded in eleven distinct cities and regions across the USA and Toronto, Ontario. 44% of the victims were men and 36% were women. This represented a 13% increase over the 5718 cases reported in 2002 by the same agencies and includes six reported deaths in the context of actual or suspected LGBT violence. Arizona reported one death and New York City reported five deaths.

4,964 or about 79% of the new incidents were reported in Los Angeles. The number of LGBT incidents in other cities and states include Boston (290), New York City (501), San Francisco (388), Colorado (139) , Chicago (65), Columbus, Ohio (46) , Pennsylvania (19) , Burlington, Vermont (21), Tuscon (64).

5,374 (82%) of the victims of domestic violence reported to the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs identified themselves as gay; 575 (9%) were cases in which the victim declined to specify a sexual orientation or it was not recorded; 263 (4%) identified as bisexual; and 44 (0.6 %) were not sure or questioned their sexual orientation.

Of the 42% incidence of domestic violence where race was recorded, 1,211 or 44% were white, 684 or 25% were Latino, 413 or 15% were of African descent, 153 or 5% were Asian/Pacific Islander, 125 or 4% were multicultural; just under 36 or 0.01% were indigenous/first people and about 0.01 were Arab/Middle Easterners, Jewish and others.

Nat’l Advoc. for Local Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Communities, Nat’l Coal. of Anti-Violence Programs, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Domestic Violence: 2003 Supplement - An Update from the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (2004), at 3-8, 10, available at

FRC Report: Homosexual Assaults in Military ‘Disproportionately High’

Gay Activism in the Schools

"The Homosexual Agenda in Massachusetts Schools," courtesy of Parents' Rights Coalition, P.O. Box 175, Newton, Mass.

What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples,003.htm

***************************************************************************** Society has a vested interest in prohibiting behavior that endangers the health or safety of the community. Because of this, homosexual liaisons have historically been forbidden by law. Homosexuals also do a poor job of raising healthy, well socialized children.

Homosexuals contend that their relationships are the equivalent of marriage between a man and woman. They demand that society dignify and approve of their partnerships by giving them legal status as ‘marriages.’ They further argue that homosexuals should be allowed to become foster-parents or adopt children.

The best scientific evidence suggests that putting society’s stamp of approval on homosexual partnerships would harm society in general and children in particular. A large body of scientific evidence suggests that homosexual marriage is a defective counterfeit of traditional marriage and that it poses a clear and present danger to the health of the community and children’s well-being.

Traditional marriage improves the health of its participants, has the lowest rate of domestic violence, prolongs life, and is the best context in which to raise children. Homosexual coupling undermines its participants’ health, has the highest rate of domestic violence, shortens life, and is a poor environment in which to raise children.

The Facts About Homosexual Marriage

Fact #1: Homosexual marriages are short lived.

When one examines homosexual behavior patterns, it becomes clear that the plea for legal homosexual marriage is less about marriage than the push for legitimacy. Most gays and lesbians are not in monogamous relationships, and in fact often live alone by preference.

In a study [1] of 2,000 U.S. and European gays in the 1960s, researchers found that “living by oneself is probably the chief residential pattern for male homosexuals. It provides the freedom to pursue whatever style of homosexual life one chooses, whether it be furtive encounters in parks or immersion in the homosexual subculture. In addition, homosexual relationships are fragile enough to make this residential pattern common whether deliberate or not.” A 1970 study in San Francisco [2] found that approximately 61% of gays and 37% of lesbians were living alone.

In 1977, the Spada Report [3] noted that only 8% of the gays in its sample claimed to have a monogamous relationship with a live-in lover.

The same year [4] over 5,000 gays and lesbians were asked: “Do you consider or have you considered yourself ‘married’ to another [homosexual]?” Only 40% of lesbians and 25% of gays said “yes.” The authors noted that with “gay male couples, it is hard to even suggest that there are norms of behavior. [One] might expect to find a clear pattern of ‘categories’ emerging from the answers to the questions about lovers, boy friends, and relationships. In fact, no such pattern emerged.”

In the early 1980s, a large non-random sample [5] of almost 8,000 heterosexual and homosexual couples responded to advertisements in alternative newspapers. The average number of years together was 9.8 for the married, 1.7 for cohabiting heterosexuals, 3.5 for the gay couples, and 2.2 for the lesbian couples.

Variety Over Monogamy

Although gay activists often argue that legalizing homosexual marriage would help make such relationships more permanent, the reality is that most gays desire variety in their sex partners, not the monogamy of traditional marriage.

In 1987, only 23% of gays in London [6] reported sexual exclusivity “in the month before interview.”

In 1990, only 12% of gays in Toronto, Canada [7] said that they were in monogamous relationships.

In 1991, in the midst of the AIDS crisis, Australian gays [8] were monitored to see whether they had changed their sexual habits. There was essentially no change in 5 years: 23% reported a monogamous

relationship, 35% a non-monogamous relationship, and 29% only “casual sex.” The authors reported that “there were almost as many men moving into monogamy as out of it, and out of casual-only partnerships as into them.” [emphasis added]

In 1993, a study [9] of 428 gays in San Francisco found that only 14% reported just a single sexual partner in the previous year. The vast majority had multiple sex partners.

In 1994, the largest national gay magazine [10] reported that only 17% of its sample of 2,500 gays claimed to live together in a monogamous relationship. Even gays who do have long-term partners do not play by the typical ‘rules.’ Only 69% of Dutch gays [11] with a marriage-type ‘partner’ actually lived together. The average number of “outside partners” per year of ‘marriage’ was 7.1 and increased from 2.5 in the first year of the relationship to 11 in the 6th year.

Why are homosexual marriages shorter and less committed than traditional marriages?

At any given time, less than a third of gays and approximately half of lesbians are living with a lover. Because the relationships are so short, the average homosexual can anticipate many, many ‘divorces.’

At any instant, about 10% of gays live together in monogamous relationships. Their monogamy seldom lasts beyond a year. Perhaps half of lesbians live together in monogamous relationships. These typically dissolve in one to three years.

These same patterns appear in the scientific literature over the last 50 years — both long before and during the AIDS epidemic. This consistency suggests a reality associated with the practice of homosexuality, one unlikely to be affected by changes in marriage laws.

The Scandinavian Experience

In Denmark, a form of homosexual marriage has been legal since 1989. Through 1995, less than 3% of Danish homosexuals had gotten married, and 28% of these marriages had already ended in divorce or death. [12] The Danish experience provides no evidence that gay ‘marriage’ is beneficial. Men who married men were three times more apt to be widowers before the age of 55 than men who married women! Similarly, a woman who married a woman was three times more apt to be a widow than a woman who married a man.

Though only about 3% of gays get married in Norway and Sweden, gay marriages more frequently result in divorce. In these countries, divorce is about 50% more likely in male homosexuals, and 200% more likely in lesbians. Furthermore, reversing the usual excuse of ‘staying together for the sake of the kids,’ divorce was more common if children lived with the same-sex couple. [13]

Fact #2: Studies show homosexual ‘marriage’ is hazardous to one’s health.

Across the world, numerous researchers have reported that ‘committed’ or ‘coupled’ homosexuals are more apt than ‘single’ gays to engage in highly risky and biologically unsanitary sexual practices. As a consequence of this activity, they increase their chances of getting AIDS and other sexually transmitted or blood-borne diseases.

In 1983, near the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, gays in San Francisco [14] who claimed to be in “monogamous relationships” were compared to those who were not. Without exception, those in monogamous relationships more frequently reported that they had engaged in biologically unhealthful activity during the past year. As examples, 4.5% of the monogamous vs. 2.2% of the unpartnered had engaged in drinking urine, and 33.3% vs. 19.6% claimed to practice oral-anal sex.

In 1989, Italian researchers [15] investigated 127 gays attending an AIDS clinic. Twelve percent of those without steady partners vs. 28% of those with steady partners were HIV+. The investigators remarked that “to our surprise, male prostitutes did not seem to be at increased risk, whereas homosexuals who reported a steady partner (i.e., the same man for the previous six months) carried the highest relative risk.”

During 1991-92, 677 gays in England [16] were asked about “unprotected anal sex.” Those who had ‘regular’ partners reported sex lives which were “about three times as likely to involve unprotected anal sex than partnerships described as ‘casual/one-night stands.’” Sex with a regular partner “was far more important than awareness of HIV status in facilitating high-risk behaviour.”

A 1993 British sexual diary study [17] of 385 gays reported that men in “monogamous” relationships practiced more anal intercourse and more anal-oral sex than those without a steady partner. It concluded that “gay men in a Closed relationship… exhibit… the highest risk of HIV transmission.”

In 1992, a sample [18] of 2,593 gays from Tucson, AZ and Portland, OR reinforced the consistent finding that “gay men in primary relationships are significantly more likely than single men to have engaged in unprotected anal intercourse.” Similarly, a 1993 sample [19] of gays from Barcelona, Spain practiced riskier sex with their regular partners than with casual pick-ups.

Even a 1994 study [20] of over 600 lesbians demonstrated that “the connection between monogamy and unprotected sex,… was very consistent across interviews. Protected sex was generally equated with casual encounters; unprotected sex was generally equated with trusting relationships. Not using latex barriers was seen as a step in the process of relational commitment. Choosing to have unprotected sex indicated deepening trust and intimacy as the relationship grew.”

Why is homosexual ‘marriage’ a health hazard?

While married people pledge and generally live up to their vows of sexual faithfulness, participants in both gay and lesbian ‘marriages’ offer each other something quite different. They see shared biological intimacy and sexual risk-taking as a hallmark of trust and commitment. Being exposed in this way to the bodily discharges of their partner increases the risk of disease, especially so if that partner was ‘married’ to someone else before or engaged in sex with others outside the relationship.

The evidence is strong that both gays and lesbians are more apt to take biological risks when having sex with a partner than when having casual sex. The evidence is also strong that gays disproportionately contract more disease, especially AIDS and the various forms of hepatitis, from sex with ‘partners’ than they do from sex with strangers.

Like male homosexuals, ‘married’ lesbians are more apt to engage in biological intimacy and risk-taking. However, death and disease rates for unpartnered lesbians appear to be as high as among the partnered.

Fact #3: Homosexual ‘marriage’ has the highest rate of domestic violence.

Domestic violence is a public health concern. Among heterosexuals, not only is it an obvious marker of a troubled marriage, but media attention and tax dollars to aid ‘battered women’ have both grown tremendously in recent years. What is not reported is the empirical evidence suggesting that homosexual couples have higher rates of domestic violence than do heterosexual couples. [21]

In 1996 [22], Susan Holt, coordinator of the domestic violence unit of the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center, said that “domestic violence is the third largest health problem facing the gay and lesbian community today and trails only behind AIDS and substance abuse… in terms of sheer numbers and lethality.”

The average rate of domestic violence in traditional marriage, established by a nationwide federal government survey [23] of 6,779 married couples in 1988, is apparently less than 5% per year. During their most recent year of marriage, 2.0% of husbands and 3.2% of wives said that they were hit, shoved or had things thrown at them. Unmarried, cohabiting heterosexuals report [24] higher rates of violence — a rate of about 20% to 25% per year.

When the same standard is applied to gay and lesbian relationships, the following evidence emerges:

In 1987 in Georgia [25], 48% of 43 lesbian couples, and 39% of 39 gay couples reported domestic violence.

In 1988, 70 lesbian and gay students participated in a study [26] of conflict resolution in gay and lesbian relationships. Adjusted upward because only one partner in the couple was reporting (i.e., the researchers got “only one side of the story”), an estimated 29% of gay and 56% of lesbian couples experienced violence in the past year.

In 1989, 284 lesbians were interviewed [27] who were involved “in a committed, cohabitating lesbian relationship” during the last 6 months. Adjusted for reports by just one partner, an estimated 43% of the relationships were violent in the past year.

In 1990, nearly half of 90 lesbian couples in Los Angeles reported [28] domestic violence yearly. 21% of these women said that they were mothers. Interestingly, of those mothers who had children living with them, 11 lived in “violent” and 11 in “nonviolent” relationships. Thus, unlike traditional marriage where parents will often forego fighting to shield the children from hostility, there was no evidence from this investigation that the presence of youngsters reduced the rate of domestic violence.

Overall, the evidence is fairly compelling that homosexual domestic violence exceeds heterosexual domestic violence. The limited scientific literature suggests that physical domestic violence occurs every year among less than 5% of traditionally married couples, 20% to 25% of cohabiting heterosexuals, and approximately half of lesbian couples. The evidence is less certain for gays, but their rate appears to fall somewhere between that for unmarried, cohabiting heterosexuals and lesbians.

Homosexual Domestic Violence A Bigger Problem Than ‘Gay Bashing’

Gay activists and the media are quick to assert that discriminatory attitudes by ‘straight’ society lead directly to violence against homosexuals (i.e., ‘gay bashing’). In fact, evidence suggests that homosexual domestic violence substantially exceeds — in frequency and lethality — any and all forms of ‘gay bashing.’ That is, the violence that homosexuals do to one another is much more significant than the violence that others do to homosexuals.

In 1995, a homosexual domestic violence consortium conducted a study [29] in six cities — Chicago, Columbus, Minneapolis, New York, San Diego, and San Francisco — where reports of anti-homosexual harassment or same-sex domestic violence were tabulated.

The harassment incidents ranged from name calling (e.g., ‘faggot,’ ‘queer’) to actual physical harm or property damage. Homosexual domestic violence, on the other hand, referred only to incidents in which actual physical harm occurred or was seriously threatened (i.e., met the legal standard for domestic violence). The results? Nationwide, [30] as well as in these cities, around half of anti-homosexual harassment reports in 1995 involved only slurs or insults, thus not rising to the level of actual or threatened physical violence. In San Francisco, there were 347 calls about same-sex domestic violence and 324 calls about anti-homo-sexual harassment. In three of the five other cities there were also more calls reporting same-sex domestic violence than anti-homosexual harassment. The same ratio was reported for the study as a whole.

Given that half of the harassment reports did not rise to the level of violence, while domestic violence meant exactly that, if the data gathered by this consortium of homosexuals corresponds to the underlying reality, the physical threat to homosexuals from same-sex domestic violence is at least twice as great as the physical threat they experience from ‘the outside.’

Rather than being a ‘shelter against the storms of life,’ as traditional marriage is sometimes characterized, being homosexually partnered actually increases the physical dangers associated with homosexuality.

Fact #4: Empirical evidence demonstrates that homosexuals make poor parents.

Fewer than 40 comparative studies on the effects of homosexual parents have been published. Only one [31] was based on a random sample, and another [32] followed the children for 14 years. The rest were based on small samples of volunteers, and those usually with children under the age of 10. These studies seldom addressed traditional concerns — for instance, molestation, or recruitment by parents or their lovers. Nor did they tend to consider the effects on teenagers. Instead they were ‘snapshots’ of a particular moment in the lives of these children. Yet the empirical evidence supports what common sense would expect.

Molestation and Incest

In the one random survey,[31] 28 (0.6%) of 4,600 children with non-homosexual parents reported sex with their parents or stepparents. By contrast, for children with homosexual parents, 3 of 6 sons reported sex with their father (2 of the 3 said they were homosexual as adults) and 2 of 11 daughters reported sex with a stepmother.

In the only other relevant study, [33] 1 of 11 adult sons with homosexual fathers reported having been seduced by him.

A review of 78 appeals-court cases (through 1998) involving one homosexual and one heterosexual parent — contesting custody of 142 children — revealed 4 cases of molestation involving homosexual parents, but none involving the heterosexual parents. In another 154 custody cases involving heterosexuals used as a study control, one stepfather molested his stepdaughter. [34,35] In one of the five clinical studies of children of homosexuals, [36] a client complained that his lesbian mother had forced him to have his first sexual experience with a homosexual.

It is difficult to obtain facts regarding the nation’s foster children. Nevertheless, in 2003, responding to a Freedom of Information request, the state of Illinois reported that from 1997-2002, of 270 foster- or adoptive-parents who engaged in “substantiated” sexual abuse, 34% were homosexuals. [37] An exhaustive review of the 50 largest-circulation newspapers and wire services from 1980 through 2003 found that 169 foster parents had sexually abused 351 foster children. [38] Of these, 88% were men and 53% of these men practiced homosexuality.

The same study found that in 21 “group home” stories, the molestation was homosexual in 71%. Also, at least 334 of the 349+ victims in group homes were boys. Findings from both individual placements and group homes indicate a disproportionate homosexual footprint in the sexual molestation of foster children.

School and Family Life

Children with homosexual parents lead troubled lives. The only randomly drawn sample[31] found 17 who reported a homosexual parent. These 17 were more likely to report sex with a parent, to engage in homosexuality for their first sexual encounter, to be sexually molested, to become homosexual, and to report dissatisfaction with their childhood.

The largest comprehensive comparative study was based upon teacher-reports as well as interviews with the students and their parents. [39] 58 elementary school children being raised by homosexual couples were closely matched (by age, sex, grade in school, and social class) with 58 children of cohabiting heterosexual parents, and 58 children of married parents. Children with married parents did best at math and language skills, second-best in social studies, were most active in sports, experienced the highest levels of parental involvement at school and at home (their parents also most closely monitored them at home), and had parents with the highest expectations for them.

Children of cohabiting heterosexuals were in-between, while children of homosexuals scored somewhat higher in social studies, lowest in math and language skills, were least popular (often socially isolated), most restrained and formal, experienced the lowest levels of parental involvement both at school and at home, did more household tasks, and were more frequently tutored. Their parents less frequently expressed high educational and career aspirations for them. In fact, teachers said children of homosexuals were ‘more confused’ about their gender.

Corroborating Court Cases

Through 1998 [40], 142 children with homosexual parents were involved in 78 custody disputes. According to the court records, parents who lied, engaged in criminal activity, or practiced homosexuality were more apt to be recorded as harming their children. Again according to the record, homosexual parents more frequently lied and/or engaged in criminal activity.

Parents or their associates were recorded as having exposed their children to “harm” in 70% of homosexuals, as opposed to only 5% of heterosexuals. “Harm” in this study included neglect, violence, seduction, and hypersexualization. Overall, homosexuals were held responsible for 97% of the 115 recorded harms to children.

Homosexual Parents More Likely to Have Homosexual Children

In a 14-year study [32] comparing 25 children of 18 lesbian mothers against 21 children of 16 single mothers, when asked what they thought their mother wanted them to become, 40% of the lesbians’ children but none of the children of divorced heterosexuals said that they believed their mother wanted them to be homosexual. Not surprisingly, 67% of the daughters and 57% of the sons of the lesbian mothers vs. 13% of the heterosexual mothers’ daughters and 20% of their sons said that they would consider homosexual relations. Also, 29% of the daughters of lesbians and 13% of their sons (but none of the children of single mothers) reported a homosexual relationship. In fact, two of the lesbians’ daughters said that when it came to sex, they primarily enjoyed homosexuality. Adding together the various studies of children of homosexuals published through 1999, at least 19% of 115 daughters and 16% of 120 sons said that they themselves engaged in homosexuality; that is, 17% of 235 offspring. In the comparison groups that were employed in these studies, only 2% of 66 children of heterosexuals said they practiced homosexuality. [34]

Children of Homosexual Parents Suffer Embarrassment and Isolation

When one researcher [41] interviewed 39 adult children of gays, 56% “expressed some concern over the burden of keeping a part of their lives secret,” and 44% “stated that they had felt that their parent’s sexuality had placed special demands or constraints upon their friendships.” Children’s “positive responses” to a parent’s homosexuality declined as the child became an adolescent. The study noted that “[o]ver half of the sample reported having gone through a period when they feared the ostracism or ridicule of their peers.”

Gay parenting advocates like to respond that even if children raised by homosexuals experience greater social difficulty, it is only because homosexual marriage is not yet legal. If it were, the basis for the ridicule and ostracism would cease. While there is no doubt that legalizing gay marriage would place a ‘stamp of approval’ on homosexual relationships and their ‘families,’ the problems such children will face are unlikely to evaporate.

For one, the worst excesses of homosexual behavior — promiscuity, bizarre and dangerous sex acts, sexual disease transmission, alcohol and drug abuse — occur most frequently in those places where homosexuality is most tolerated and accepted, such as San Francisco or Key West, FL. [42] Rather than practicing more responsible behavior in ‘non-discriminatory,’ tolerant environments, the reverse typically occurs. For another, many of the harms children experience at the hands of homosexual parents have very little to do with social isolation or rejection, especially when it comes to parental neglect, seduction, or violence.

Assessing the Facts: What Can We Conclude?

Homosexual marriage is a bad idea. While traditional marriage delivers benefits to its participants as well as to society, ‘gay marriage’ harms everyone it touches — especially children. Not only does it place homosexuals at increased risk for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, but it also subjects them to an increased threat of domestic violence.

Homosexual marriage is nothing like traditional marriage. Homosexual unions are not built around lifetime commitments, nor are they good environments in which to raise children. Those who support legalizing homosexual marriage include the same ‘compassionate’ people who championed the right of singles to become parents. We know the results of that campaign: a third of the nation’s children do not have a father. We also know that children without fathers much more often do poorly in school, get in trouble with the law, and become dysfunctional parents themselves.

It would be foolish to tamper with something as vital to personal and social health as traditional marriage in order the placate the same troubled souls that pushed for our current cultural mess.

Unfortunately this report like all truths concerning homosexuality was discounted. Canada and the Western world has legalized counterfeit relationships; poor imitations & knock offs of the God ordained family.