1572. How do you believe that people are not born gay. If it’s such a choice then why are soo many people in this world gay? Are you saying people just wake up one morning and saying “hey that’s it I’m gay”

This is always a controversial subject whenever it is brought up, but as I always do, I will do my best to respect everyone’s views and opinions, and explain fact-based and faith-based why I believe what I believe. I acknowledge that many agree with me, and that many also do not. But I want to say first and foremost that no matter the disagreements and differing beliefs, I will respect and love ALL people, no matter what the difference, and I never treat anyone differently. With that being said, one of my favorite authors posted this on his blog the other day, and I think it sums it up pretty well.

“Of all the groups in the world who are “hated”, I often feel that none are hated more than Christians who are loyal to Jesus Christ and His teaching, who–despite popular belief–was not about hate, but love for and salvation of ANYONE who would ACCEPT Him as their savior. Bums me out how often His true purpose and message are completely overlooked or simply ignored. I love my Lord with all my heart and as a true follower of Christ I’m called to love ALL people as well… and I do: gay, straight, black, white, old, young, sick, healthy, mentally or physically challenged or not, liberal, conservative, Redskins fans, Cowboy fans, country or rock fans… and yes, that means you too. If you translate God’s teaching to intolerance/hate (despite Him commanding us to love EVERYONE) than I don’t know what to say… but I do know what to DO because my purpose never changes. So like it or not… I love YOU despite our differences, allegiances, choices or values. Matthew 22:36-40 – ”‘Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?’ Jesus replied: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

So now onto the question.

People are born male and female. Not heterosexual or homosexual. Feelings that come later on in life, whether they are homosexual or heterosexual, are proven to in many cases be influenced by nurture and environment. There are many studies of those who live homosexual lifestyles. One consistent fact (certainly not in all, but a majority) is that many homosexual men have been abused or sexually assaulted as children. Another factor that has remained consistent is the absence of a dominant male figure in the household. This rings true for many who grew up in a fatherless home.

Another reason I believe homosexuality is a choice, just like heterosexuality is, is that I know many former homosexuals.

Now, I often hear the argument that homosexuality is just like race. That you are born with it. But let me ask you, is there a difference between skin color and sexual behavior? And why should we classify people because of what they desire to do sexually?

This is a claim that I’ve personally seen many times recently. After North Carolina recently voted against same-sex marriage, there was a viral picture that went around the internet. It had a decades-old picture of racists in North Carolina protesting against blacks on the top, and present-day citizens protesting against gay marriage. There was a caption that said, “Imagine who stupid you’re going to look in 40 years.” This is an argument that I’ve seen more and more lately, that if you are against same-sex marriage, you are no better than a racist.

Homosexuals want to be considered a class of people on their own, depicting themselves as victims who are denied their civil rights, just like blacks were. This way, they can trick the unsuspecting public into thinking that people who oppose their agenda are discriminating against them as people rather than their behavior. But all of this is nonsense. First off, race and homosexuality are in no way compatible. Skin color is neutral and does not hurt anyone, but the same cannot be said of sexual behavior. Sexual behavior is always a choice; skin color never is. You will find many former homosexuals (I have a few friends like this), but you will never find a former African-American.

Next, homosexuality is not an identity or class, it is a behavior. If homosexuals are a special class of people, then so are heterosexuals. We are not all gays and straights. We are all males and females. We are male and female by anatomy, but gay and straight by behavior. So why not classify people by their desires as homosexual advocates demand? The answer is because if we start to classify people based off of their sexual desires, then why not give people with any sexual desires the same right? On what grounds could you deny marriages involving polygamy, incest, or bestiality?

And I know, I know, we as a society would never go ‘that far’ to also normalize polygamy and pedophilia. But wait? Aren’t we already seeing this effect in present day?

In gay and academic publications and at gay “pride” parades, the gay rights movement and the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) are working together to change the law to lower the age of consent. They also have friends in pretty high places. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was an ACLU attorney, actually advocated lowering the age of consent to twelve years old! Former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, marched with a leading advocate of NAMBLA in the 2001 San Francisco gay “pride” parade. But of course, this wasn’t mentioned by the mainstream media.

Also in California, there is a present bill being presented to the state legislature that would give 3 or more consenting adults the right to be a ‘parent’ of a child. The case that brought this up was a homosexual couple, who had a child with someone of the opposite sex, simply to procreate, and now all 3 adults wanted to be labeled as equal ‘parents’ in the relationship. So as we can see, the boundaries of polygamy and pedophilia ARE currently already being stretched, as result of the further weakening of traditional marriage.

One thing that skin color and sexual desires to have in common is that they should both be non-issues when it comes to the law. Why should the law be legislated on your skin color and desires? Laws should only be concerned with behavior.

Also, these friends of mine, who would gladly give you their testimony if you asked, claim that they have been freed from their homosexual desires by the cleansing blood of Christ. One good friend of mine and business partner here in New York with me is one such person. This also fits in perfectly with what the Bible teaches.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

So let’s examine just one or two arguments that people try to say validate their views.

“Homosexuals were born that way!”

Key Questions:

Are people ever born with conditions that are not normal and sometimes harmful?
Is there any difference between sexual desires (“orientation”) and sexual behavior?
Should people act on every desire they have?

Homosexuals are born as males or females, so why should they follow their desires but not the design of their bodies?

Answer: Some homosexuals try to make the case that they’ve had their desires as long as they can remember. And somehow, this is supposed to prove that these desires are the rest of nature, and not nurture. But this argument always fails to justify homosexual (or any) behavior. “Born-that-way” is an argument from nature or design. “Since I was designed with these desires, I should act on them.” The people who make this claim usually say that the Designer is God. But if you are insisting that God made you this way, you also cannot deny that He designed your body as well. After all, God doesn’t make mistakes. So if this is true, why are you following your desires but not your body? After all, you may not be sure that God designed your desires, but you do know for certain that He designed your anatomy. Why not follow what you honestly believe came from God? Ignoring your desires can be uncomfortable, but ignoring your body’s natural design has proven to be fatal.

There have been many scientific studies attempting to prove some sort of ‘gay gene,’ but a genetic component to homosexual desires has yet to be found. But honestly, think about it. Even if there ever was a “gay gene,” chances are very, very high that it would have died out a long time ago. After all, homosexuals cannot procreate, and therefore cannot pass on their DNA and genetic code. What we do know is that genetics can never be ever able to fully explain homosexual desires. If they did, twins would always have the same desires, but they do not. Instead, there is much more substantial evidence showing that it is not one’s nature, but one’s nurture (a person’s childhood and environment) that have a more identifiable impact on homosexual desires. Many studies have shown that male homosexuals are more likely to come from families with a dominant mother a weak or distant father. Homosexuals are also more likely to have been sexually abused as children. While the nature vs. nurture debate will continue on for years to come, we do know that it is next to impossible to be able to identify all of the factors that go into a person’s desires, whether they are sexual or anything else.

But even if there was a genetic link to homosexual desires found someday, would that justify their behavior? No, because each of us has desires that we should not act on. What if someone was genetically predisposed to alcohol? Should we advocate alcoholism? What if someone has a genetic predisposition to an attraction to young children. Would that justify pedophilia? Would any homosexual activist ever say that a genetic predisposition to violence justifies ‘gay-bashing?’ Desires do not justify behaviors. In fact, there is a popular word used to describe the restraint of destructive desires. “Civilization.” So should human beings act on every desire that they ever have? For our civilization’s sake, are there ever any desires that it is better we do not act on? For any civilization to thrive, there is much restraint of desires needed. But homosexual activists don’t want to hear it. Instead of just tolerating their behavior, they want our government to actively endorse and promote it, which will lead to people with certain desires engaging in harmful behavior. Shouldn’t the government discourage, and not promote, harmful behavior?

“But weren’t YOU born a heterosexual?”

Answer: Nope. Actually, I was born a male. What I decide to do sexually in my life is my own choice. When we use terms like ‘gay’ and ‘straight,’ we mislead people into believing we are born either heterosexual or homosexual when we are not. We were all born males and females. That’s it. We are males and females by biology, and heterosexuals and homosexuals by behavior. But if someone were to ask me, “Were you born with heterosexual desires?” I would honestly have to say, “I don’t know, but how could anyone know that?” And what I mean by that is how would you know for sure that your feelings are the result of nature, nurture, or some combination? After all, it is certainly possible that there is some genetic predisposition for heterosexuality, since we are clearly designed to procreate, and since the majority of our world’s population has heterosexual desires, that would seem to be a part of our natural design.

Despite this, we all know that we live in an imperfect world and that there is a small percentage of people who are born with conditions or characteristics that are not considered normal. Genes sometimes do have defects, and to name a few examples, there are people who are born blind, deaf, or with psychological and mental limitations or deficiencies. There is even evidence that suggests that some desires and personality traits, including anger, which can lead to the harmful behavior of violence, may indeed sometimes have a genetic source. Others yet may not be born with such conditions, but instead develop them during their childhood.

But the key point is this: Whether these traits are a result of nature or nurture makes no difference, we still regard them all as deficiencies. What we never do as a society is pretend that these deficiencies are normal or encourage harmful behaviors that can come from them. For example, we would never say that a defect in a man’s sexual preference that predisposes him to pedophilia is normal, and we certainly would never encourage him to follow those desires because of that defect. And yet, this is exactly what homosexual activists are demanding.

“But we want equal rights! Gay is the new black!”

Key Questions:

Must the government recognize every desire people have as a right?
Don’t current marriage rules apply equally to everyone?

Answer: This is the most popular slogan used by homosexual activists and it is very well done. I mean, who wants to be against equal rights? The problem with this slogan though is that when it comes to marriage, everyone in America already has equal rights. We are all playing by the same rules right from the start. Any male has the equal right to marry a female and any female has the equal right to marry a male. These rules by which we are playing do not deny anyone “equal protection of the laws” because the qualifications to enter into marriage already apply equally to everyone. What homosexual activists really want is not equal rights, but special rights. But if we grant special rights for same-sex couples to marry one another, on what grounds can we deny special rights for consenting adults who desire marriage to also be for other socially destructive or unhealthy relationships such as polygamy, incest, or bestiality? Should bisexuals be permitted to marry two people?

The homosexual activist response is always something like, “We wouldn’t allow polygamy, incest, and bestiality because those are unhealthy and destructive relationships.” But as we have already proven much earlier, so are homosexual relationships.

Next, it must be known that the government is not denying the “rights” of homosexuals to have relationships or to faithfully pledge themselves to one another “till death do them part.” Gays do that all time. But they have no “right” to have that relationship endorsed by the government and granted benefits. Government endorsement is the issue here, not equality or civil rights.

Desires do not equal rights. Just because you have the desire to do something does not mean that you have the right to do so. Even among consenting adults, there is no right to prostitution, polygamy, adultery, or incest. And even if you wanted to claim these things as a private right, there most certainly is no right to demand the government endorse such behavior. And yet, this is what homosexual activists demand for homosexuality.

While this issue is cast as a moral issue by same-sex marriage proponents, there is no moral authority for their position. By whose standard of morality must same-sex marriage be established? Our Constitution and all state constitutions certainly don’t say anything about same-sex marriage. So by whose standard? God’s? But God is the last subject homosexual activists want to bring up.

Now, all of this information only scratches the surface of the homosexuality / gay marriage debate, and this is only a fraction of the information I have studied on the topic. I have also written (but not yet posted) the effects of same-sex marriage on society, based on other states and countries that have already legalized it, and how traditional marriage has sharply decreased in these areas, illegitimacy has risen (to the point where in Norway, now more than 80% of children are born out of wedlock), and STD’s have dramatically increased. I also have studied the effects of the weakening of traditional marriage in itself, and how a majority of our country’s problems all stem from the weakening of the traditional family.

Since my post will only pose many more questions and accusations, I’ll also post what I have also written so far for my case to support traditional marriage. This is only about the first third of what I am writing. It is about 30 pages long, with at least 50 more to come. So you are all getting a bit of a sneak peak. Everyone is free to agree, or disagree with me, as I’m sure many of you will. And that is fine. I will respect every view/belief, and will still show love to everyone no matter what, as Jesus commands us to do.



Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage


How it Hurts Everyone




The single-most issue that I’ve personally seen Christians shy away from is the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. One of the main reasons for this is for the inevitability of being called homophobic, bigoted, intolerant, and much worse. Same-sex marriage advocates go so far as to say that if you believe in only traditional marriage, you are on par with racists. I mean, who wants to be against equal rights for all? How could same-sex marriage possibly hurt you? Why can’t we just let them make their own decisions? That is the argument that same-sex marriage advocates make. I have personally lost many ‘friends’ because of my own beliefs on the matter. I’ve been called very hateful things and have openly witnessed hatred and slander being spewed about me behind my back when others thought I was not listening.

Many Christians don’t know how to respond with all of this hatred and negativity coming at them, and most only seem able to say something like, ‘well, the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination,’ or, ‘I don’t support same-sex marriage because of what the Bible says.’ The problem with this is that this argument never gets anywhere with those who do not follow the Bible. They say, ‘why are you forcing your religion/beliefs on me?’

I have made an effort many times in the past on my website to avoid the topic of homosexuality, because I know how fired up people get about it. I also know that every time I bring it up, even if it is in a peaceful and respectful manner, (which it always is), I still just get more hatred.

So how should Christians respond? From my interactions with other Christians, I’ve found that the majority of them don’t even know what else they could argue to defend their stance on traditional marriage. They honestly have nothing to back up their beliefs other than ‘because the Bible says so.’
The other day, I came across a book on the topic of homosexuality, and it appeared fascinating. The amazing thing about it? The author uses logic, reason, science, decades of study, and history to make his assertions on homosexuality vs. traditional marriage. Not once does he bring God or the Bible into the argument. When I read the back and flipped through some of the pages seeing solid logical arguments being made without once mentioning God, I knew I had to get it. I myself didn’t really know how to argue against the case for same-sex marriage that well without using the Bible. I read the entire book in one sitting, because I just couldn’t put it down. It was a game-changer for me, and I knew that I had to share it with everyone I know, because the negative implications of what is coming in America if it keeps on trending the way it is are a lot greater than most realize.

For anyone that is interested in the book itself, it is called:

Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone

By Award-Winning author Frank Turek

It is available for purchase at many Christian bookstores and at Amazon.com.

I’m giving full credit for this entire study to Frank Turek and his book, as much of what I talk about will be direct quotes and paraphrases from his book. The author cites a plethora of resources and studies that he used to reach his conclusions, and I will be including those as well.

Before anyone accuses me of hatred, bigotry, intolerance, and so on, I want you to ask yourself a question. Why would I even bring this topic up at all, knowing that it will bring about all of these things? Nationwide, the majority is starting to lean more towards embracing homosexuality, and it is one of those very passionate topics that people get very fired up about. People who oppose homosexuality take a lot of heat and hatred. So why would I do it? What’s in it for me? If the past is any indication, it’s just more hatred and people talking behind my back. So what gives? I pray that you understand that the only reason I am writing this is out of love and because I believe that the negative implications our society are we as individuals will face is so severe, that it is actually unloving and hateful to not share this information with you.

I know this entire debate is a very passionate one, and I know many who read this might not agree with me. But what I implore you to do before you judge my beliefs and myself, is to read the entire thing. I promise you that just about every argument you may bring against me will be covered somewhere in the study. All of my arguments are backed up with evidence, research, history, and logic. I am writing all of this out of love and with respect to all people, despite their beliefs, and I pray that my readers will also do the same thing, reading with an open mind, as I have read and listened to countless others beliefs of those who disagree with me.

For my Christian friends who read this, I pray that this will be a great resource for you to become more knowledgeable on the subject, and become better prepared for when you get into these inevitable debates. Thank you all for reading, and God bless!

– Seth David Miller



Part I: Introduction: Beyond Tolerance


Why do I care if homosexuals marry one another? I honestly wish I could say that same-sex marriage is okay for society. After all, I only get abuse by opposing it, but I simply cannot say that it is good and healthy for society. Every single person who has ever debated me back always throws in, “Why not!? It wouldn’t hurt you or anyone else!” But I’m going to make the case here that that is entirely wrong; that it would actually hurt everyone – me, you, children, our country, and especially homosexuals themselves. I’ll tell you why I believe all of this, backed up with research, but I need you all to realize one thing first. I will not be politically correct whatsoever; just correct. I will be respectful and I will not be deliberately offensive. But honestly, I’ve found that many people find the truth to be offensive. I’ll let you decide for yourselves.

What should you do if someone comes out to you and tells you that they’re gay? Should we rejoice? Cry? Congratulate them? Ignore them? We’re nearing a point culturally where if we do not respond with anything less than joy and celebration when someone comes out, we are labeled as unenlightened, bigoted, archaic, intolerant, outdated homophobes. We are constantly told that homosexuality is not a choice, that gay people are born that way, and that it is better to accept them than force them to believe in a lie.

I read an account recently of a man whose childhood friend came out to his parents that he was gay. First, his parents responded with shock and denial, but eventually they accepted him and even approved of his actions. Fifteen years later, this friend was buried at the age of thirty-six, dead from AIDS. Could his family have prevented this from happening? I do not know, but they made a well-intentioned mistake that proved to be fatal. In their effort to support and love their son no mater what, they failed to distinguish between their son and the behavior of their son. They rightfully loved him as a person, but neglected to raise any objections to the lifestyle he was living, which eventually lead to his death.

True love requires us to not simply tolerate the destructive lifestyles that our loved ones are living, but stand in opposition to these behaviors knowing that they will likely hurt or kill our loved ones. This is the case for drug abuse, alcoholism, and even homosexuality. To put it differently, it is completely unloving to enable or endorse destructive behavior. Nowadays, we have completely gone backwards as a culture and turned common sense upside-down. We’re not just asked to be tolerant anymore, but we are now called bigoted homophobes if we don’t endorse the demonstratively false claims that homosexual sex and marriage are just as healthy and moral as heterosexual sex and marriage.

I believe it is vital that we as a society stand against this very harmful wave of political correctness. We need to tactfully expose bad arguments and false assumptions in support of same-sex marriage, using arguments other than, because the Bible says so. We need to factually and demonstratively point out that endorsing these ideas is the opposite of loving and indeed does hurt everyone, homosexuals in particular. That’s what I will attempt to prove in this series.

Before anyone comes out and accuses me of being homophobic, intolerant, hateful, and a gay-basher, please allow me to state my intentions to you directly. This is not meant to disparage anyone, especially those who consider themselves to be gay. This is simply meant to express disagreement over a current public policy question. Just like I disagree with many of my heterosexual friends over specific issues, I also disagree with my friends who advocate same-sex marriage, whether they are gay or straight. The focus of this series is not about the morality or immorality of homosexuality and same-sex marriage, but is about whether either of these things should be openly endorsed and promoted by the government. I’ll make the case that even if you think there is nothing morally wrong with homosexuality, there are very good and well-researched reasons why you should still oppose same-sex marriage.

So if I provide sufficient evidence to validate all of my claims, does that mean that everyone will adopt my position? Of course not. Good arguments will not convince anyone who is close-minded or open to being convinced. Each and every one of us is able of ignoring facts that contradict our desires, because in every situation, our desires will overrule the mind when we want them to. This is especially true in issues regarding sex. The human sex drive is one of the most powerful forces in nature, and when unchecked, can bring about a lot of pain and destruction. So with that, I do not expect this to change your mind if you have already 100% made up your mind on the issue.

But for those of you who are open to hearing the truth, and using logic, reason, and science, we will see that there is nothing good or productive for society about government-backed same-sex marriage. The negative effects will be overwhelmingly damaging to the country as a whole and its citizens. That’s why we need to set our emotions aside for a moment, and reason according to the facts. The first thing we need to realize is that this debate is not what most people thing it is about.

What the Same-Sex Marriage Debate is Not About

In 1988, a group of very prominent homosexuals met together in Virginia to create their plan on how to get homosexuality accepted by the general public. In the book that came out of that meeting, they revealed that their strategy will achieve its goals “without reference to facts, logic or proof … the person’s beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of he attack or not.”[i] To put it bluntly, their strategy was pure propaganda, and not fact or logic-based whatsoever. That propaganda campaign has been very successful leading up to today, with many people believing that denying same-sex marriage involves denying rights to a victimized minority. That belief could not be further form the truth. In fact, allow me to stir up a bunch of disagreement right here and tell you what the same-sex marriage debate is NOT about. Don’t worry, each point will be elaborated upon in detail later on:

  • It is not about equality or equal rights.
  • It is not about discrimination against a class of people.
  • It is not about denying homosexuals the ability to commit to one another.
  • It is not about love or private relationships.
  • It is not about tolerance or intolerance.
  • It is not about bigotry or homophobia.
  • It is not about sexual orientation or being born a certain way.
  • It is not about race or the civil rights struggle.
  • It is not about interracial marriage.
  • It is not about heterosexuals and divorce.
  • It is not about the separation of church and state.
  • It is not even about religion.

But of course you probably have some objections to those notions. After all, that’s all you ever hear about! And that is because the propaganda campaign has been extremely successful. In fact, for homosexuals, the debate is not even about marriage at all. As data from countries with same-sex marriage show, approximately 96% of homosexuals don’t get married when they are given the opportunity. [ii] And those who do not get married break up at a much higher rate than heterosexuals.[iii]

So What Is the Debate About?

Since most homosexuals do not want to get married or stay married, then why are homosexual activists so adamant about receiving government recognition of same-sex marriage? It is because government-backed same-sex marriage will win them what they really want – validation and normalization. The key point being made here is “government-backed.” Homosexuals can already ‘marry’ one another privately. Nothing and no one is stopping them from making private lifelong commitments to one another in private same-sex marriage ceremonies. In fact, that is done all the time, and there is an entire cottage industry solely for gay ‘weddings.’ But that’s simply not enough for homosexual activists. What they want is the government to endorse their relationships, because they know that such an endorsement would make homosexuality and their behavior appear just as normal as heterosexuality. That’s why the same-sex marriage movement is a lot more about respect than it is about rights. Greg Koukl puts this very well: “Same-sex marriage is no about civil rights. It is about validation and social respect. It is a radical attempt at civil engineering using government muscle to strong-arm the people into accommodating a lifestyle many find deeply offensive, contrary to nature, socially destructive, and morally repugnant.”[iv]  Same-sex marriage advocate Andrew Sullivan also understands this. He writes, “Including homosexuals within marriage would be a means of conferring the highest form of social approval imaginable.”[v]

This is the real reason that same-sex marriage advocates are tirelessly pushing to get the government to endorse same-sex marriage. Most don’t want to get ‘married,’ they just want the social approval that same-sex marriage will win them.  In the end, this debate is only about one question. How far will we allow the courts to go to make homosexual behavior appear no different than heterosexuality? The reason I say the courts is because the push for same-sex marriage is not a movement of the people – it is a movement against the people. In fact, 30 states now have voted on same-sex marriage laws/amendments, and in all 30 states where it was put to a public vote, same-sex marriage overwhelmingly lost in a landslide. The most recent incident was just several weeks ago in North Carolina, where North Carolinians voted in favor of banning not only same-sex marriage, but also civil unions, by a percentage of 61-39. The only reason that some states do allow same-sex marriage today is because of court ruling and legislative action that have gone against the majority will of the people.  In fact, same-sex marriage is the only political debate that still has a 100% success rate, in favor of traditional marriage.

There is not a single other issue in American history that has had the success that traditional marriage still holds. Homosexual activists do not want the people to have a voter referendum on same-sex marriage, because they know that in just about all 50 states, they will lose. Even in very liberal California, with Proposition 8, same-sex marriage lost when put to the vote. They continually file lawsuits in order to get the courts to take the issue away from the people, as was done with abortion (which was also ruled in favor of, despite overwhelming opposition from the majority). That way, by going through the courts, same-sex marriage can be imposed upon the people without their approval. You can’t vote on it. You simply have to accept what a few unelected judges say about it.

The U.S. Supreme Court has already struck down state anti-sodomy laws, but that’s not enough for homosexual activists. They don’t want more tolerance, but want the courts to go beyond tolerating homosexuality by endorsing it and changing the definition of marriage. So far, their strategy is working. Four members of the Californian Supreme Court overturned the votes of more than four million Californians to mandate same-sex marriage there. If that ruling stands, same-sex marriage laws could ultimately be imposed across the country. (Keeping true to their form, homosexual activists filed a lawsuit in 2008 to keep Californians from voting to overturn the court decision.)

Now, if you have no moral objection to homosexuality or same-sex marriage, you might say, “Why not? Why shouldn’t we endorse it?” The short answer is: By endorsing same-sex marriage, we will be further sacrificing our children, our health, and our prosperity. Sounds extreme right? But don’t worry, I have evidence to back up each of these claims. Of course, this will not happen immediately, but over the long-term. Even if you considers yourself ‘pro-homosexual,’ I hope that by reading on, you will see that the damage same-sex marriage will do to our children, our health, and our prosperity is not worth any perceived benefit to homosexuals. In fact, I’ll make the case that endorsing same-sex marriage will actually hurt homosexuals.


The Six-Point Case Against Same-Sex Marriage


I’m sure you have many questions and objectives to all that I have just stated. I would too, and did, when I was hearing all of this for the first time. But of course, I cannot make my complete case in a single page, so you will have to read on if you are intrigued! The following points are the case I will attempt to make:

  • 1. Natural marriage is the foundation of a civilized society
  • 2. Homosexual behavior is inherently destructive
  • 3. The law is a great teacher, and it encourages or discourages behavior
  • 4. Government-backed same-sex marriage would encourage and normalize homosexual behavior, and it would harm natural marriage, children, adults, and homosexuals themselves
  • 5. The law should promote behaviors that are beneficial and prohibit (or at least not endorse) those that are destructive
  • 6. Therefore, the law should promote natural marriage, and it should provide no option for government-backed same-sex marriage or civil unions

Obviously, each of these claims is meaningless if they are not supported with factual evidence. I will take each one on in order, and then answer the arguments for same-sex marriage that I mentioned earlier.

Part II: The Six-Point Case Against Same-Sex Marriage

1. Natural marriage is the foundation of a civilized society.

Same-sex marriage proponents want to redefine marriage as simply a private relationship between two committed parties. That sounds reasonable. After all, if I myself was gay, I might want to do the same thing. However, marriage is much more than the private relationship of two individuals. Marriage is the social institution that provides society with the very foundation of civilization – the procreating family unit. There would be no community without marriage. In fact, marriage is the oldest and the most basic of the three foundational institutions of Western civilization. Government and the church are the other two. It’s considered the most basic because without children, there wouldn’t be a need for a government or church, as there would be no civilization in general. The benefits of natural marriage are so great, that they cannot be overstated. It not only benefits the married couple, but also their children, our economy, and the nation as a whole. Natural marriage has always served as a nation’s natural immune system. As Frank Turek puts it, “When our marriages are strong, our nation is strong and our social problems are few. When our marriages are weak, so is our nation.”

Natural marriage:

  1. a.     Lengthens life spans of men and women.[vi]
  2. b.    Civilizes men and focuses them on productive pursuits. Unmarried men cause society much more trouble than married men. (How many married men do you know who rove neighborhoods in street gangs?)
  3. c.     Protects women, who often give up or postpone their careers to have children, from being abandoned and harmed economically by uncommitted men.
  4. d.    Protects mothers from violent crime. Mothers who have never been married are more than twice as likely to suffer from violent crime as mothers who have married.[vii]
  5. e.     Lowers welfare costs to society.[viii]
  6. f.      Encourages an adequate replacement birth rate, resulting in enough productive young people to contribute to society and provide social security to the elderly. The United States’ birth rate is about 2.1 per couple – any lower and the nation cannot sustain itself without immigration.

Children from natural marriage homes are:

  1. Seven times less likely to live in poverty[ix]
  2. Six times less likely to commit suicide[x]
  3. Less than half as likely to commit crime[xi]
  4. Less than half as likely to become pregnant out of wedlock[xii]
  5. Develop better academically and socially[xiii]
  6. Healthier physically and emotionally when they reach adulthood[xiv]

These positive results of traditional marriage are not new to the 21st Century. Practically since the dawn of humanity, marriage has been the basis of human social structure. In fact, British anthropologist J.D. Unwin studied eighty-six civilized and uncivilized cultures spanning five thousand years and found that the most prosperous cultures were those that maintained a strong marriage ethic. Every civilization that ultimately abandoned this ethic, including the Roman, Babylonian, and Sumerian empires, soon experienced their civilization’s demise shortly after liberalizing their sexual practices.[xv]

Envision a society where more and more numbers of people have no stable family and must therefore fend for themselves. Without the natural family, which provides people with their most basic needs, chaos soon follows. In fact, just about every social problem we are currently experiencing here in America can be traced back to the breakdown of the traditional family. If you do not believe me, just take a look at the social and welfare costs on broken homes in America. By restating the above findings, we can better see the impact of fatherless homes on our society.

First, children from fatherless homes are:

  1. Seven times more likely to live in poverty
  2. Six times more likely to commit suicide
  3. More than twice as likely to commit crime
  4. More than twice as likely to become pregnant out of wedlock
  5. Worse off academically and socially
  6. Worse off physically and emotionally when they reach adulthood

Second, children from fatherless homes account for:

  1. 60% of America’s rapists
  2. 63% of America’s youth suicides
  3. 70% of America’s long-term prison inmates
  4. 70% of America’s reform school attendees
  5. 71% of America’s teenage pregnancies
  6. 71% of America’s high school dropouts
  7. 72% of America’s adolescent murderers
  8. 85% of America’s youth prisoners
  9. 85% of America’s youth with behavioral disorders
  10. 90% of America’s runaways[xvi]

One specific problem of legalizing same-sex marriage is that it would increase the number of children without fathers. More on that will be provided later on. The importance of marriage is further evident when one considers that men and women can do just about everything alone – eat, breath, think, move, work, etc. without anyone else. The single exception is procreation. The sexes need one another to procreate. That fact alone should tell us that men and women were intended to procreate and parent together. And to state the obvious, without the procreative union of a man and a woman, no one would exist, including homosexuals.

Some may argue, “But some marriages do not produce children.” That is true, but we are not talking about singular exceptions, but talking about marriage as an institution. While there are some marriages that do not produce children, the majority, those that do, provide the building blocks of civilization. If there is any institution that is designed for the good of our children and society, it is natural marriage. Marriage of a man and woman is fundamentally about the production of good children and the civilization of society. This holds true, even if there are some marriages that do not produce children. All books are designed for reading, even if some of them happen to never be read.

But is it possible for children to thrive in homes without their biological moms and dads? Of course it is. However, this is still the rare exception, and not the rule. Family structure has proven to be the most important factor in a child’s development. More than 10,000 studies show the significant advantages that children experience when committed and loving mothers and fathers raise them.[xvii] Unfortunately, every single homosexual marriage always denies children either their mother or their father. Same-sex marriage proponents claim, without any evidence, that parents are always interchangeable – that two men or two women can do just as good a job at parenting as a man and a woman, because men and women together offer nothing unique to children.[xviii]

However, this assumption raises the following question for those making such an absurd and unsupported assertion. Why do you think that men and women are interchangeable as parents but not as sex partners? If men and women are truly interchangeable, then why not just marry someone of the opposite sex? Think about the inconsistency here. When it comes to their own personal gratification, homosexual activists clearly recognize the big differences between the sexes. Only when it comes to the important priority of raising children do homosexual activists say there is no big difference between the sexes. Children are taking a backseat to their homosexual desires. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse sums up the attitude of homosexual activists clearly. She writes, “[Homosexual] adults are entitled to what they want. Children have to take what we give them.[xix]

People who deny what is best for children in order to have the sex that they want show that they do not have the best interests of children in mind. The same goes for heterosexuals who routinely engage in casual, unprotected sex outside of marriage, without thinking or caring about the consequences. This is how we have so many fatherless children out there, and how all of our social problems came about. This is another reason why homosexual relationships should never be equated to marriage. Marriage mans much more than just sexual coupling, as all children know.

To sum all of this up, we see that natural marriage:

–       Produces children

–       Cares best for children

–       Protects and enhances the lives of adults

–       Stabilized society

Doesn’t it make sense to protect it?

2. Homosexual behavior is inherently destructive.

This point always sends homosexual activists into a rage. They want so badly for homosexual behavior to be equal to that of heterosexual, that they will deny the mountains of evidence and instead attack the character of the researcher who is reporting the negative health consequences of living a gay lifestyle. Despite their objects, there is plenty of data to show this to be the case, particularly in the case of male homosexuality, which is the unhealthiest.

It has been said that everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts. Unfortunately, homosexual activists act as if they are entitled to their own facts, one of which claims that there is no real difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Same-sex marriage advocate Andrew Sullivan writes, “[Gay marriage] says for the first time that gay relationships are not better or worse than straight relationships…”[xx]

Sullivan is correct, that government-backed gay marriage would say exactly that to the world, and that is exactly why we should not endorse it. The idea that “gay relationships are not better or worse than straight relationships” is pure nonsense. How can he deny that man-woman unions are the foundation of civilization? Doesn’t he realize he would not have ever existed without natural marriage? How can they be equal? The truth is that some relationships are better than others. People are equal, but their behaviors are not. Since homosexuality is contrary to nature and the design of the human body, same-sex relationships can never function like man-woman relationships, nor can they birth the same benefits, literally. So stop trying to equate the two as being the same. They can never be equal. Biology prevents it and the evidence that is about to be shown disproves it.

Even if we ignore the issue of procreation, the evidence shows that homosexual unions are medically inferior to man-woman unions. Homosexual behavior:

  1. Results in numerous health problems to those who practice it, including increases in AIDS, other STDs, colon and rectal cancer, and hepatitis. According to the Center for Disease Control, more than 82% of all known sexually transmitted AIDS cases in 2006 were the result of male-to-male sexual contact. Moreover, gay and bisexual men account for more than 60% of all syphilis cases.[xxi]
  2. Shortens the life span of homosexuals on average by eight to twenty years[xxii]
  3. Spreads disease to innocent people who never engage in homosexual sex. A prominent example is Ryan White, the teenage boy who died of AIDS after a blood transfusion. There are thousands of Ryan Whites – according to the CDC, there are nearly 10,000 known cases of innocent people in the United States who have contracted AIDS the same way, including 160 in 2005, and 131 in 2006 (this despite the improvements in blood screening).[xxiii] This is also the reason why bisexuals and homosexuals are legally barred from donating blood. Moreover, there are thousands of innocent heterosexuals (many are spouses) who have contracted STDs via sexual contact with bisexuals.
  4. Costs Americans millions in higher health insurance premiums because increased health costs from homosexual behavior are reflected in those premiums. In fact, the homosexual lobby has induced some states to prevent insurers from asking potential consumers any medical questions, including if they are HIV positive! As a result, every consumer is paying a higher premium because insurance companies are prevented from identifying clients who engage in high-risk sexual behavior.

The bottom line is that homosexual behavior is unhealthy. All sexual behaviors are not equally beneficial, and some of them have negative public consequences. Innocent people can and do continually get hurt.

Due to the devastating health effects of male homosexuality, most of the research into gay health issues has focused on them. However, the research that has been conducted with respect to lesbians does not yield good results either. Lesbians experience many more health problems than heterosexual women. Even the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association admits the following about lesbian women:

  • Lesbians have the richest concentration of risk factors for breast cancer than any subset of women in the world.
  • They have higher risks for cervical cancers.
  • They are more likely to be obese.
  • They use more tobacco, alcohol, and illicit drugs.[xxiv]

A study of over 1,400 lesbians found the following:

  • Lesbians experience higher rates of bacterial vaginosis and hepatitis C.
  • They have more than twice the number of male partners than heterosexual women (only 7% who identify themselves as lesbians never have sex with men).
  • They are 4.5 times more likely to have fifty or more male sexual partners in a lifetime.
  • They are three to four times more likely to have sex with men who are at high risk for HIV – homosexuals, bisexuals, and IV drug users.
  • They are six times more likely to abuse drugs intravenously.[xxv]

Other studies also confirm lesbian health problems.[xxvi]

Most homosexual activists get angry when these facts are cited. But why should we get angry over the truth? As Augustine said, “we love the truth when it enlightens us, but we hate it when it convicts us.” Every crazier yet, other homosexual activists acknowledge negative health effects and then attempt to use them as a reason to support their cause. This “conservative” case for same-sex marriage suggests that homosexual monogamy, encouraged by government-backed same-sex marriage, would alleviate these health problems. Andrew Sullivan writes, “A law institutionalizing gay marriage would merely reinforce a healthy social trend. It would also, in the wake of AIDS, qualify as a genuine public health measure.”[xxvii] Unfortunately, health problems and life spans would not improve significantly in so-called “committed” homosexual relationships. Why not?

  1. Monogamy is not the main issue – homosexual behavior is. Homosexual acts have been proven to be inherently unhealthy, not just multiple-partner homosexual acts. This is especially true of male homosexuality. Does anyone honestly believe that it is natural and healthy to insert the penis into the rectum – the organ whose sole purpose is to expel poisons from the body? As you’ve probably heard before, “It’s an exit, not an entrance.” The rectum is a one-way street. It’s a sewer. It was designed that way. Labeling its abuse as an act of “love” will not change that undeniable fact.The standard homosexual respond to this is, “It’s natural for me because I desire to do it.” However, I don’t mean “natural” in the sense of desire, but “natural” in the sense of design. Human beings have all sorts of desires to do things that are physically destructive (e.g. smoking, getting drunk, violence, drug abuse, etc.), and those things often “feel good.” But we don’t excuse those behaviors because they come “naturally.” The human body was not designed for anal intercourse. Such an act violates its natural design, and having a desire to engage in such an act dose not change the fact that it is unnatural, physically, and medically destructive.
  2. Coupled homosexuals tend to practice more anal intercourse and anal-oral sex than those without a steady partner. They also forgo safer-sex practices because they are more “in love.”[xxviii] In other words, more committed homosexuals tend to engage in riskier sexual behaviors than their single counterparts. So while married men improve their health and life span by engaging in sexual intercourse with their wives in a monogamous relationship, there is no comparable benefit to homosexual couples.
  3. If AIDS will not break promiscuity in homosexuals, it is highly unlikely that government-backed same-sex marriage will. As AIDS is falling among heterosexuals, it is still rising among homosexual men.[xxix]
  4. Even if monogamy could reduce health problems for homosexual couples, monogamy would still be the exception rather than the rule for homosexuals. The average number of sexual partners in a lifetime for a heterosexual is four, but for a homosexual it is fifty. The vast Sex in America survey published by the University of Chicago found monogamy among heterosexuals to be 83% but less than 2% for homosexuals.[xxx] Another survey had more moderate results, but still found infidelity in 62% of gay couples. That led researchers to write, “The practice of sexual non-monogamy among some gay couples is one variable that differentiates gay and heterosexual couples” in the Journal of Family Psychology.[xxxi]

Why is monogamy so much more common among between men and women? Could it be because men and women are designed for one another and are complementary to one another? Each sex balances and moderates what is lacking in the other. But in same-sex relationships, the pairing propels them to extremes. Lesbians tend to push each other to emotional extremes, which can be seen by the intense demands they put on one another, but males experience the most damaging effects. Instead of their sex drive being balanced by a woman, they reinforce and amplify the sex drive of one another, and explosive promiscuity ensues. Anywhere from 21-43% of gay men have several hundred sexual partners![xxxii]

In the 1970s, A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg did a comprehensive study on male and female sexuality. The study found that 43% of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28% having 1,000 or more sex partners. In the late 1990’s, a study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, found that only 2.7% claimed to have had sex with only a single partner. The most common response with 21.6% of the respondents was having between 101 and 500 sex partners over their entire lifetime.[xxxiii] Tragically, a great number of those partners are children. While male homosexuals only comprise 2-3% of the entire male population, they commit approximated one-third of all child molestation crimes. To put it bluntly, about one-third of all pedophile cases are homosexual in nature, man to boy.[xxxiv]

Whenever someone connects homosexuality to pedophilia, homosexual activists are quick to protest and deny the connection. However, the denial is often for publicity reasons. In gay and academic publications and at gay “pride” parades, the gay rights movement and the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) are working together to change the law to lower the age of consent. They also have friends in pretty high places. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was an ACLU attorney, actually advocated lowering the age of consent to twelve years old! Former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, marched with a leading advocate of NAMBLA in the 2001 San Francisco gay “pride” parade.[xxxv] But of course, this wasn’t mentioned by the mainstream media.

While homosexual activists attempt to deny claims that homosexuality and pedophilia can be linked, most openly admit that homosexuals are indeed extremely promiscuous. As was seen above, one of same-sex marriage advocate Andrew Sullivan’s main arguments in favor of same-sex marriage was that allowing them to marry would reduce promiscuity in monogamous relationships. That was already proven false. But Sullivan then goes on to directly contradict himself by believing that gay monogamy is not really possible. Instead, he says that gays “need” multiple partners! According to Sullivan, and most other surveys, monogamy is not “flexible” enough for homosexuals. He says monogamy is a “stifling model of heterosexual normality” and he believes that homosexuals actually have a greater “understanding for the need for extramarital outlets.”

Incredibly, Sullivan than goes so far as to state that heterosexuals should learn from the promiscuity of homosexuals! He writes, “something of the gay relationship’s necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds.”[xxxvi] Sullivan believes that instead of gays becoming more like straights, that straights should become more like gays, especially in regards to promiscuity. This is what homosexual activists are really after. They don’t want same-sex marriage so they can live in monogamy like most heterosexuals do, they want to tear down the standards of morality and normalcy to the level of their own actions and behavior so that they will feel validated for doing what they do. From Sullivan’s perspective, homosexual relationships, and all relationships, should be about self-gratification; they are about him and his desires. But that is not what true love is. Love, by definition, seeks the ultimate good of the loved one by “forsaking all others.” How is this the case with not just more than one, but up to 1000+ anonymous sexual partners?

Andrew Sullivan is considered to be “conservative” on the issue of same-sex marriage. Now, if he goes so far as a conservative to say all of this, how far do you think the liberal advocates go? These advocates want to change marriage into something unrecognizable. Since his new definition would not be about love, monogamy, or children, what would it be about?

So why does the law matter at all in all of this? Why is government endorsement so vital to the cause?

3. The law is a great teacher, and it encourages or discourages behavior.

Homosexuals understandably want their relationships to have equal social status with those of heterosexuals, and they see the law as their only weapon to force this acceptance upon the public. Gay activist Michelangelo Signorile believes that same-sex marriage is “a chance o wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea of change in how society views and treats us.”[xxxvii] Andrew Sullivan also states, “If nothing else were done at all and gay marriage were legalized, 90% of the political work necessary to achieve gay and lesbian equality will have been achieved. It’s ultimately the only reform that matters.”[xxxviii]

Now we have reached the true reason gay activists fight so hard for government-backed same-sex marriage. The fight is not really about civil rights at all – it is about civil acceptance. Government-backed same-sex marriage is the only avenue where the law will normalize homosexual behavior everywhere else, and they are correct. They see the power that the law has to change behavior and attitudes over long periods of time. The law is a great teacher, in that many people think that whatever is legal is moral, and that it should therefore be accepted. Two perfect examples of this can be seen in our nation’s historically most divisive issues – slavery and abortion.

During the time period of the Civil War, our nation was split on the issue of slavery, but nowadays, most citizens acknowledge that it is morally wrong. What changed? We definitely have not as a nation become more religious. What has changed is the law. The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution helped to teach the new generations that slavery is morally wrong. Unfortunately, changing the law can also lead a nation astray. In 1973, at the time of Roe v. Wade, most Americans thought abortion was morally wrong, which is evidenced by the numerous laws in every state that either outlawed or restricted abortion. But during the ensuing 40 years, abortion went from the majority being against, to being pretty evenly divided. What happened? The law was changed. Legalization led to more social acceptance of abortion and a sixteen-fold increase in abortions across the nation. If same-sex marriage receives government-backing, history has taught us that there will be similar results and increases in homosexual behavior as well.

A third example is divorce. One of the main arguments homosexual activists point towards to try and prove their point is that heterosexual marriage is broken. There is a 50% divorce rate among heterosexual married couples, and the statistics are the same in the church as well. Homosexual activists are correct when they say that heterosexuals have degraded marriage through divorce. Remember all of those statistics that resulted from the breakdown of the traditional family? Much of that is thanks to the liberalization of divorce laws several decades ago. Why do you think it is that we see so many elderly couples still together today? They knew what it was to commit to a loving marriage, and when things got rough, to work through it no matter what. Divorce was, and always should be, a last resort. But since their time, divorce laws have become lax, and now anyone can divorce someone whenever they want, whether there is cause such as adultery, or not. It comes back down to the selfishness that Sullivan pointed to. We as a society have become more concerned with what we want. If we’re not always 100% happy with the way things are, the law now allows us to forego all legal commitments, despite the vow of til death do us part. Parents in particular are more concerned with their own desires and happiness, that they fail to see the impact their behavior has on their children, and ultimately society as a whole. One just needs to look at all of those fatherless statistics again to see what I am saying is the truth. I am actually in favor of a tightening and restrictions on divorce laws. History and statistics have proven that if this were the case, much of our nation would be a lot better off today, and we would have many less societal problems.

But the fact that many heterosexuals have degraded marriage is not a successful argument in favor of same-sex marriage. In fact, history of the law and divorce argues against same-sex marriage. The incredible number of social problems our nation is facing due to the liberalization of divorce laws is staggering and should help us realize just how important the law is to the health of the family and the country. Throughout all of history, whenever laws have been passed that weaken the family, the entire nation got sick. This should be more of a cause for us to protect marriage, not further weaken it. When a sick patient has a disease, does giving him another disease make him any better?

4. Government-backed same-sex marriage would encourage and normalize homosexual behavior, and it would harm natural marriage, children, adults, and homosexuals themselves.

Now I know that each and every one of you has heard the argument, “Same-sex marriage wouldn’t harm anyone!” I’m here to tell you that that couldn’t be further from the truth.

How would same-sex marriage hurt natural marriage?

Many may not know this, but there are many college professors and liberal radicals that cannot stand the idea of natural marriage. The Gay Liberation Front in 1969 proclaimed, “We expose the institution of marriage as one of the most insidious and basic sustainers of the system.” To them, marriage is a hindrance to achieving full acceptance of sexual liberty. That’s why some of these people have devoted their lives to destroying the institution of marriage. One of these leaders is Judith Stacey, the former Barbra Streisand Professor of Contemporary Gender Studies at the University of Southern California, who now teaches at New York University. She declared, “I object to the profoundly discriminatory and antidemocratic character of the policies [marriage] promotes.”[xxxix] She abhors the institution so much that she has actually applauded the nations rising divorce rates!

And yet, despite this, Stacey is one of same-sex marriage’s greatest supporters. Why is this? In fact, most people who professional dislike marriage support same-sex marriage.[xl] So why is this? It’s because most of these people and their allies realize that the endorsement of same-sex marriage would mean destruction for natural marriage. Stacey quotes law professor, Nan D. Hunter, who argues that government-backed same-sex marriage would have “enormous potential to destabilize the gendered definition of marriage for everyone.”[xli] Michelangelo Signorile openly admits that this is his strategy as a gay activist. His goal isn’t to get government-backed same-sex marriage to allow gays to adhere to marriage’s moral code like straights do. He can already do that without the name of marriage or the government getting involved. And keep in mind, statistically, just about every other homosexual is like Signorile – 96% of them do not marry when given the chance. His goal is to destroy marriage itself. He urges his fellow homosexual activists “to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry, not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.”

Sneaky? Yep. Not what most people thing about what is really behind the gay rights movement? Yep. Signorile then writes, “The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake … is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.”[xlii] Paula Ettelbrick, former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund also agrees. She says, “Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex and sexuality, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society.”[xliii]

We as a society need to realize what the true driving force is behind the same-sex marriage movement and realize what these homosexual and anti-family zealots realize. They realize that changing the definition of marriage will indeed destroy traditional marriage itself because the new definition will help change the attitudes and behaviors of America’s citizens over the next few generations. They are correct in what will happen. Natural marriage will be dragged down to their level, marriage will be destroyed, and their sexual choices will be validated.

If you’re still not sure how this law changed would destroy marriage, consider this analogy. Presently, the legal benefits that are given to married couples affirm the fact that we consider natural marriage to be the most valuable sexual relationship in our society. If sexual relationships were players on a sports team, marriage would get the Most Valuable Player (MVP) Award. In sports, that is an esteemed honor given only to the player whose performance is truly exceptional and the most valuable to the team. But let’s assume that the sports league commissioner decided to redefine the qualifications to be MVP to the point where every single player got the award, even those who performed poorly or contributed nothing to the effort. The third-string quarterback who didn’t make a play all season would be seen as just as valuable as the MVP quarterback who made all of the game-winning plays. At this point, would anyone think the MVP award was special at all? No, everyone would think it was meaningless. Why even bother to pick the trophy up?

Likewise, the value of natural marriage will be diminished if we redefine the qualifications and make all of the benefits equal. We need to stop being politically correct and realize that just as all players on a team do not contribute equally, all relationships are not equally valuable to a society. Natural marriage is the most valuable relationship in any civilization. That’s not bigotry or hatred, it’s the observable truth based on evidence from 5,000 years of human experience, further evidenced by the design of the human body, and by the documented beneficial results of natural marriage to children, their parents, and society.

If we allow other sexual relationships to have the same status as natural marriage, whether it is man-man, woman-woman, man-daughter (incest), man-woman-man, or whatever-whatever, we will degrade marriage itself, just like we degrade the MVP award by giving it to every player. Whenever we degrade anything, we get less of it. When we degrade marriage, we will get less of it, and our civilization will be further weakened. Children will bear the brunt of this burden.

How would same-sex marriage hurt children?

David Blankenhorn is the founder and president of the non-partisan Institute for American Values, which is an organization devoted to strengthening families and civil society. He describes himself as a lifelong liberal Democrat[xliv] who disagrees with the Bible’s prohibitions on homosexuality.[xlv] He also buys into the false notion that people who have homosexual desires are somehow placed into a special class of people who do not presently have equal rights. Despite all of this, Blankenhorn makes a powerful case that same-sex marriage must not be endorsed in his book, The Future of Marriage. He says, “Here is my dilemma: With every fiber of my being, I want to affirm the equal dignity of all persons and push for equal treatment under the law. Yet I’m also a marriage nut. I’ve spent most of my professional life arguing that marriage is important and that children need mothers and fathers.”[xlvi] So while he sympathizes with homosexuals, he still believes that the negative cost on the nation would far outweigh any positive outcomes that could come.

Why is this? He cites several of the reasons I’ve already given, but his main reason is for the good of the children. “Across history and cultures … marriage’s single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a mother and a father. Changing marriage to accommodate same-sex couples would nullify this principle in culture and in law,” he writes.[xlvii]  So how would same-sex marriage nullify parenthood and be harmful to children? Once the government endorses the idea that marriage is nothing more than a legal contract between consenting adults or any gender, then marriage would no longer be seen as being a prerequisite for children, and be seen as nothing more than coupling. This is how Andrew Sullivan presently sees marriage right now, when he writes “coupling – not procreation – is what civil marriage now is.”[xlviii]

If “coupling” is how future generations will view generation, they will forgo marriage before having children, and more children will be born out of wedlock. Why go through the trouble of getting married in order to have children, if that’s not what marriage is about? Why commit to someone if you don’t need to? This would further hurt children because illegitimate parents (not the fault of the children) most often never form a family. In fact, couples who cohabitate break up at a rate of two to three times that of married parents.[xlix] When illegitimacy rises, it is not only the children who suffer, but the rest of us are forced to pay higher social costs because of the resulting increases in crime, poverty, taxes, and social spending. (Don’t forget that statistics show that children from broken homes overwhelmingly account for the majority of violent crimes and youth problems.)

But is all of this just hypothetical? Are these just some hysterical claims with no actual evidence to back them up on? This stuff might happen? No. We can look at the results in other countries that have already legalized same-sex marriage to see what is happening. Norway has had same-sex marriage since the early 90s and illegitimacy has exploded. In the most liberal county of Norway, Nordland, which is so liberal that they fly gay “rainbow” flags over their churches, it is even worse. More than 80% of women giving birth for the first time do so out of wedlock, and nearly 70% of all children are born out of wedlock. Across the entire country of Norway, illegitimacy rose from 39% to 50% in the first decade of same-sex marriage.[l]

Anthropologist Stanley Kurtz writes, “When we look at Nordland and Nort-Troendelag – the Vermont and Massachusetts of Norway – we are peering as far as we can into the future of marriage in a world where gay marriage is almost totally accepted. What we see is a place where marriage itself has almost totally disappeared.[li] It is just not Norway. International surveys show a mutually re-enforcing relationships between same-sex marriage and illegitimacy. Natural marriage is weakest where same-sex marriage is legal and illegitimacy is strongest.[lii]

No-fault divorce laws began in only one state, which was California, and eventually spread to the rest of the country. These liberalized divorce laws have permanently changed our attitudes and behaviors about the permanence of marriage, as is clearly evident with the now 50% divorce rate. There is no doubt that liberalized marriage laws will help to change our attitudes and behaviors about the purpose of marriage. The reason that same-sex marriage advocates like Sullivan and Signorile fight so strongly in favor of changing the law is because they know and have admitted there is a direct correlation with the law and changing attitudes and behavior. Blankenhorn and Kurtz are also aware of this fact, which is why they are so adamantly against it. Blankenhorn writes, “One can believe in same-sex marriage. One can believe that every child deserves a mother and a father. One cannot believe both.”[liii] Why not? Because as statistics from other countries has shown, “redefining marriage to include gay and lesbian couples would eliminate entirely in law, and weaken still further in culture, the basic idea of a mother and a father for every child.”[liv] Blankenhorn goes on in his book to express amazement at how little same-sex marriage advocates care about the negative effects on children. He documents many of them as denying that marriage has anything at all to do with children.[lv]

He goes on to say that if same-sex marriage is made legal, the claim that “every child needs a father and a mother” will most likely be viewed as “divisive and discriminatory, possibly even as hate speech.”[lvi] Sound extreme? Well it’s happening in countries that have already adopted such positions. Canada and Sweden already restrict speech against homosexuality to the point that even pastors have been jailed by simply quoting Bible verses.[lvii] In the U.S., the Democrat Party continually is putting forth “hate-crime” legislation, which will lead to the same result. The whole special legislation for ‘hate-crimes’ is a joke in itself. Seriously, how many ‘love-crimes’ do you know of? Every single crime is a hate-crime. It’s nonsense.

On the situation in Scandinavia, Kurtz writes, “Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.”[lviii] If marriage is no longer about children, then what institution is? If marriage is only going to be redefined as coupling, why endorse it at all? Same-sex couples can already have his. Contrary to what gay activists want to believe, the state does not endorse marriage because heterosexual couples ‘love each other.’ The state endorses marriage does for children, which then goes on to benefit and better society.

There is no societal benefit by redefining marriage, only harm, as the data from other countries and the rise in illegitimacy has shown. The future of children and any civilized society is based upon the marriage of men and women, and that’s why regardless of where you stand on the gay marriage issue, the two should never be legally equated. We already have enough problems with illegitimacy in America, we don’t need to further perpetuate them. Unfortunately, if we go the same route as other countries have before us, we will only get the same results. There will be a massive rise in illegitimate parenthood and all of the social problems that come along with that. Children will be hurt the most, but so would you.

How would same-sex marriage hurt you?

This is the argument that I hear most often from same-sex marriage advocates. They say, “It wouldn’t hurt you at all! Why do you even care?” But those assumptions are very faulty and the harm and personal negative impact can be demonstrated very easily.

  1. 1.    Income taxes will be increased to make up for the marriage tax benefits given to homosexual couples and to pay for the social costs resulting from the increase in illegitimacy. Married couples are provided financial benefits because they produce and care for children, which in turn make for a better future and society. Why should homosexual couples get the same benefits as men and women raising children, when the results are demonstratably not the same? Providing financial incentives for homosexual unions would be doubly counterproductive. First, you, the taxpayers would be subsidizing, thus encouraging this behavior. And second, we would then also have to pay for the results of the negative behavior in the form of increased medical and social costs on the taxpayers.
  2. 2.    Social security taxes will be increased (or benefits decreased) in order to pay survivor support benefits to homosexual “widows” and “widowers.”
  3. 3.    Medical insurance premiums will rise in order to offset the higher health care costs that are associated with homosexual behavior, such as AIDS, colon and rectal cancer, hepatitis, and other diseases, which will increase if we approve of same-sex marriage. Medical premiums would further be raised if insurance companies are ever mandated to cover fertility treatments for lesbian couples.
  4. 4.    Employee benefits will be reduced as employers will be forced to spread their limited benefit dollars to include homosexual partners. The money for this has to come from somewhere, and would actually come from everywhere else – married couples raising children.
  5. 5.    Homosexual couples will be given legal preference to adopt due to their inability to have children of their own. Basically, homosexuals would not be granted equal rights, but super rights – rights that supersede your own rights as a citizen. Sadly, it is the children who will be treated as trophies that are used to validate homosexual relationships.
  6. 6.    Your children will be indoctrinated in public schools, with or without your parental consent, to accept homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage as the moral and social equivalent to heterosexual behavior and marriage. This is already happening in public schools in California and Massachusetts.
  7. 7.    Your workplace will attempt to indoctrinate you to the same ends. If you refuse, you’ll either lose your job or not be considered a “team player.” (This is already happening through “diversity” training in many companies, and will become universal if same-sex marriage becomes law.
  8. 8.    Your place of worship will be forced to hire homosexuals and play by new draconian rules that impose homosexuality. Recently in Massachusetts, it is now state mandated to all adoption agencies to offer children to homosexual couples. A Catholic adoption charity was forced to close its doors for not going along with it. “Tolerance” will become a one-way street, where you need to tolerate and even advance homosexuality, but homosexual activists don’t have to tolerate your own views.
  9. 9.    Free speech and religious rights will be curtailed as opposition to homosexuality will inevitably be classified as “hate speech,” as is now the case in Canada and Sweden. This should wake up religious people who falsely believe that they should completely stay out of politics. Politics affect your ability to practice your religion! Many same-sex marriage advocates already consider those with religious moral convictions to be on par with racists. How long before your rights are taken away, or you too will be imprisoned for speaking out against harmful behaviors, like in Canada and Sweden? I mean, just look at what has happened recently with Chick-Fil-A. The owner never even mentioned homosexuality or gay marriage in the first interview with a CHRISTIAN news paper that ignited this entire firestorm. All he said was ‘guilty as charged’ to believing and supporting traditional marriage. The media did the rest for him by putting words in his mouth and deciding what CFA believed instead of CFA themselves. And now this successful Christian business is being denied business in Boston and Chicago because they ‘discriminate.’ So, are these cities also going to evict every single church, synagogue, mosque, Urban Outfitters,  and Boy Scouts? Just to name a few.
  10. 10. Your government and its intrusive ways will grow as a result of all of these changes. That’s another reason why liberals are so in favor of same-sex marriage; because it advanced big government. They’ll call for more and more programs to fix the mess, which will inevitably be caused by the destruction of the family and more government regulation to ensure that their new morality and political correctness is imposed on you, your children, and your place of worship. This is already beginning to happen today. Just take a look at the recent contraception controversy with the Catholic Church.

These negative effects are very significant, but as we have seen, the most dramatic impact will fall upon future generations. That’s because legal same-sex marriage will change the attitudes and beliefs homosexuality and marriage itself. Ironically, this will also hurt homosexuals.

How would same-sex marriage hurt homosexuals?

For more than two hundred years of our nation’s history, homosexuality was considered bad enough that many state laws prohibited sodomy. This all changed in the 2003 Supreme Court case Lawrence vs. Texas, which struck down all anti-sodomy laws. Instead of prohibiting homosexual behavior, our government began to permit it. If the courts ever legalize same-sex marriage, we will in effect be saying that sodomy is now good enough to promote, from prohibit, to permit, to promote. Same-sex marriage would promote the demonstratably false idea that homosexual behavior is just as healthy and beneficial as heterosexual behavior. This wouldn’t just hurt society, but would also hurt homosexuals themselves.

Given the serious health consequences that we know exist and coincide directly with homosexual behavior, we would be unloving as a society to endorse it. We wouldn’t simply allow people to destroy themselves, but we would be promoting it. In The Marketing of Evil, David Kupelian writes “We’ve forgotten as a society what love is, because supporting and justifying homosexuality is not real love any more than glorifying drinking helps the alcoholic or celebrating smoking helps wipe out lung cancer … The most loving stance for others to take is not to serve as enablers of self-destructive and immoral compulsions, but to stand in patient but firm opposition.”[lix]

How come we as a society don’t do this? Why don’t we stand in patient but firm opposition. Part of the problem is that our society as a whole is not aware of the many negative health consequences, which have lead to the death of not only countless homosexuals, but also thousands of innocent heterosexuals. Another reason is that we are afraid of being labeled intolerant, homophobic, or other false name-callings. The other reason is because it’s much easier to uncritically accept half-truths put out by homosexual activists, and then have what seems to be love and compassion for them by giving them what they want. But is this real compassion? Is allowing and encouraging one to partake in harmful behavior that substantially increases their chances of death actually love? Jay Budziszewski observes that real “compassion ought to make us visit the prisoner, dry out the alcoholic, help the pregnant girl prepare for the baby, and encourage the young homosexual to live chastely. But how much easier it is to forget the prisoner, give the drunk a drink, send the girl to the abortionist, and tell the kid to just give in. False compassion is a great deal less work than true.”[lx]

People are hurt by our false compassion that promotes homosexuality. This false compassion not only entices more young adults to experiment with homosexuality and bisexuality, but makes the struggle more difficult for homosexuals who would like to leave the lifestyle. George Gilder points out, “Some gays … are not helped by the aggressive gay liberation movement that wants to flush them out of the closet and into the street where they can be exploited by the gay rights brigade. They want to live quietly and productively and are thoughtful enough not to want to inflict their problem on others.”[lxi] Promoting problematic and harmful behaviors on others is not loving and is anything but compassionate. Homosexual activists will most likely object to the suggestion that we know what’s best for them and would most likely say something like, “Keep your compassion to yourself. I want to behave this way!” And that is fine, and you are free to continue to behave that way. But don’t expect the rest of society to endorse it. That would be unloving. Government-backed same-sex marriage would be harmful to you, our children, our country, and homosexuals themselves.

5. The law should promote behaviors that are beneficial and prohibit (or at least not endorse) those that are destructive.

Most same-sex marriage advocates want to redefine marriage to include them because they think that it is unfair how heterosexual relationships are recognized when theirs are not. However, this is a misunderstanding of why the state is involved in marriage at all. The state doesn’t endorse natural marriage because the two people “love” each other. It endorses it because man-woman unions benefit the public welfare in the numerous ways that we have seen (children, health, reduced social costs, less crime, etc.). And besides, if marriage is merely a private affair solely about “love,” as many same-sex marriage advocates claim, then why do they want the government involved at all? They don’t need the government in order to show their love for one another or pledge their lifelong love to one another (even though only 4% of homosexuals do so in countries that have already legalized same-sex marriage).

By their own admission, the real reason homosexuals want the government involved is to force acceptance of homosexuality on the public. They want to change the law because they know that is how they can change the entire culture’s behavior on future generations. State sanction would lead to social sanction. The approval of the law will lead to the approval of homosexuality. That’s what this is all really about. It’s not about marriage; only the validation that marriage would bring them. But government doesn’t exist to validate the desires of its citizens when such validation would harm others or society. In fact, the role of the government is supposed to be the opposite – the main purpose of government is to protect its citizens from harm. That is why good laws endorse behaviors that are beneficial to society and the public welfare and restrain behaviors that are destructive to it. The father of our Constitution put it well when he wrote, “If men were angels no government would be necessary. But since we are not angels, government’s role is to discourage harm and encourage good. No society lasts very long when government reverses that role.

6. Therefore, the law should promote natural marriage, and it should provide no option for government-backed same-sex marriage or civil unions.

I have argued quite extensively now that natural marriage is beneficial to society while same-sex marriage is detrimental. But if you are still not convinced, consider this: What would the effect on society be if everyone lived faithfully in natural marriage? It would result in a dramatic reduction in crime, welfare, abortion, and child abuse. Now, what would the same effect be if our entire society lived faithfully in same-sex marriage? It would be the end of society and the human race itself. While universal homosexuality would never occur, the above scenarios should help us realize that the two relationships can never be equated because they are not equally beneficial.

Basically, homosexuality is proven to not be good for the individuals or for society. And while government cannot successfully prohibit all negative and destructive behaviors, they certainly can avoid endorsing and promoting them. Marriage is hard enough today as it is, with the media advertising instant gratification and mocking the idea of natural marriage, making it more and more difficult for couples to commit to one another or stay together once they do. The last thing we need to be doing is to use the law to encourage the same kind of destructive behavior as well. But why not accept the compromised position of “civil unions?” Because civil unions still give government endorsement and financial benefits to a destructive behavior. Language manipulation does not change that fact, and renaming a bad law will not magically make the negative effects of that law disappear.

[i] The book was by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hared of Gays in the 90s (New York: Penguin, 1989), pgs. 152-153.

[ii] In the Netherlands, which has had same-sex marriage since 2001, only between 2 and 6 percent of homosexuals have married. Such low numbers are consistent in other areas as well (we’ll use the average of 4% or 96% who have not married). The rate is highest at 16.7% in the early days of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. But that number, which is still low, is probably reflecting the same pent-up demand found in the Netherlands where the number of same-sex marriages has declined every year since 2001. See Maggie Gallagher and Joshua Baker, “Demand for Same-Sex Marriage: Evidence from the United States, Canada, and Europe,” Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, April 26, 2006. Posted online at http://www.marriagedebate.com.

[iii] The “divorce” rate for homosexual men in Norway and Sweden is 50% higher (1.50) than heterosexual marriage, and the lesbian divorce rate is more than 150 percent higher (2.67). See Gunnar Andersson et al., “The Demographics of Same-Sex Marriage is Norway and Sweden,” Demography 43, 2006: 79-98. For a number of articles containing research on homosexuality see http://www.americansfortruth.com

[iv] Greg Koukl, “Same-Sex Marriage – Challenges and Responses,” May 2004, posted online at http://www.strradio.org.

[v] Quoted in Greg Koukl, “Same-Sex Marriage – Challenges and Responses,” May 2004, posted online at http://www.strradio.org.

[vi] See Marital status and longevity in the United States population, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16905719. For those not married, having never been married is the strongest predictor of premature mortality.

[vii] Robert E. Rector, Patrick F. Fagan, and Kirk A. Johnson, “Marriage: Still the Safest Place for Women and Children,” The Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/research/family/bg1732.cfm.

[viii] Patrick F. Fagan et al., “The Positive Effects of Marriage: A Book of Charts,” The Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/research/features/marriage/index.cfm.

[ix] See Patrick F. Fagan et al., “The Positive Effects of Marriage: A Book of Charts,” The Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/research/features/marriage/index.cfm.

[x] Michael J. McManus, “Why Is It in the Government’s Interest to Save Marriages?” The Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/research/family/WM80.cfm.

[xi] Ibid, Fagan, Chart 17.

[xii] Ibid, Fagan, Chart 29.

[xiii] Ibid, Fagan, Chart 21.

[xiv] Ibid, Fagan, Charts 16-29

[xv] Joseph Daniel Unwin, Sex and Culture (London: Oxford University Press, 1934).

[xvi] Most of these fatherless statistics, with references to their original sources, can be found here: http://fathersforlife.org/divorce/chldrndiv.htm.

[xvii] Dr. James Dobson, Marriage Under Fire, (Sisters, Oregon, Multnoman), 2004, pg. 54.

[xviii] Even pro-homosexual researchers admit that homosexual parenting studies are flawed because political views often bias the findings. Contrary to what some studies supposedly found, the sexual behavior of the parents does affect children. See Kelley O. Beaucar, “Homosexual Parenting Studies are Flawed, Report Says,” July 18, 2001. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,29901,00.html. For a personal testimony of someone who grew up in a homosexual household and staunchly opposed it, see Dawn Stefanowicz’s book Out from Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting, (Annotation Press, 2007). You can read her moving testimony at http://www.dawnstefanowicz.com.

[xix] Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Marriage and society and the boundaries of gay adoption, posted online at http://www.jennifer-roback-morse.com/articles/gay_adoption.html.

[xx] Andrew Sullivan, “Here Comes the Groom: A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage,” posted online at http://www.andrewsullivan.com/homosexuality.php.

[xxi] The actual AIDS figure is probably higher than 82% because nearly all of the supposedly heterosexually-transmitted cases have a “risk factor not specified.” Since homosexual contact is one of the most efficient ways of transmitting the disease, many of those not specified cases probably originated with homosexual contact. See Center for Disease Control, Cases of HIV infection and AIDS in the United States and Dependent Areas, 2006 HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, Volume 17, April 2008. See Table 17: Reported AIDS cases, by age category, transmission category, and sex, 2006 and cumulative – United States and dependent areas. Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2006report/table17.htm.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, gay and bisexual men account for the vast majority of syphilis cases (more than 60% in 2005). See also William Dunham, “Syphilis rise in U.S. gay, bisexual men causes worry,” Reuters, May 4, 2007. Posted online at http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2007-05-04T170053Z_01_N04373052_RTRUKOC_0_US-SYPHILIS-USA.xml&src=rss&rpc=22.

[xxii] John R. Diggs, Jr. M.D, “The Health Risks of Gay Sex,” Corporate Resource Council, 2002. Available online at http://www.corporateresource-council.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf.
R.S. Hogg, S.A. Strathdee, K.J. Craib, M.V. O’Shaughnessy, J.S. Montaner, and M.T. Schechter “Modeling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men,” International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 26, 657-661. Available online at http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstratct/26/3/657.
Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Gran Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), 54, 69. For a recent study on HIV soaring among men having sex with teenage boys, see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25398121.
More controversial studies have been conducted by Dr. Paul Cameron (http://www.familyresearchinst.org/). Some researchers and many homosexual activists question the methodology of Dr. Cameron’s life span studies, which found that the median age of death for male homosexuals is in the forties and lesbians in the fifties. A summary and discussion of Cameron’s research can be found in “Only the gay die young? An exchange between Warren Throckmorton, Morten Frisch, Pual Cameron, and Kirk Cameron,” August 2007, http://wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/cameron.pdf. See also Frank Turek and Norman Geisler, Legislating Morality. (Eugene, OR, Wipf & Stock, 2003), 259-260, (note 4).
The authors of the undisputed Hogg study, from which the 8-20 year life span reduction range comes, did not like the fact that some people were citing their study to oppose homosexual political goals. They issued a short “letter to the editor” four years after their initial study that concluded, “Overall, we do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group.” In the letter, they claim that deaths from HIV infections have dropped significantly in four years but gave no update to their 8-20 y ear figure (see http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1499). Dr. Throckmorton in his exchange with Dr. Cameron (see reference above) made an admittedly “rough” speculation that the life span reduction is really three to seven years.
Some homosexual activists admit homosexuals die younger but blame “homophobia” for the reduction in life span. For example, in an overtly pro-gay piece, Christopher Banks from the University of Saskatchewan prepared a study for the Gay and Lesbian Health services in Saskatoon titled: The Cost of Homophobia: Literature Review of the Economic Impact of Homophobia on Canada (see http://www.lgbthealth.net/downloads/researh/Human_Impact_of_Homophobia.pdf). Banks agrees with the numbers found if the study by Hogg, et. al. above, but says that homophobia drives homosexuals to drink more, smoke more, use drugs more, commit suicide more, etc.

This explanation, however, does not square with facts. If “homophobia” was the cause of such health problems then we would expect such problems to disappear in societies that already endorse homosexual behavior and marriage. That’s not what we find at all. In places where homosexuality is widely accepted, even celebrated, the health problems are worse. Whatever the actual life span reduction is, this we know for certain: male homosexual contact in particular is inherently unhealthy, and encouraging it only leads to more health problems, not less. Encouraging homosexuality also leads to the other high-risk lifestyle choices that tend to go with it (smoking, drinking, drug use, etc.). Yet even if homosexual behavior were just as healthy as heterosexual behavior, same-sex marriage should still be opposed in order to protect children and the country.

[xxiii] Center for Disease Control, Cases of HIV infection and AIDS in the United States and Dependent Areas, 2005 HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, Volume 17, Revised Edition, June 2007. See Table 17: Reported AIDS cases, by age category, transmission category, and sex, 2005 and cumulative – United States and dependent areas. Available online at http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2005report/table17.htm. See http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2006report/table17.htm for 2006 numbers.
[xxiv] Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, “Ten Things Lesbians Should Discuss With Their Health Care Provider,” http://www.glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageID=691.
[xxv] Katherine Fethers, et al., “Sexually transmitted infection and risk behaviors in women who have sex with women,” Sexually Transmitted Infections 76:345-349 (2000).
[xxvi] For a summary of lesbian health problems, see John R. Diggs, Jr. M.D, “The Health Risks of Gay Sex,” Corporate Resource Council, 2002, pgs. 5-6. http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf.
[xxvii] Ibid, Sullivan.
[xxviii] David Dunlap, “In Age of AIDS, Love and Hope Can Lead to Risk,” New York Times, July 27, 1996.
[xxix] Mike Stobbe, “CDC understated number of new HIV infections in US,” Reuters, August 2, 2008. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080802/ap_on_he_me/med_hiv_infections.
[xxx] Jeffery Satinover, M.D., Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), 54. The data from which Dr. Satinover draws these figures is the Sex in America survey published by researchers from the University of Chicago in 1994.
[xxxi] Quoted in Warren Throckmorton, Ph.D., “Chris Matthews’ Hard Sell Pay attention to the common Assumptions about Gay Marriage,” online at http://www.pfm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=13210.
[xxxii] See Van de Ven, Paul,; Pamela Rodden, June Crawford, and Susan Kippax (1997). “A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men.” J. of Sex Research Vol. 34, No. 4, 1997. For a bibliography and summary of studies, see Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D., “The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality,” Insight, Issue No. 232. Available online at http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1.
[xxxiii] Ibid.
[xxxiv] One study found the figure to be 36%. See Kurt Freund, et al., “Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,” Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 10 (1984): 197. Another study found the figure to be 25%. See Ray Blanchard, et, al., “Fraternal Birth Order and Sexual Orientation in Pedophiles,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 29 (2000): 464. Whatever the precise number is, it is widely agreed that sexual abuse of boys is underreported. For additional studies and data on this issue, see Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D., “Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse”, Insight, Issue No. 247. Available online at http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3#edn22.

[xxxv] See Brent Bozell, “Democrats on Sex and Children,” TownHall.com, October 11, 2006, available online at http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BrenBozellIII/2006/10/11/democrats_on_sex_and_children. For more on the connection between homosexuality and pedophilia see: The Problem of Pedophilia, National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, September 21, 2004, available online at http://www.narth.com/docs/pedophNEW.html.

[xxxvi] Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal, (USA: Vintage Books, 1996), pgs. 202-203.
[xxxvii] Michelangelo Signorile, “I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do,” OUT Magazine, May 1996, pg. 30.
[xxxviii] Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal, (USA, Vintage Books, 1996), pg. 185.
[xxxix] Judith Stacey, “Letters”, The Nation, October 1, 2001, posted online at http://www.amercanvalues.org/html/page124951.html.

[xl] David Blankenhorn, The Future of Marriage, (New York, Encounter Books), 2007, pg. 28.

[xli] Judith Stacey, In the Name of the Family, (Boston: Beacon Press, 1997).
[xlii] Michelangelo Signorile, “Bridal Wave,” Out, December 1994. Quoted in Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D., Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk, Insight,  Issue No. 238. Available online at http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01J3.
[xliii] Quoted in Tim Leslie, “The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage,” Crisis January 8, 2004. Available online at http://www.crisismagazine.com/january2004/leslie.htm.
[xliv] David Blankenhorn, “Strengthening America’s Families,” “Letter”, The Nation, October 1, 2001, posted online at http://www.americanvalues.org/html/page124951.html. See also David Blankenhorn, The Future of Marriage, (New York, Encounter Books), 2007, 302.
[xlv] David Blankenhorn, The Future of Marriage, (New York, Encounter Books), 2007, pg. 210.
[xlvi] Ibid, pg. 128.
[xlvii] Ibid, pg. 178. Emphasis in original.
[xlviii] http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_01_25_dish_archive.html#107526329968381529. Also quoted by Stanly Kurtz in “Slipping Toward Scandinavia,” The National Review, February 2, 2004. http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz.

[xlix] Stanley Kurtz, “The End of Marriage in Scandinavia,” Weekly Standard, February 2, 2004, http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp.

[l] Stanley Kurtz, “The End of Marriage in Scandinavia,” Weekly Standard, February 2, 2004, http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp.

[li] Kurtz, “Slipping Toward Scandinavia.” Kurtz responds to his critics in, “Smoking Gun: The Netherlands shows the effect of Same-sex Marriage,” in National Review Online, June 2, 2006. Available here: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDFhMjk0YjI4NzgyZGM4NjMxZmY4NTQwZWNjYzkzYjg.
[lii] For example, only 37% of people from countries with same-sex marriage think they should marry if they want children while 60% of people from countries without same-sex marriage think so. The same attitude holds true with regard to cohabitation: 83% think it’s acceptable in same-sex marriage countries, but only 49% think so elsewhere. See David Blankenhorn, The Future of Marriage, (New York, Encounter Books), 2007, pg. 233.
[liii] David Blankenhorn, The Future of Marriage, (New York, Encounter Books), 2007, pg. 201.
[liv] Ibid, pg. 3.

[lv] Ibid. pg. 152.

[lvi] Ibid, pg. 3.
[lvii] Harry Jackson Jr., “The Massacre of the Pulpit,” April 23, 2007, posted online at http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/HarryRJacksonJr/2007/04/23/the_massacre_of_the_pulpit.
[lviii] Kurtz, “The End of Marriage in Scandinavia.” Weekly Standard, February 2, 2004, http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp.
[lix] David Kupelian, The Marketing of Evil, (Nashville, WND Books, 2005), pg. 37.
[lx] J. Budziszewski, What We Cant’ Not Know, (Dallas: Spence, 2003).
[lxi] George Gilder, Men and Marriage, (Adler, 1986), pg. 74.
[lxii] If atheism is true and random evolutionary processes got you to this point, you are under no obligation to live in any way. There are no “oughts” if here is no God. See footnote 66 for more.
[lxiii] For a summary of these studies, see Peter Sprigg and Timothy Dailey, co-editors, Getting it Straight: What the Research Shows about Homosexuality, (Family Research Council, Washington, D.C. 2004), pgs. 1-34.
[lxiv] Hermaphrodites (hose born with male and female sex organs) are extremely rare among humans. The condition is considered a birth defect, and thus does not affect our line of reasoning here. Defects in design do not suggest how those without defects should behave. Moreover, hermaphrodites often choose one gender or the other, and some have surgery doing so.
[lxv] Design explains human beings better than random evolutionary processes. Moreover, since homosexuals don’t reproduce, “natural selection” would have selected them to extinction by now if homosexuality had a genetic source. For the numerous problems with Darwinism and the evidence for design, see chapters 5 and 6 of Frank Turek and Norman Geisler’s book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, (Wheaton, Crossway, 2004).