Tolerance or Gay Propaganda?

April 20, 2010

19 April – With the recent appointment of Gen. Carter Ham, commander of U.S. Army forces in Europe, and Jeh Johnson, the Pentagon’s chief legal counsel, to head a yearlong study of the U.S. military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” rule banning open gays in the military, it would appear that, however slowly, radical change is afoot.  It is a change that would not only negatively impact military personnel but would also signal a dramatic erosion of American values by a group intent on bending society to accommodate them, namely, homosexual activists.

Family Security Matters

The homosexual agenda is a pervasive, militant plan that seeks vast changes in American society.  By undermining cultural norms, redefining the family and attacking time-honored traditions and religious teachings, the movement’s ultimate goal is societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal behavior and a normal life choice. This societal reengineering attempt masquerades as tolerance and support of human rights. Legitimate objections to the inherent risks of homosexual practices or religious beliefs against it are dismissed as “homophobia.” The agenda includes strident attempts to hold equal families of all compositions and the sanitizing of the detrimental effects homosexual behavior may have on children, families and society. Homosexual activists freely cite civil rights laws designed to protect classes of people with immutable, non-behavioral distinguishing characteristics, such as skin color, ethnicity and gender, and apply those same laws to the behavior of acting on a same-sex attraction. 

Misinformation about Homosexuality

The homosexual lobby wields its considerable, political muscle to exert pressure on the media, academia and Hollywood. All respond with positive portrayals of homosexuals and homosexual behavior, sacrificing accurate depictions and information in the service of sunny images. Yet, even as these images enjoy widespread dispersal, major notions about homosexuality are not supported by the available body of research. These include: 1) overblown statistics on the number of homosexuals in the general population, 2) the assertion that genetics determines homosexuality, 3) the idea that the risks of homosexual behavior are on a par with those of heterosexual behavior, 4) equating homosexual marriage/parenting with heterosexual marriage/parenting, and 5) the notion that sexual orientation education for children promotes healthier sexual attitudes and adjustments.Below is an analysis and refutation of each.

 1) The Homosexual Population 

The most widely cited national survey to date on the percentage of homosexuals in the population at large was published by Chicago University Press in 1994. In the study[i], professors Lauman, Gagnon, Michael and Michaels found that approximately two percent ofthe general population is non-heterosexual. The work of Alfred Kinsey, who grossly overestimated the homosexual population at 10 percent, has been discredited by social scientists who argue that Kinsey used a non-representative sample of research subjects and recorded any lifetime homosexual behavior, even a single encounter, as a basis for homosexual identification for his study. (Even admiring biographers James Jones and Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy[ii] characterized Kinsey as a sadistic homosexual who seduced male students and forced staff to participate in illegal pornographic films that he produced in the attic of his house). Those wishing to promote the homosexual agenda have continued to perpetuate the 10 percent myth, because it is in their interest to make homosexuality appear more prevalent than it actually is. 

2) Homosexuality as Genetically Determined

Two pivotal studies reveal that sexual orientation and gender identity are shaped by environmental influences during childhood. A 2006 national cohort study[iii] of two million native-born Danes between the ages of 18 and 49 provides striking evidence for the influence of childhood family factors. Denmark, the first country to legalize gay marriage, has a history of tolerance for alternative lifestyles, including homosexual partnerships. The researchers reviewed detailed marriage records for men and women marrying a same-sex partner from 1989-2001. They concluded that parental interactions were critical in determining sexual orientation. A unique 2008 study of 7,600 Swedish twins[iv], the largest of its kind to date, did not find homosexuality to be genetically determined. Only seven pairs of male-identical twins and 26 pairs of female-identical twins were found in which both had a same-sex partner in their lifetime. 

Adding fuel to the nurture argument, several experts have cited the success of sexual reorientation therapy. In his April 28, 2003, testimony before a Massachusetts Senate committee studying gay marriage, Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., stated that a review of research on sexual reorientation shows a 30-52 percent success rate in treating unwanted homosexual attraction. In a comprehensive review[v] of the available literature from 1930 to 1976 on the subject, Dr. Elizabeth James found that approximately 35 percent of clients seeking sexual reorientation treatment recovered. Meanwhile, Robert Spitzer, a self-identified “gay-affirmative” psychiatrist, gay rights supporter and Columbia University researcher, who responded to political pressure in 1973 to remove homosexuality as a disorder from thediagnostic manual of the American Psychiatric Association, conducted his own study[vi] on sexual reorientation. Much to his surprise, Dr. Spitzer found significant changes toward becoming heterosexual in those undergoing sexual reorientation. 

3) Risks of Homosexual Behavior

A 2009 study[vii] by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control estimated that men who have sex with men are 50 times more likely to contract HIV than are heterosexual men. This is largely due to risky sexual practices such as anal intercourse and multiple sexual partners. The study described the AIDS epidemic as driven by behavior, with homosexual behavior the primary means of transmission. Of the 24 categories of AIDS transmission listed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, male homosexuality occupies first place. A New Zealand study[viii] found that homosexual high school students and young adults had higher rates of depression, anxiety, behavioral problems and suicidal thoughts and attempts than their heterosexual counterparts. In their recent paper[ix], “Health Risks: Fisting and other Homosexual Practices,” Michelle Cretella, M.D., and Philip Sutton, PhD, citing liberally from medical literature, state, “In general, compared to heterosexually behaving adolescents and adults, having same-sex partners is associated with substantially greater risk for mood disorders, anxiety disorders, psychological distress, substance use disorders, for suicidal thoughts and suicidal plans, suicide attempts, unstable relationships and lower levels of quality of life.” The emotional problems cited by Cretella and Sutton, as well as the likelihood of high levels of substance abuse, were consistent with the findings in the Sandfort study[x] which was conducted in the Netherlands, a country with highly accepting views of homosexuality.

4) Homosexual Marriage/Parenting as Equivalent to Heterosexual Marriage/Parenting

In a review of the available literature on the risks of the homosexual lifestyle[xi] by Dr. Joseph Zanga of the American College of Pediatricians (ACPEDS), findings suggest that homosexual relationships are far less stable and exhibit greater rates of violence than heterosexual marriages. The rate of violence between homosexual partners is two to three times higher than among married heterosexuals and the average duration of a homosexual relationship is two to three years. A study[xii] of close to 1,300 same-sex partnerships in Norway and over 1,500 in Sweden found that same-sex couples are 1.5 times more likely todivorce than heterosexual couples and lesbian couples were 2.7 times more likely to divorceover a similar time period.

Extensive studies on child development over several decades affirm that the traditional family with one mother and one father is the best environment for raising children and promoting appropriate gender identity and heterosexuality. In a recent extensively referenced article posted on their website (, the American College of Pediatricians (ACPEDS) cites the intuitive finding which supports the participation of both mothers and fathers in parenting because of their unique and qualitatively different contributions to children’s overall development. 

According to the ACPEDS article, the “Psychological theory of child development has always recognized the critical role that mothers play in the healthy development of children. More recent research reveals that when fathers are absent, children suffer as well. Girls without fathers perform more poorly in school, are more likely to be sexually active and become pregnant as teenagers. Boys without fathers have higher rates of delinquency, violence, and aggression.” 

The ACPEDS article goes on to cite research on homosexual parenting that reveals that children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual identity confusion and engage in risky sexual behavior. In a review[xiii] of nine studies on the development of sexual orientation in childhood, Dr. Trayce Hansen found that children in homosexual households were seven times more likely to identify as a homosexual. Dr. Hansen affirms that sexual behavior is “largely socially learned” and that non-heterosexual parents would be more accepting of homosexual behavior than heterosexual parents.

5) Early Exposure to Sexual Orientation Education

Social scientists have found that the more an environment sanctions or promotes homosexuality, the more homosexual behavior will be induced.[xiv] According to psychologist Dr. Trayce Hansen who has extensively reviewed the research in this area, “Human sexual behavior is malleable and culturally influenced.” She explains that the more normalized homosexual behavior is, the greater the propensity toward sexual experimentation. This normalization of homosexuality with help from the media and endorsement by school programs has lead to an increased sexual confusion and increased frequency of homosexual behavior among youth. 

Dr. Hansen reports that LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) curriculums cause confusion and interfere with normal gender identity development. She advocates general programs that teach tolerance for all those who are different, rather than programs geared specifically toward different sexual orientations. 

According to a study in Pediatrics[xv], the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, nearly 26 percent of 12-year-olds are uncertain about their sexual orientation. By the time these youngsters reached 18, only 5 percent were uncertain and only 4.5 percent expressed attraction to the same sex. Also, the study found that many young people who express homosexual attractions have had troubled childhoods and are in need of counseling. Several factors such as a desire for attention, a feeling of alienation or the effect of molestation can lead to homosexual behavior.

Complicity of Academia and the Media

In today’s politically correct environment, it would be difficult to assert the obvious that it is preferable for a child to grow up to be heterosexual. Emphasis is on research that enhances the image of homosexuals. In fact, researchers are manipulated away from results that contradict the gay agenda. Media coverage of unfavorable studies is selective and sparse.  

In After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s,[xvi]Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen revealed their strategy for promoting the acceptance of homosexuality. They recommended talking often and loudly about homosexuals and homosexuality and making the case for the presentation of positive portrayals of gays. Kirk and Madsen also advise gay advocates to play into the sympathies of Americans by painting homosexuals as victims of unfairness. Their strategy has endorsed the characterization of gay rights as a civil rights issue. Kirk and Madsen have even suggested tactics such as targeting unbiased audiences like children, as well as concealing male homosexual promiscuity and predation toward boys. 

In addition, they advocate silencing critics by demonizing them as bigoted, desensitizing the public, “jamming” any negative information, and mobilizing sympathetic forces for politicalaction. Even though homosexual molestation occurs at a staggeringly higher rate than heterosexual child sexual abuse[xvii], the focus has purposely remained on damage control for the public image of homosexuals rather than on any risks to children. 

Researchers such as Lorraine Day, M.D. in her book AIDS: What the Government Isn’t Telling You,[xviii] reports on the difficulties encountered in seeking funding for studies that are unacceptable to homosexual authorities. She describes the predicament experienced by researchers who attempt to publish research that is viewed as unfavorable to the homosexual agenda, as well as problems inherent in review committees comprised of homosexual scientists and gay rights activists. Grant funding, career advancement and recognition are contingent on “toeing the party line,” Dr. Day explains. 

This censorship and skewing of research results has had unfortunate consequences. For example, the lack of data on the causes of pediatric AIDS is a result of deliberate censorship. Statistics are often presented in such a way that camouflages underlying problems. A report for World AIDS Day[xix] stated that 16 percent of adolescents have been infected through heterosexual contact rather than the more significant statistic that 84 percent of children with AIDS are infected through homosexual and bisexual sexual abuse.

For these reasons, Americans must stand watch over every change, like the proposed “don’t ask, don’t tell” revision, that seeks to promote homosexuality and homosexual relationships as equivalent alternatives to heterosexuality and the traditional family. Such a stance is dishonest and has grave implications for the future of American society, as we know it. The subterfuge of the homosexual agenda, its indoctrination of children and its misrepresentation of facts and censorship of the truth is a serious threat to an institution that has been the very bedrock of civilization. Clearly, this is not simply a civil rights issue but a deceptive re-engineering of the underpinning of American culture. Contributing Editor Janet Levy is an activist, public speaker and writer who blogs at 

[i] Lauman, Edward O., John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, and Stuart Michaels. 2000 the social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

[ii] Jones, James. 1997. Alfred C. Kinsey A Public/Private Life, 499-500, 605-614. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. and Gathorne-Hardy, Jonathan. 1998. Sex the Measure of All Things: A Life of Alfred C. Kinsey, 82-99. Great Britain: Chatto & Windus, Ltd.

[iii] Frisch, Morten, and Anders Hviid. 2006. Childhood family correlates of heterosexual and homosexual marriages: A national cohort study of two million Danes. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35: 533-547. 

[iv] Langstrom, Niklas, Qazi Rahman, Eva Carlstrom, and Paul Lichenstein. 2010. Genetic and Environmental Effects on Same-sex Sexual Behavior: A Population Study of Twins in Sweden.Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39: 75-80.

[v] James, Elizabeth C. 1978. Treatment of Homosexuality: A Reanalysis and Synthesis of Outcome Studies. PhD diss., Brigham Young University.

[vi] Spitzer, Robert. 2003. Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation?Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32: 403-417.

[vii] Lansky, Amy. 2009. Co-presenter, Future Directions and Updates from the Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, Paper presented at the 2009 National HIV Prevention Conference, Centers for Disease Control National Prevention Information Network. (accessed January 29, 2010).

[viii] Fergusson, David M., L.J. Horwood, and A.L. Beautrais. 1999. Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People? Archives of General Psychiatry, 56 (10) 876-880.

[ix] Cretella, Michelle, M.D., and Philip Sutton, PhD. 2010. Health Risks: Fisting and other Homosexual Practices, National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality. (accessed 2/10/10).

[x] Sandfort, Theo G.M.; Ron de Graaf, Rob V. Bijl, and Paul Schnabel. 2001. Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry, 58 (1): 85-91. 

[xi] Zanga, Joseph, M.D. 2004 Homosexual Parenting: Is it Time for a Change?  American College of Pediatricians. http://www.americancollegeofpediatricians.  org/Homosexual-Parenting-Is-it-Time-for-Change-Press-Release.html (accessed 2/03/10).

[xii] Andersson,Gunnar, Turid Noack, Ane Seierstad, and Harald Weedon-Fekjaer. 2004. Divorce-Risk Patterns in Same-Sex Marriages in Norway and Sweden, (accessed 2/02/10).

[xiii] Hansen, Trayce. 2008. A Review and Analysis of Research Studies Which Assessed Sexual Preference of Children Raised by Homosexuals. Dr. Trayce Hansen, Psychologist, Cultural Commentator & Author. (accessed 2/01/10).

[xiv] Lauman, op cit.

[xv] Barbara L. Frankowski, M.D.. 2004. Sexual Orientation and Adolescents, Pediatrics, 113 (6): 1827-1832.

[xvi] Kirk, Marshal, and Madsen, Hunter. 1989. After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s. Plume.

[xvii] Abel, Gene, et al. 1987. Self-reported Sex Crimes of Nonincarcerated Paraphiliacs , Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 3, 5-25.

[xviii] Day, Loraine. 1991. AIDS: What the Government Isn’t Telling You. Palm Desert, Calif.: Rockford Press.

[xix] Lifetime Wellness Curriculum. 1994-1995. In Lifetime Wellness Resource manual, Tennessee State Department of Education.