25 The Challenge

“The Voice of the silent majority ”

Submit Your Thoughts	Latest News	Links
View Feedback	Website Stats	What's New

Email us!

Please feel free to visit as new material is being included for you interest and comment however, many subjects are only partially complete as the site is constantly undergoing reconstruction

HOMOSEXUALITY

THE CHALLENGE

Pages:

THE CHALLENGE OF HOMOSEXUALITY
Bill Muehlenberg
Updated October 2004

Introduction
I Strategies of the Homosexual Lobby
II Homosexual Practices
III The Politics of AIDS
IV How Many Homosexuals Are There?
V Once Gay, Always Gay?
VI Gay Rights and Discrimination
VII Judicial Activism and Homosexuality
VIII The Homosexual Agenda
IX Homosexual Marriage
X Homosexual Adoption Rights
XI Homosexuality And Children
XII Homosexual Suicide
XIII Conclusion and Recommendations

INTRODUCTION

The issue of homosexuality and the threat it poses to the traditional family is a complex and difficult issue. A number of distinctions and qualifications need to be made to properly represent the position we hold.

The homosexual community, like the heterosexual community, is a diverse and multifaceted phenomenon. In talking about the homosexual community, one must not over-generalise, but be sensitive to distinctions and differences. Several distinctions can be made at the outset.

First, the militant, vocal homosexual lobby does not represent all homosexuals. Many homosexuals simply want to be left alone, to live their lives quietly and peacefully. The homosexual lobby, on the other hand, is militant, vocal and very public. It wants to promote the homosexual way of life as an equal alternative to heterosexual lifestyles. It is very aggressive, demanding that homosexual behaviour be embraced and accepted by the straight community. It publicly flaunts and promotes homosexuality, as in the Sydney Gay Mardi Gras. It is this militant lobby group that we are primarily concerned about when speaking about homosexuality. Most people do not mind the private, discreet activities of homosexuals or anybody else for that matter. But most Australians do worry about the militant homosexual lobby and its never ending agenda of demands (see section VIII), demands which will have a very real effect on family and society.

Second, male homosexual behaviour and female lesbian behaviour should be contrasted. In general, male homosexuals are much more promiscuous than lesbians. They are the really great risk group in the spread of HIV. Lesbians can be promiscuous, but tend to prefer monogamous relationships - although “serial monogamy” may best describe lesbian practice. The threat of catching HIV is much, much less in the lesbian community.

Third, to use religious jargon, one is to love the sinner while hating the sin. That is, all homosexuals deserve to be treated with respect, love and compassion, even though society has a legitimate right to dislike and censure homosexual behaviour and activity. Society, for example, can rightly disapprove of alcoholism, while seeking to help individual alcoholics. So too, society has a right to deem homosexual behaviour as unhealthy, a threat to the family, and not in the best interests of society, while ensuring that individual homosexuals are not vilified or roughly treated.

Fourth, one can distinguish between homosexual orientation and behaviour. This matter will be discussed more fully in section V.

Having made these distinctions, one must ask what the push for homosexual rights is all about, and how it will effect society and the family.

I. STRATEGIES OF THE HOMOSEXUAL LOBBY

The rapid advance of the homosexual movement and its acceptance by mainstream society has not happened by accident. As with all groups engaged in social reform, an active strategy has been put in place, and definite goals have been laid out. Homosexual activists know what they want, and have come a long way in achieving their aims. And the bottom line of the homosexual agenda has always been complete acceptance and social recognition of homosexuality.

One major strategy used by the homosexual lobby to achieve this goal is to present a picture of homosexuality that will hide their real behaviour, aims and agenda. Through the use of a series of half-truths or distortions of fact, they hope to convince the public about a number of points. They want to convince us that homosexuals are a persecuted minority, whose civil rights are being violated. They argue that they simply want to be tolerated, to be left alone to practice their behaviour in private. They argue that homosexuals make up at least 10 per cent of the population. They argue that they are born gay, and therefore no moral censure should apply to them. They argue that everything would be fine if homophobic attitudes could be stamped out. They argue that homosexual relationships are just the same as any other relationships.

So successful has the homosexual lobby been in this campaign of deception that one only has to look at how public perception of homosexuality has changed over the past few decades. Consider the following statement: “Even in purely nonreligious terms, homosexuality represents a misuse of the sexual faculty and, in the words of one...educator, of ‘human construction.’ It is a pathetic little second-rate substitute for reality, a pitiable flight from life. As such it deserves fairness, compassion, understanding, and, when possible, treatment. But it deserves no encouragement, no glamorization, no rationalization, no fake status as a minority martyrdom...” And the author of this statement? Fred Nile? Jerry Falwell? No. It was uttered by Time magazine in January 21, 1966. Would Time magazine ever dare to utter such comments today? Of course not.

The moral and intellectual climate has changed dramatically in just a very short period of time. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan has put it, we are “defining deviancy downwards”. Deviancy has reached such huge proportions that in order to deal with the problem, we have changed the way we think about normality and abnormality. What used to be regarded as deviant behaviour is now reclassified as normal, and what we used to call normal behaviour we now call abnormal. Thus the only abnormality now is to be “homophobic”. Indeed, the pressure by the gay lobby to redefine deviancy resulted in the 1973 decision of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the listing in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Mental Disorders (DSM-1).

The homosexual lobby has been very successful in reframing the issues. For example, an interesting article appeared in the gay press some years ago entitled “The Overhauling of America”. The article outlined a strategy by which homosexuals could best implement their goals. It included the following elements: desensitisation; portraying gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers; giving the protectors a just cause; and making the victimisers looks bad. Here are some quotes from the article: “In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so the straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector. . . . Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, but instead make anti-discrimination as its theme. . . . In the early stages of the campaign, the public should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex per se should be down-played, and the issue of gay rights reduced as far as possible, to an abstract social question.”

Indeed, the authors of the above article expanded their strategy into a full-length book, and amplified this theme: “Our ultimate objective is to expand straight tolerance so much that even gays who look unconventional can feel safe and accepted. . . . Thus our campaign should not demand explicit support for homosexual practices, but should instead take antidiscrimination as its theme. Fundamental freedoms, constitutional rights, due process and equal protection of laws, basic features of fairness and decency toward all of humanity – these should be the concerns brought to mind by our campaign.”

This strategy of the homosexual community to shift attention away from homosexual behaviour and instead to focus on vague notions of civil rights, discrimination, and the like has been an ingenious and successful ploy. As Australian homosexual and Reader in Politics at La Trobe University Dennis Altman put it, “The greatest single victory of the gay movement over the past decade has been to shift the debate from behavior to identity, thus forcing opponents into a position where they can be seen as attacking the civil rights of homosexual citizens rather than attacking specific and (as they see it) antisocial behavior.”

Thus civil rights, not behaviour, has taken the limelight. By taking attention off homosexual behaviour, a clever strategy has been successfully implemented by the gay community, namely, to convince the general public that homosexual relationships are just the same as heterosexual relationships, only a bit different. Indeed, the homosexual lobby argues that except for the fact that they are in a same sex partnership, their relationship is similar to that of any married or de facto relationship. But are homosexual relationships just the same as heterosexual ones? In a number of crucial areas, homosexual relationships are qualitatively different from heterosexual relationships

II. HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICES

In general, homosexual relationships do not offer the same stability and permanence as do heterosexual relationships. A number of studies have been conducted over the past few decades to show that the average homosexual relationship is far from stable and monogamous. Indeed, it can instead be characterised as highly unstable and promiscuous. “Sexual promiscuity is one of the most striking, distinguishing features of gay life in America,” wrote homosexual authors Silverstein and White. They say that homosexuals represent hedonism in its most extreme form, with one-night stands and brief flings offering constant excitement and variety.

An exhaustive 1978 Kinsey Institute study of homosexuality showed that 28 per cent of homosexual males had sexual encounters with 1,000 or more males. And 79 per cent said more than half of their sex partners were strangers. Only one per cent of sexually active men had fewer than five lifetime partners.

The study concludes, “Little credence can be given to the supposition that homosexual men’s ‘promiscuity’ has been overestimated . . . Almost half of the white homosexual males said that they had at least 500 different sexual partners during the course of their homosexual careers.”

A 1982 study of AIDS victims by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control found that eleven hundred sexual partners was about average, with some reporting as many as twenty thousand partners. One homosexual reported, “I believe my estimate of 4,000 sex partners to be very accurate. I have been actively gay since I was 13 (thirty-one years ago). An average of two or three new partners per week is not excessive, especially when one considers that I will have ten to twelve partners during one night at the baths.”

Bell and Weinberg found that 28 per cent of white homosexual males claimed 1,000 or more partners, while 84 per cent claimed 50 or more partners over the course of a lifetime. They found that the average homosexual had 550 different sexual partners.

Thomas Schmidt has meticulously gone through all of the available evidence on this subject. At the time of writing (1995) he had some of the best and most recent data available about the health risks of homosexuality. The information he used was taken only from primary, not secondary, sources. And it all came from secular, scholarly sources, “virtually all of which is either neutral or affirming of homosexuality”. This is how he summarises the issue: “Promiscuity among homosexual men is not a mere stereotype, and it is not merely the majority experience - it is virtually the only experience. . . . Tragically, lifelong faithfulness is almost nonexistent in the homosexual experience”.

But it can be rightly asked, has not the AIDS epidemic slowed down homosexual promiscuity rates? Yes it has, but only marginally. An article in the March 1987 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association reports that both heterosexuals and homosexuals reduced their sexual contact due to fear of AIDS, but that homosexuals continued to have significantly more partners on average than the heterosexuals did.

Indeed, a recent study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only. It also found that homosexual men had a mean lifetime number of 251 partners.

More revealing, however, is this quote from a Los Angeles-based psychologist who counsels gay men, as recorded in an April 1994 issue of a homosexual magazine: “Gay men are discovering new ways of being intimate with another man without excluding the possibility of outside erotic experiences . . . They’re relaxing a bit about what seems like a normal and healthy interest in sex outside relationships, after having been shamed in the early days of AIDS. With all the talk about legalising marriage for gays, there’s an assumption in the minds of most people I talk to that only rarely does that legalization include monogamy.”

In the same issue of the magazine, a gay couple spoke about how having outside affairs was the key to their relationship. Said one of the partners: “Pretty early on we had the monogamy discussion. I felt I wanted to be with him, but the idea of having sex with only one person was a little daunting. I mean, I was a real slut, and I didn’t want to give that up.”

It is quite common in the homosexual press in Australia to find similar remarks. For example, one writer says that to assume monogamy is “a part of every healthy relationship is just plain wrong”. He continues, “Let’s face it. Monogamy is a bizarre human invention. Sure, some animals practice it but usually when survival is tough, and teamwork is required to eat. In fact, it’s a human invention designed (on a cynical level) for the possession of women.”

Or as Australian homosexual activist Dennis Altman puts it: “Large-scale luxurious pleasure palaces where everyone is potentially an immediate sexual partner are a common sexual fantasy; only for gay men they are a commonplace reality.” Elsewhere Altman writes, “monogamy is not a realistic choice for many of us . . . we don’t find one partner sufficiently fulfilling. People who argue that there would be no problem if all gay men would just be monogamous are ignoring both medical and emotional realities; with an unknown number of people already exposed to ‘the virus’ and an unknown incubation period, such advice is just too restrictive.”

Altman goes even further, saying that “it does seem clear that among gay men a long-lasting monogamous relationship is almost unknown. Indeed both gay women and gay men tend to be involved in what might be called multiple relationships, though of somewhat different kinds.”

He continues by making the startling admission that “in practice most gay males accept that fidelity to a relationship is not to be measured in sexual terms. A large-scale study of gay male couples in San Diego concluded that every couple together more than five years had outside sexual contacts as a recognized part of the relationship.”

As Schmidt has put it, “Even if we set aside infidelity and allow a generous definition of ‘long-term relationships’ as those that last at least four years, under 8 per cent of either male or female homosexual relationships fit the definition. In short, there is practically no comparison possible to heterosexual marriage in terms of either fidelity or longevity”.

Thus long term homosexual relationships are rare, and for those male couples who do actually stay together for longer periods of time, the prevalence of monogamy is quite low. Studies continue to document this fact. In a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships, only seven couples claimed to have a totally exclusive sexual relationship. But these seven were in relationships lasting less than five years. The authors comment: “Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.” Thus the norm is having outside sexual activity

Also, a recent study of homosexual men in Amsterdam found that the “duration of steady partnerships” was 1.5 years. If that is a steady partnership, one wonders what a non-steady one is like. Moreover, the study noted that homosexual men with a “steady partner” have 8 casual sexual partners a year.

It should be pointed out that lesbians are much less promiscuous, but they still have a large number of partners. One study found that about 55 per cent of lesbians had between one and ten partners ever, while 35 per cent had between 10 and 100 partners.

Australian findings are quite similar to the overseas research. One of the best sources of Australian information is the Smash report (Sydney Men and Sexual Health), published in 5 volumes in 1995. This is a very revealing look at the demographics, behaviours, practices, promiscuity rates and health of homosexual and bisexual men in the Sydney area. It is the result of a joint research project of the National Centre in HIV Social Research (Macquarie University), the National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research (University of New South Wales), and the AIDS Council of New South Wales (ACON).

The report found, for example, that 26 per cent of homosexual men had 21 to 100 partners in a lifetime; nearly 41 per cent had 101 to 1000 partners; and 17 per cent had over 1000 partners.

The 1996 the Sydney Gay Community Periodic Survey reported similar findings. It found that 43 per cent of male homosexuals had engaged in sex with 2 to 10 partners in the previous six months; 21 per cent had engaged in sex with 11 to 50 partners in the last six months; and 5 per cent had engaged in sex with more than 50 partners in the past six months. A study of Melbourne homosexuals reveals slightly higher figures, with 24 per cent of respondents saying they had sex with 11 to 50 partners in the last six months, and 6.5 per cent having sex with more than 50 partners.

The National Centre in HIV Social Research released a study in 1998. It found that in 1996, 17.5 per cent of homosexual men had 101 to 500 partners in a lifetime; 7.7 per cent had 501 to 1000 partners in a lifetime; and 7.8 per cent had more than 1000 partners in a lifetime.

Or consider an even more recent study. The Melbourne Gay Community Periodic Survey February 2000 found that in the previous six months 26.2 per cent of male homosexuals had 11-50 sexual partners, while 7.8 per cent had more than 50 partners.

Despite education campaigns, “safe sex” initiatives, and hundreds of thousands of tax payers’ dollars going into HIV/AIDS clinics, the practices continue. One of the most recent SMASH reports, issued in January 2000, reports that things have not changed very much. It found in a study of sexual relationships with men over four years that 77.2 per cent were never celibate. Only 5.3 per cent of male homosexuals over four years never had casual partners.

Queensland studies reveal similar findings. A 1999 study found that in the precious 6 months, 46 per cent of male homosexuals had 2 to 10 partners, 20 per cent had 11 to 50, and 5.6 per cent had 50 or more sexual partners.

One of the most recent, and largest, national studies (involving 20,000 Australians) found that 35.3 per cent of homosexuals had 10 to 49 same-sex partners in a lifetime, while 38.2 per cent had 50 or more sexual partners in a lifetime.

The academic studies are backed up by the popular gay press. A casual perusal of the homosexual press reveals a predilection for this kind of behaviour. Consider but one recent example. A Melbourne writer, speaking of a New Year’s Eve celebration, speaks of “the essential tragedy of the heterosexual condition”. He explains, “Heterosexuals, it seems, simply do not know how to pick up total strangers in the street and have uncomplicated animal sex with them. The world would undoubtedly be a happier place if they did. Certainly the den of depravity where I found myself at 3am was a considerably happier place. I had already had uncomplicated animal sex with two attractive men – at least they looked pretty attractive in the dark – and was hot on the trail of number three. I did not expect to marry them, fall in love with them or even find out their names. All around me groans and grunts indicated that a thoroughly happy new year was being had by all.”

Even pro-homosexual marriage author Jonathan Rauch admits that “male-male couples put a somewhat lower value on sexual fidelity within a relationship than do male-female couples,” although he goes on to say that the “somewhat” may not be that much of a big deal.

As the above makes clear, for homosexual couples to have long-term monogamous relationships seems pretty rare. But one might be asking, so what? If it is a matter of consenting adults, it’s up to them. That might be true, but given that gay marriage and adoption rights are on the homosexual agenda, then a third party enters the equation: children. (A recent survey found that 90.5 per cent of Australian gays and lesbians wanted legal changes to allow them to adopt children.)

Most people recognise that children have a right to be raised in loving, stable, committed relationships. Homosexual relationships do not seem to provide that stability and permanence.

True, not all heterosexual marriages are loving or stable, but that is the exception, not the rule. And that is why the marriage contract is so important: it provides some assurance that society recognises the importance of permanence in male/female relationships when children are involved.

And social science evidence bears this out. Numerous studies have found that heterosexual spouses are much more faithful and monogamous compared to homosexual couples. Consider but three studies. The authors of the definitive Sex in America report that 90 per cent of wives and 75 per cent of husbands claim never to have had extramarital sex. It also found that 83 per cent of heterosexual couples were monogamous, while less than 2 per cent of homosexual couples were.

A nationally representative survey published in the Journal of Sex Research found that 77 per cent of married men and 88 per cent of married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows. And another national survey found that 75 per cent of husbands and 85 per cent of wives never had sexual relations outside of marriage.

Before moving on, it will be noted that much of the above information pertained to male homosexuals. Lesbians experience less health risks, but still face higher than average risks when compared to heterosexual women. As just one example, a recent University of California study found that lesbians are at greater risk of heart disease than heterosexual women. And Australian data has come up with similar findings.

UNHEALTHY PRACTICES

A second area which distinguishes homosexual relationships from heterosexual ones is in the kinds of activities each engage in. Undoubtedly, some heterosexual relationships involve unhealthy or dangerous practices. But they don’t seem to be the norm, whereas in homosexual relationships, a number of unhealthy and dangerous practices seem to be widespread and fairly common.

A lot of medical evidence, as recorded in such journals as The Lancet, The Journal of the American Medical Association, and The British Medical Journal, has shown how unhealthy homosexual practices can be. According to Dr Klamecki, a proctologist of 30 years experience, the sexual practices of the average homosexual typically effect “the oral cavities, lungs, penis, prostate, bladder, anus, perianal areas outside of the rectum, rectum, colon, vagina, uterus, pelvic area, brain, skin, blood, immune system, and the other body systems.”

A number of practices, which cannot be described in detail here, entail serious health risks. Such behaviours are not unknown among heterosexuals, but are far less frequently practiced. For example, a 1992 study found that “fisting” or “handballing” is practiced by some 42 per cent of the male homosexual community, but only by 2 per cent of the male heterosexual community. Twenty nine per cent of male homosexuals report being involved in “golden showers” while only 4 per cent of males heterosexuals have practiced it. Also, 37 per cent of male homosexuals indulge in sadomasochism, contrasted to 5 per cent of heterosexual males.

The Australian SMASH report found that 70 per cent of homosexual men with regular male partners engaged in “rimming”, 20 per cent engaged in sado-masochism, and 20 per cent engaged in group sex. It found that in sexual behaviour with casual male partners, 47 per cent engaged in group sex.

A more recent SMASH report found these trends continuing, and getting words. Over a four year period over 21 per cent of male homosexuals had over fifty sexual partners. Also over a four year period, 40 per cent of male homosexuals engaged in sado-masochism, and 25 per cent engaged in “watersports” with regular partners. And with casual male partners, 45 per cent engaged in S&M and 20 percent engaged in “watersports”. Finally, over 82 per cent had engaged in group sex with casual partners over the last four years.

The Gay Report, a book much praised in gay communities, contains testimonials without adverse comment of homosexual encounters with Labrador retrievers, cows and horses. The 1992 report mentioned above found that 15 per cent of male homosexuals and 19 per cent of male bisexuals had sex with animals, compared with 3 per cent of male heterosexuals.

Moreover, various studies show that gays account for the majority of new cases of sexually transmitted diseases. For example, a male homosexual is 14 times more likely to have syphilis than a male heterosexual, and eight times more likely to have hepatitis.

The epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases is further intensified by recreational drug use. Homosexuals - both male and female - have significantly higher percentages of drug and alcohol problems. American research has found that 47 per cent of male homosexuals have a history of alcohol abuse (compared to 24 per cent of males generally), and 51 per cent have a history of drug abuse (compared to 7 per cent of males generally). Thirty per cent of homosexuals - both male and female - are problem drinkers, as compared to 10 per cent of the general population.

The SMASH report found that 82 per cent of Australian homosexuals sometimes use recreational drugs. An update of the SMASH report found that 21 per cent of those surveyed used amyl at least weekly; 33 per cent used marijuana at least weekly; 16 per cent used heroin, cocaine or speed at least monthly, and 12 per cent injected any drugs.

A recent study conducted by the Alternative Lifestyle Organisation (ALSO) and the Australian Drug Foundation found that homosexuals have a much higher rate of drug usage than does the general population. For example, “65 per cent of gay, lesbian, bisexual and queer men aged 20 to 29 and 36 per cent of women in the same category have used ecstasy. This is compared to 19 per cent of men and 12 per cent of women in the same age group in the national survey”.

Also, a study of 16,000 adolescents in America, as reported in the Archives of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, found that lesbian and bi-sexual teenagers are more likely to smoke and more vulnerable to cigarette marketing than their straight sisters. Almost 40 per cent of lesbians and bisexuals smoked, compared to just 6 per cent of heterosexual teenage girls. This finding is in keeping with previous studies on the subject.

In addition, according to the International Journal of Eating Disorders, homosexual men are at a greater risk of developing eating disorders, such as anorexia and bulimia, than heterosexual men.

As one writer has summarised the situation, “For the vast majority of homosexual men, and for a significant number of homosexual women - even apart from the deadly plague of AIDS - sexual behaviour is obsessive, psychopathological and destructive to the body.”

Violence

Mention can also be made of violence in the homosexual community. The media often reports cases of homosexuals attacked by heterosexuals. Of course such attacks are to be condemned, and no physical or verbal abuse of homosexuals is to be countenanced. However, the research makes it clear that much of the violence against homosexuals is perpetrated by other homosexuals.

Indeed, so prominent is the problem that a number of books have been written devoted to this subject. As an example, consider the book, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence. In this volume authors David Island and Patrick Letellier report that "the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population”.

Numerous articles in the scholarly literature also bear this out. For example, a recent study reported in the American Journal of Public Health discovered higher rates of partner abuse among men who have sex with men (MSM). The study, conducted in 4 major American cities between 1996 and 1998, found that “rates of battering victimization among urban MSM are substantially higher than among heterosexual men and possibly heterosexual women”.

It appears that lesbian relationships also contain a high level of abuse. For example, one study found that a third of lesbians surveyed reported physical abuse from their lesbian partners. And a survey of over 1,000 lesbians found that “slightly more than half of the [lesbians] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner. The most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse.”

And in a book discussing the problem of violence in female homosexual relationships, the author concludes with these words: “In short, friends and the community itself must recognize that battering is a problem among lesbian couples, and that its consequences are as serious as those of heterosexual battering – perhaps more serious.”

The gay press itself also highlights this problem. For example, the NSW Anti-Violence Project has warned gay people about “dangers of violence from members of their own community” It spoke of a “series of recent gay-on-gay attacks around Oxford Street” in Sydney. A spokesman for the group said that in addition to violence from without, “we should be prepared to respond to violence from within the community as well” and that these actions should be reported.

Concerning those Oxford Street incidents, some tried to downplay the violence, with one gay venue owner saying this was just a “spat” between gay men. This prompted one homosexual writer to complain to a gay newspaper, “Does this mean that violence against gay men by straights is violence, but violence against gay men by other gay men is just ‘a tiff’? Where does that leave gay domestic violence?” Good questions indeed.

Another gay writer admits that “up until recently, violence by gay people against their partners was effectively a taboo topic in the community.” A counselling manager at the Victorian AIDS Council said she found a “lot of gay men coming to her had issues with violence. . . .It’s been too difficult in the community to talk about it until now.” A gay men’s health educator said, “The reality is it hasn’t been accepted because of the view that ‘gay men won’t be violent’.”

In sum, this is not a safe lifestyle. And to list such unhealthy behavious is not of course being homophobic. The more honest homosexual organisations make similar warnings. For example, just prior to the November 2002 Sydney Gay Games, there appeared an article in the gay press predicting a sharp rise in STD’s as a result of the games. According to the article, the Victorian AIDS Council/Gay Men's Health Centre has warned that Australia's low syphilis levels could rise sharply at the gay games. And they warned that the rampant gonorrhoea epidemic could get much worse at the games. With an influx of thousands of gay men and HIV positive men to Australia, the STD's are sure to increase, they warned. And Health Promotion Team Manager Colin Batrouney said that STD's among Australian gay men were bound to rise. He said syphilis is unlikely to be prevented by condom use for anal sex and can infect different parts of the body including the throat.

It has been a major victory of the homosexual movement to deflect attention away from homosexual behaviour and practice, and to refocus it on more neutral areas like “rights” an “discrimination”. This is all according to plan. As one influential homosexual activist manual put it, “The public should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself”.

PEDOPHILIA

Finally, and most disturbingly, one must examine the issue of pedophilia. While not every homosexual engages in, nor approves of, this practice, there is a significant percentage - of both individuals and organisations - that does seem to. Aside from the obvious cues, like banners at gay rallies with phrases like, “We’re here, we’re queer, and we want your children” and “Sex before eight, or else it’s too late,” there is more reliable information.

A survey done by two homosexual authors revealed that three-fourths of homosexuals had at some time had sex with boys sixteen to nineteen or younger. A coalition of homosexual groups since as early as 1972 has sought the repeal of age of consent laws, arguing that children as young as 8 years have a right to decide whether they enter into a sexual relationship with an adult.

Groups like the North American Man-Boy Love Association, which regularly march in Gay Pride parades, have gone on record as wanting pedophilia legalised. “NAMBLA takes the view that sex is good, that homosexuality is good not only for adults, but for young people as well. We support all consensual sexual relationships regardless of age. As long as the relationship is mutually pleasurable and no one’s rights are violated, sex should be no one else’s business.”

The pedophile connection is not confined to North America. For example, a Dutch social psychologist and pro-pedophilia lecturer describes in an article, “Pedophilia and the Gay Movement” how influential pedophiles have been in the gay movement in the Netherlands.

One Australian surveyed 30 issues of the Gay Community News, from 1980 to 1983. He found that 16 issues carried one or more articles or news stories on pedophilia. Other Australian homosexual magazines also contain similar amounts of coverage on pedophilia. At a 1982 conference in Canberra for Lesbians and Homosexual Men, a workshop leader said, “Pedophiles will be free when kids are free and not before” and urged that the effort to undermine public resistance to pedophilia be continued. Dennis Altman seems to endorse the behaviour, describing pederasty (male pedophilia) as among the “safest” of stigmatized forms of gay sexuality, one that “often amounts to no more than acts of mutual masturbation.”

Indeed, early conferences on homosexuality regularly had sessions on pedophilia. However, public pressure resulted in such courses being phased out. For example, a planned workshop on pedophilia was canceled at an Annual Conference of Lesbians and Homosexual Men at the University of Queensland in September of 1984. However the then president of the university student union condemned the cancellation, saying it was an attack on freedom of speech!

Moreover, homosexual behaviour seems to be closely associated with child abuse. A recent review of the child molestation literature as it appears in medical and psychological journals concluded that between 25 and 40 per cent of all recorded child molestation was homosexual. Also, a Family Research Institute’s national (US) random survey of 4,340 adults found that about a third of those who reported having been molested were homosexually molested. Other polls have come out with similar findings. Also, homosexual pedophiles victimise far more children than do heterosexual pedophiles (150 to 20).

In addition to the research, anecdotal evidence can also be marshaled. Just one recent Melbourne case will suffice. The founder of an under 18 homosexual disco was charged with 11 counts of sexual assault involving a child under 16 years of age. He no longer holds a position on the board of the under-age dance party organisation, which caters especially for gays and lesbians.

Australian expatriate Peter Tatchell, a leading British gay activist, has made his views clear on under-age sex: “The age of consent should be reduced to 14 for everyone – gay and straight – and consensual sex involving people under 14 should not be prosecuted providing there is no more that three years difference in the partners ages.”

In fairness, however, it should be noted that not all homosexuals want to be associated with pedophiles, and some have sought to distance themselves from the pedophilia movement. For example, the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) has recently voted to expel NAMBLA from its membership. It is a fair question to ask, however, why NAMBLA was granted membership in ILGA in the first place. Moreover, as jilted NAMBLA leaders were quick to point out, ILGA still contains dozens of member groups that support man/boy lovers or have pedophile or pederast subgroups.

In sum, the purpose of mentioning all of these facts on unhealthy practices is not to judge individual homosexuals nor to infer that all homosexuals share some of the negative traits described above. But enough people both within and without the homosexual community have acknowledged that these unsafe practices are a common feature of the homosexual lifestyle, that such an expose seems necessary, especially since the mainstream media often will not delve into these sorts of issues. If for no other reason than the broad issue of public health and safety, these facts need to be accessible and need to be acted upon for the general good.

Given that the Federal Government is spending our tax dollars to try to convince us to be tolerant and understanding of various “alternative” lifestyles, one has to ask why it carries on a double standard. Why does it spend millions of dollars on campaigns to get Australians to give up unsafe practices like smoking or drink driving, but when it comes to dangerous homosexual behaviour, not only does it not try to warn the community about such high risk behaviours, but it actually seems to be promoting it, by granting homosexuals legal recognition and, as a result, social endorsement.

Indeed, government are quite happy to show graphic images of what smoking does to people, or bloody images of road accidents. Yet it presents no such picture of the high risk homosexual lifestyle. Part of the reason for this of course is that it is exactly what the homosexual lobby has been actively involved in: keeping their harmful practices hidden from the public. As one leading homosexual activist manual states, “Gays must launch a large-scale campaign – we’ve called it the Waging Peace campaign – to reach straights through the mainstream media. We’re talking about propaganda.” And to do this, the media campaign should “portray only the most favorable side of gays”. They go on to speak of “the wide range of favorably sanitized images that might be shown in the media (italics added). This strategy is obviously paying off.

Such a double standard can only lead many to believe that the homosexual lobby has far greater influence with the media and the Federal Government than first imagined. It will also lead to some deadly consequences.

III. THE POLITICS OF AIDS

Aside from all of the above mentioned problems, there still remains the tragic issue of HIV/AIDS. This has been a problem of plague proportions in the homosexual community and needs to be addressed.

Perhaps the ultimate indicator of unsafe and unhealthy activities practiced by homosexuals can be found in their average life expectancy. A study of 5,371 obituaries of homosexuals revealed that the average age of a homosexual with AIDS is 39 years, and the average age of one without AIDS is 42 years.

Other studies vindicate such findings. For example, a study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology found that the life expectancy of homosexuals is eight to twenty years less than that of heterosexual men.

Surely such tragic statistics show how homosexual behaviour has very unhealthy outcomes. As Australian government statistics have made quite plain, it is homosexual activity which accounts for the majority of HIV cases. More specifically, 94 per cent of people known to be HIV positive are men, and at least 85 per cent of cases of AIDS in Australia are attributed to male homosexual or bisexual contact.

More recent reports show similar, if not worse, trends. As described in the gay press, according to recent reports, “there has been a 17% increase in HIV transmissions in 2002, a trend that has continued in 2003. Over 90% of reported transmissions were related to homosexual sex. There also has been a 24% increase since 1998 in the number of men in Sydney having unprotected sex with casual partners.”

Initially, the homosexual community and its supporters tried to convince the rest of society that AIDS could be caught by anyone. Even they no longer run this line. As one homosexual activist recently admitted, “Between 1983 and 2001 there was [sic] over 8,000 people with AIDS in Australia, of whom over 6,000 died. The great majority of these were gay men. More than 20,000 people, again mostly gay men, have been diagnosed with HIV infection..”

The truth is, in Australia in particular, and the West in general, AIDS is primarily a homosexual disease. Indeed, back in 1981 when it was first being recognised in America, it was called GRID: Gay Related Immunodeficiency Disease. It was only after protest from the homosexual community that the name was changed to AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome).

In the West, homosexual activity is the main way the disease is passed on, along with intravenous drug usage. Avoid the homosexual lifestyle, and intravenous drug use, and you have an almost zero chance of getting AIDS. As one author put it, “as rare as male breast cancer is, more native-born American males are diagnosed with the disease each year than the total number who have contracted AIDS through heterosexual intercourse since the AIDS epidemic began”.

Thus the early campaigns designed to convince heterosexuals that they were equally at risk of getting AIDS were exercises in propaganda and Political Correctness. When people like Madonna exclaimed that “AIDS Doesn’t Discriminate” she was being disingenuous at best. So too were those who put out the Grim Reaper ads in Australia in the early days of the epidemic. It was patent nonsense and misinformation then, and still is. As Michael Fumento writes, “The slogans have a nice ring to them, but quickly fall apart under scrutiny. Bullets and knives don’t discriminate either, but you’re far more likely to catch one walking through a dark South Bronx alley than strolling down a well-lit street on Manhattan’s Upper East Side.”

A 1996/97 survey of gay men in Sydney found that although 97 per cent were aware of AIDS, nearly half said they had not changed their behaviour in response. Said the report: “The results of the . . . survey indicate a decreasing concern for HIV/AIDS and a state of global complacency. This . . . severely inhibits real progress in the fight against AIDS”. The 2000 Smash report found that over a four year period only 18.9 per cent of male homosexuals never had anal intercourse without a condom with regular male partners.

In fact, even simple precautions like condom use are ignored. Recent studies in the US have shown that nearly half of all young gay men have unprotected sex. Studies conducted here show similar results. A SMASH spokesman said years of post-epidemic proactive education are inducing a level of “safe sex fatigue”. In Victoria, medical authorities have warned of a new AIDS crisis, with a 67 per cent HIV increase among gay men. And a Queensland study found that only 20.8 per cent of homosexuals always use a condom with regular partners.

More recent reports indicate HIV/AIDS infection rates continue to rise in NSW and Victoria. Carelessness, belief that the virus has been cured, and the practice of “barebacking” have lead to the increase. Barebacking (sex without condoms), coupled with safe-sex fatigue, has become a new concern among some homosexual commentators.

Indeed, many gay websites feature gay men who proudly proclaim they are into barebacking. And a recent Health in Men study by the National Centre in HIV Social Research found that 55 per cent of gay men did not disclose their HIV status to casual partners at any stage during the six months prior to the survey. And according to reports found in extreme homosexual literature, some healthy homosexual men have actively sought HIV-positive partners so they could become infected.

It may not be politically correct to say so, but if we seriously discouraged homosexual activity, we would greatly reduce the number of deaths due to AIDS in the Western world. Says one authority, “AIDS is a preventable, behavior-related disease. And we know what works in preventing the spread of AIDS. The virus is primarily spread by having sexual contact with an infected person or by sharing hypodermic needles or syringes with an infected person. Avoiding such behavior greatly reduces – indeed it almost entirely removes – the chances of becoming infected. Given the awful consequences of contracting the AIDS virus, it should be clear enough that public officials as well as members of the public health community have a basic responsibility to speak up for the true and time-honored, for things like restraint and responsibility on matters of sexual behavior.”

Instead of claiming victim status, shouting homophobia, and blaming the rest of society, homosexuals need to take responsibility for their own actions. The simple truth is, if we want to see a real reduction in the number of AIDS cases, homosexuals will need to stop their high risk sexual practices.

This is a truth which even some homosexuals have acknowledged. Consider this forthright comment by an American homosexual: “By continuing to engage in sexual practices that spread HIV, we are contributing to our own massacre. What is wrong with us? Are we so self-hating that we welcome death, that we would trade 10 minutes of pleasure for a lifetime of illness? . . . The gay men who are now contracting HIV through unsafe sex are not victims. They have consciously decided to disregard their own health and the welfare of their community.”

AIDS AND PUBLIC POLICY

Based on somewhat older figures, the average hospitalisation of an AIDS patient runs four months and costs $80,000. Homosexual acts, therefore, are not “victimless crimes,” and the consequences must be borne by the entire community. In the 1997/98 financial year, HIV and AIDS treatments cost taxpayers $59 million, more that 2 per cent of the total cost of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

Obviously illnesses suffered by heterosexuals are also borne by the community, but as the above has made clear, it seems the homosexual minority absorbs an inordinate amount of public finances to deal with homosexual-related diseases and problems. The medical research just canvassed makes it clear that homosexual relationships are more than just private activities between consenting adults, but a public health problem of serious proportions.

But even though homosexual behaviour brings on so much sickness and death, it must be remembered that the number of AIDS cases is relatively low in Australia, compared to some other health problems. Yet governments seem to spend disproportionate amounts of taxpayer funds on AIDS. Indeed, health issues have become politicised in Australia, with some issues appearing to be more politically correct than others. This can be seen in the way Governments allocate funding for various health problems. For example, the Federal Government spends much more money on AIDS, which takes the lives of about 600 Australians each year, than it does on breast cancer, which takes the lives of about 2600 Australians each year. Consider the following facts from several years ago:

Every year 6500 Australian women are told they have breast cancer - over 2600 a year die of it.
In 1992, 643 people died of AIDS-related causes.
The National Program for the Early Detection of Breast Cancer - Commonwealth outlays of $25.6m in 1993-1994. AIDS Control: 54.3m in 94-95 budget.
Some 4000 women die each year of gynaecological cancer (cancers of the cervix, ovaries, uterus and the vulva) and breast cancer. About 2500 Australians total have died of AIDS since the early 80s. $32 million has been set aside for three years to combat these cancers, but $62 million a year for AIDS.

A call to the Federal department of the Minister for Health reveals that these figures have changed very little in the past few years. (Actual figures have not been sent to me as promised.) Clearly such a discrepancy indicates a political agenda at work. Such is the clout of the homosexual lobby that they have managed to take issues of life and death and skew them in their favour, and away from others.

This problem is not confined to Australia. Many Western countries have similar biases in their health funding. In America, for example, in the early 1990s, Federal spending on AIDS per death was around $50,000, while it was $3,500 for cancer, $2,300 for breast cancer, and $900 for heart disease.

Former President Bill Clinton admitted to such imbalance as he addressed a homosexual lobby group on November 8, 1997: “Since I became president, we’re spending 10 times as much per fatality on people with AIDS as people with breast cancer or prostate cancer” Its not just conservatives who are concerned about such mistaken priorities. Michael Johnston, a former homosexual who was dying of AIDS, said the president’s remarks put him in a difficult position. “What do I say to the person who has breast cancer or prostate cancer when they find out that the president is pandering to homosexuals and is spending 10 times more on their disease – AIDS – when primarily it is the result of our foolish and immoral choices, as opposed to those who have breast cancer or prostate cancer through no fault of their own”.

And given that the normal procedures associated with infectious diseases have not been used on AIDS, for fear of homosexual protests, it is clear, as some have put it, that AIDS has become the nation’s first politically protected disease. But AIDS should be treated as a medical issue, not a political one. AIDS is a health epidemic, requiring stringent measures. This should include all the normal means of prevention of transmission: Public Health Departments should be able to know who has the disease through case monitoring and contact tracing; routine testing must be undertaken; and notification of carriers should be mandatory. As one author says, “we must stop romanticizing AIDS”.

As a co-founder of the Children’s AIDS Fund in America put it, “Never before in medical history have we made it the responsibility of the individual exposed to a contagious or infectious disease to end such an epidemic. With HIV/AIDS, the medical and public health communities during the first fifteen years of the epidemic largely removed themselves from the intervention through aggressive diagnosis and reporting consistent with their approach to similar diseases.”

It is because we have refused to treat HIV/AIDS as we have any other public health risk, that we now are paying a terrible price. One doctor puts the situation in striking terms: “If a foreign nation were to attack our shores and kill 10,000 Americans, it would be considered an act of war. Yet, millions of Americans have already been unnecessarily infected in this epidemic and they will almost all die. The tragedy is that this epidemic should never have occurred.”

IV. HOW MANY HOMOSEXUALS ARE THERE?

A staff reporter with The Australian once began an article on homosexuality claiming there were 1 million of them in Australia. How did she get this figure? As it turns out, she took the word of a member of Significant Others Marketing Consultants, who is later quoted in the article as saying there “are more than 1 million gays and lesbians in Australia”. A month later, again in The Australian, the same spokesman for Significant Others was quoted in an article saying that there are “1.4 million gay and lesbian adults in Australia”. That was a jump of 400,000 in one month. At that rate there should have been 24 million gays in Australia in the year 2000!

Now do these numbers seem a bit high? They should. An issue of Newsweek admitted that the 10 per cent figure which Alfred Kinsey used was highly inflated: “Activists seized on the double digits to strengthen their political message. . . . Policymakers and the press adopted the estimate - despite protests from skeptical conservatives - citing it time and time again. But new evidence suggests that ideology, not sound science, has perpetuated a 1-in-ten myth.”

Gay activists have confirmed this to be a case of deliberate deception: “ Based on their personal experience, most straights probably would put the gay population at 1% or 2% of the general population. Yet . . . when straights are asked by pollsters for a formal estimate, the figure played back most often is the ’10% gay’ statistic which our propagandists have been drilling into their heads for years.”

What is the evidence? The 10 per cent figure is actually about eight to ten times too high. Let’s look at Kinsey’s findings, for example. A recent article in The American Journal of Psychiatry claims that Kinsey’s work suffered from “severe methodological limitations” and that his sample group - male prisoners and sex offenders included - was “far from representative”. The authors of the article says that the actual figure should be about 1.1 per cent.

Furthermore, Kinsey never actually said that 10 per cent of the population is homosexual. He claimed that 4 per cent of white males were exclusively homosexual throughout their lives after adolescence, and that 10 per cent were “more or less” exclusively gay for parts of their lives.

Finally, while most people seem to know about Kinsey’s original study, very few know about a more recent Kinsey Institute study conducted in 1970 and released in 1989. This study found the number of homosexual males to be only 1.4 per cent. It also found that lesbians are far fewer than male homosexuals.

Some years ago the Wall Street Journal presented a summary of some of the recent studies on the extent of homosexuality. All the findings present similar low figures. In the United States a 1989 University of Chicago study found that only 1.2 per cent of both male and female adults reported homosexual activity. And a 1993 survey found only 1.1 per cent of men who claimed to be exclusively homosexual. Furthermore:

In France a 1992 government study of over 20,000 adults found that 1.4 per cent of men and 0.4 per cent of women had had homosexual intercourse in the five years preceding the survey.
In Britain a 1991 nationwide survey of 19,000 adults found that 1.4 per cent of men aged 16 to 59 had homosexual contact in the past five years.
In Canada a nationwide survey of 6,000 first-year college students found that 1 per cent were homosexual and 1 per cent were bisexual.
In Norway a 1987 nationwide poll found that 0.9 per cent of males and 0.9 per cent of females had homosexual experiences within the past three years.
Finally, a 1989 study in Denmark found less than 1 per cent of males aged 18-59 were exclusively homosexual.

More recent American studies have demonstrated similar figures. A 1993 study of the sexual behavior of men based on the National Survey of Men found that “2 percent of sexually active men aged twenty to thirty-nine . . . had had any same-gender sexual activity during the last ten years. Approximately 1 percent of the men (1.3 percent among whites and 0.2 percent among blacks) reported having had exclusively homosexual activity.”

A year later the most scientifically rigorous study to date of American sexual practices was released. A condensed version of the study, Sex in America, reported that there were “few homosexuals “ in its survey, and the nationwide incidence of male homosexuality was only 2.8 per cent, while lesbianism was just 1.4 per cent.

And a major study released in 2000 in Demography found more of the same. Based on three large sets of data (the General Social Survey, the National Health and Social Life Survey, and the U.S. Census), it found that the number of exclusive male homosexuals in the general population was just 2.5 percent, and the number of exclusive lesbians just 1.4 percent.

Recent Canadian research has found similar sorts of figures. The 2003 Canadian Community Health Survey, a comprehensive study of 135,000 Canadians on a wide range of health issues, was released mid-June 2004 by Statistics Canada. It found that among Canadians between 18 and 59 years old, about 1.0 per cent consider themselves homosexual; another 0.7 per cent said they were bisexual.

Unless Australians are significantly different from their Western counterparts, it seems clear that the claim that one million Australians are homosexual is overstated at least five-fold. But as all good propagandists know, throw a figure around long enough, and pretty soon the general public won’t even question its validity.

If the homosexual lobby is willing to use faulty statistics to support its cause, just how reliable is it in other areas? As one homosexual warned: “If you say a number that you can’t prove, there’s always the chance that by disproving one part of your argument, your opponents weaken you overall. I think that’s dangerous.”

While it is understandable that a movement would want to overestimate its importance and influence, it is reprehensible that such large portions of the media parrot these figures, without doing their homework first.

But the truth is, those who have sought to do the figures in Australia have come out with quite low figures. A recent study by Monash University entitled “How Gay is Australia?” based on 2001 Census figures found very low numbers indeed. It found that only 37,774 persons are in same sex couples; persons in same sex couples are only 0.2 per cent of the total population; and persons in same sex couples are only 0.47 per cent of all persons in couples.

A more recent study of sexuality in Australia has confirmed that the ten per cent figure is greatly overblown. In a study of nearly 20,000 Australians, La Trobe University researchers found that 97.4 per cent of Australians said their sexual identity was heterosexual. A mere 1.6 said it was homosexual, and a paltry 0.9 per cent said it was bisexual. So much for the 10 per cent myth.

V. ONCE GAY, ALWAYS GAY?

Is homosexuality a genetic condition in which people have no choice? Are people born gay? Can a homosexual break free of homosexuality? Can one make a distinction between homosexual orientation and homosexual behaviour? These and related questions deserve careful attention. The answers to these questions will help determine the way the gay rights arguments are assessed. For example, if gays are born that way, then it would be hard to argue for legislation that discriminates against something they have no choice over.

First, one must make a distinction between homosexual orientation and behaviour. It is clear that not everyone with a homosexual orientation acts out this orientation. That is, some may have feelings of sexual attraction to another member of the same sex without acting on those feelings. Just as some may have an orientation to other activities, one need not act them out. As one author put it, “The question about choice and homosexuality is often asked the wrong way. It is not so much that one chooses to engage in homosexual acts as it is that one can choose not to. We are all predisposed to some things, and frequently tempted. But we make choices every day not to engage in certain activities, for any number of reasons.”

The cause of homosexual orientation is far from clearly known and would appear to be multifactorial. It is apparent that social, psychological and cultural factors are involved as well as the aggressive promotion of homosexuality. In this it is no different from the development of alcoholism. In the case of homosexuality, many studies have noted the influence of weak or absent father figures as an important factor in offspring becoming homosexuals. Also, studies indicate that gay men and lesbian women report a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than do heterosexual men and women.

Two psychologists who survey the latest scientific research on this question conclude as follows: “Homosexual persons are not subhuman robots whose acts are predetermined. They are moral agents who inherit tendencies from biology and environment, and who share in shaping their character by the responses they make to their life situations. Like all person, they must ask, ‘This is what I want to do, but is it what I should do?’ The existence of inclinations or predispositions does not erase the need for moral evaluations of those inclinations.”

Whatever the factors associated with the development of homosexuality, in each individual case certain factors will need to be weighted so that treatment can be tailor-made to the individual and his or her needs.

Nonetheless, what about the claim that gays are born, not made? The Victorian AIDS Council President, recently repeated the claim that homosexuals “did not choose their homosexuality”. Facts, however, speak otherwise. In America, for example, there are around 200 centres which help gays to go straight, and there are thousands of former gays who now are straight, many of them happily married with children.

And it is not just “religious” organisations that are involved in helping gays go straight. The decidedly non-religious Masters and Johnson Clinic in St. Louis has treated hundreds of homosexuals and bisexuals. Masters reports that they have successfully “changed” more than half of their homosexual clients, and higher than 75 per cent of bisexuals.

Jeffrey Satinover, a psychiatrist who has taught at Yale University and is a past president of the C. G. Jung Foundation, after examining the evidence, says this: “The desire to shift to a biologic basis for explaining homosexuality appeals primarily to those who seek to undercut the vast amount of clinical experience confirming that homosexuality is significantly changeable”.

A two year study involving nearly 860 individuals and 200 therapists found that change is clearly possible. The study found that “before counseling or therapy, 68% of the respondents perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entirely homosexual, with another 22% stating they were more homosexual than heterosexual. After treatment, only 13% perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entirely homosexual, while 33% described themselves as either exclusively or almost entirely heterosexual”.

One male respondent said: “Change is extremely difficult and requires total commitment. But I have broken the terrible power that homosexuality had over me for so long. I haven’t been this light and happy since I was a child. People can and do change and become free”.

More recently, a study found that psychotherapy has helped a large percentage of American homosexuals to change. Of 200 homosexuals and lesbians given the treatment, 78 per cent of males and 95 per cent of females reported a change in their sexuality. The author concludes, “This study provides evidence that some gay men and lesbains are able to also change the core features of sexual orientation”. It is worth noting that the man who led the study, Professor Robert Spitzer, was instrumental in having homosexuality removed from the American Psychiatric Association’s list of mental disorders in 1973.

But it is an aggressive homosexual lobby, along with the pressures of Political Correctness, that has robbed many of a chance of going straight. As psychologist Joseph Nicolosi, author of Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, points out, “Psychology and psychiatry have abandoned a whole population of people who feel dissatisfied with homosexuality”.

Indeed, Political Correctness and the homosexual lobby have had such an influence that in the mid-90s, delegates of the American Medical Association voted to scrap the Association’s 13-year-old policy of encouraging practitioners to alert homosexual patients to “the possibility of sex preference reversal in selected cases.” The new policy calls instead for attitudinal adjustment for medical personnel, saying that health care is improved by a “nonjudgemental recognition of sexual orientation and behavior.” Physicians involved in assisting homosexuals to change their sexual behavior criticised the new policy as a “political maneuver.”

But homosexual activists continue to insist that homosexuality is genetically based, and nothing can be done about it. Science, again, begs to differ. One person who should know is Oxford’s Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene. Dawkins argues that “the body of genetic determinism needs to be laid to rest.” Says Dawkins, “Whether you hate homosexuals or whether you love them, whether you want to lock them up or ‘cure’ them, your reasons had better have nothing to do with genes. Rather admit to prejudiced emotion than speciously drag genes in where they do not belong.”

Indeed, scientists involved in genetic research are becoming increasingly convinced that “genetic determinism” is a fallacy. One distinguished Harvard University professor, Dr. Ruth Hubbard, recently wrote a book denouncing genetic determinism. One summary of the issue concluded by saying that scientists are coming to realize one truth at least: “DNA is not destiny”. And the two men most responsible for the humane genome project, Francis Collins and Craig Venter, have both argued that their discoveries imply the end of genetic determinism. Their discoveries about the human genome have made any simplistic statements about one or two genes predisposing someone to complex behaviors such as gayness or schizophrenia appear untenable.

In America a recent study has found that while various factors might contribute to a person’s homosexual orientation, biological factors alone cannot be substantiated. After an in-depth review of the literature, the study makes this observation: “Recent studies postulate biological factors as the primary basis for sexual orientation. However, there is no evidence at present to substantiate a biological theory, just as there is no compelling evidence to support any singular psychosocial explanation.”

A stronger statement comes from Dr. Charles Socarides, Professor of Psychiatry at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. He says theories seeking to relate sexual orientation to brain structure and hormones are “completely erroneous. There’s no possibility of someone developing homosexuality from hereditary or organic causes. It’s just impossible . . . a cluster of the brain cannot determine sexual object choice. We know that for a fact.”

Closer to home, gay activist and Latrobe University lecturer, Dennis Altman, wrote this uncomfortable fact in 1986: “To be Haitian or a hemophiliac is determined at birth, but being gay is an identity that is socially determined and involves personal choice. Even if, as many want to argue, one has no choice in experiencing homosexual desire, there is a wide choice of possible ways of acting out these feelings, from celibacy and denial . . . to self-affirmation and the adoption of a gay identity.” “Being gay,” says Altman, “is a choice”.

Another Australian homosexual activist has much more recently said similar things about homosexuality and genetics: “I think the idea that sexuality is genetic is crap. There is absolutely no evidence for it at the moment, and I think it is unhealthy that people want to embrace this idea. It does reflect a desire to say, ‘it’s not our fault’, as a way of deflecting our critics. We have achieved what we have achieved by defiance, not by concessions. I think we should be recruiting people to homosexuality. It’s a great lifestyle and something everybody should have the right to experience. If you believe it’s genetic, how are you going to make the effort?” Or as he put it elsewhere: “On the question of recruiting to homosexuality – well, of course, I am in favor of this. I believe homosexuality to be a perfectly valid lifestyle choice. . . . I am naturally keen to encourage people to participate in [the gay lifestyle].”

Other homosexuals have admitted that choice plays at least a partial role in the overall equation. However, the tendency is to deny choice, to make it appear that homosexuals cannot help it, and to argue that any criticism of the gay lifestyle is as silly as criticism of being left-handed or red-haired.

And this has been a deliberate strategy by homosexual activists. They have done a very good job to convince a gullible public that homosexuals are born that way and cannot change. Consider this revealing quote from a homosexual activist manual: “the public should be persuaded that gays are victims of circumstance, that they no more chose their sexual orientation than they did, say, their height, skin color, talents, or limitations. (We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay – even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence.)”

As Thomas Schmidt has noted, “a large component of homosexual activists applaud biologic causation theories for their effect on public opinion, but are philosophically committed to personal choice as opposed to any deterministic theory, biologic or environmental.”

Even if there is a genetic predisposition to homosexuality, one can overcome this just as one can overcome a predisposition to, say, overeating, anger, or even alcoholism. We are not animals, and can therefore, as Altman points out, make choices about how we live out the life that nature accords us.

Or as one science writer reminds us, “even if genetic determinism is shown to be very powerful, we are still left having to decide what we want to do with it. After all, genetics can give someone a predisposition to cancer, but we don’t applaud cancer.” And as another commentator remarks, “the influence of nonvolitional forces on any human activity is no help in determining the ethical status of that action. . . . To the degree that these external or nonvolitional factors influence one’s actions, they moderate the degree of personal culpability (or personal credit in the case of good behavior) but they do not change the assessment of the behavior itself.”

Social commentator William Bennett reminds us that “a decent, humane, self-governing society will reject the belief that most human beings – homosexual or heterosexual - are slaves to their passions, their desires, their genetic predispositions. Our identities are not defined by sex, nor is sex itself an irresistible force. To believe otherwise is to vitiate the concept of individual responsibility and free will. Although our struggles are not all the same, we all do struggle against every sort of human desire, against our biological impulses, against our emotional luggage. We do not abjure the struggle because it is difficult or because we seem to be battling against something deep within us – even if that something is as powerful as sexual desire; even if it seems fundamental to who we are.”

In the genes?

A few scientific studies have been heralded by a sympathetic press recently as evidence that homosexuality is genetically based. Studies by National Cancer Institute researcher Dean Hamer and gay researcher Simon LeVay are two such studies. While both studies urged caution in the interpretation of the findings, the media featured headlines claiming a genetic basis for homosexuality. Both studies have been heavily criticised for methodological shortcomings and other problems.

Indeed, later attempts to verify these studies have proven a failure. A study of 52 gay brothers by a team of clinical neurologists “found no evidence of linkage of sexual orientation to Xq28”, the so-called ‘gay gene’ identified by Hamer in 1993. Another study of 54 pairs of gay brothers also failed to find the link.

Jeffrey Satinover has dealt with this question extensively. He concludes that “hard science is far from providing an explanation of homosexuality, let alone one that reduces it to genetic determinism”. And homosexuals themselves have criticised these “gay gene” studies. For example, Edward Stein PhD, a homosexual activist, has written a whole book on the subject. In an interview with a homosexual magazine he says this: “There are serious problems with the science itself. . . . My training had taught me that a lot of what was being said was, well, highly unscientific. . . . Many gay people want to use this research to promote gay rights. If gay people are ‘born that way,’ then discrimination against them must be wrong. . . . A gay or lesbian person’s public identity, sexual behaviors, romantic relationships, or decisions to raise children are all choices. No theory suggests that these choices are genetic.”

The Victorian AIDS Council President said that homosexuality is “just a fact of life. The concept of someone becoming a homosexual because of something they see or hear is something I find quite bizarre”. He rejected the idea that young people could be seduced into homosexuality by homosexual propaganda and recruitment.

But if this is so, why do we keep hearing statements like this coming from the homosexual movement?: “We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups . . . Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.”

If young people cannot be seduced, why this statement from a gay activist?: “I have found that even many of my most unbiased straight friends grow skiddish with my homosexual candour - say, kissing my mate - when their chidden are around. Underneath it all, they too understand that sexually free ideas are infectious and that, once introduced to the suggestion of same-sex love, their kids might just try it and like it.”

There are very real dangers of homosexuals seeking to recruit impressionable youth. The promotion of homosexuality, in the schools for example, will result in a number of young people being enticed to experiment with anal intercourse and other practices endemic in the gay community. Public policy should seek to discourage this kind of promotion of the homosexual lifestyle. The health and well-being of our children is at stake. Indeed, a war is waging over the minds and hearts of our young people. As one commentator puts it:

“From history, sociology, and anthropology, what we learn is 1) that it’s not just Judeo-Christian Western culture that has scorned homosexual behavior; and 2) that in those (rare) cultures where homosexual behaviour has not been scorned, gayness didn’t stop at some hypothetical 10 per cent, but ended up being virtually an epidemic. Homosexual behavior throughout a society is not static, but fluid. It can change radically in either direction, depending upon societal attitudes toward it. Isn’t that what sexual taboos have always been about? Both society and the individual have a say in the matter. Society can ban it or bless it; and whatever society decides, it is likely that its individual citizens will choose to go as far as they are permitted to go.”

To conclude this section, perhaps the best argument that can be made against the ‘once gay, always gay’ mentality is to hear from former homosexuals themselves. As I have noted, countless thousands of homosexuals have known the experience of liberation from the homosexual lifestyle. And hundreds of organisations around the world are helping homosexuals make that change. Many books have been written documenting these changed lives.

One such book, Coming out of Homosexuality, tells the story of how the book’s co-authors went through the difficult but rewarding path of change. They also speak of many others who have taken this tough journey: “We have witnessed solid, substantial healing in so many men and women over the years that we can say without hesitation, ‘There is a way out of homosexuality’.” They continue, “During the past fourteen years, we have become personally acquainted with hundreds of men and women who have left behind the gay and lesbian lifestyle. . . . Now some of these men and women have been free from homosexual involvement for ten or twenty years. They are not just suppressing their strong homosexual or lesbian longings. There has been a true resolution of this issue in their lives.”

And it is not just the lifestyle, but the orientation as well, that can be changed, albeit slowly and painfully. Another former homosexual, Jeff Konrad, puts it this way: “Despite what we hear from the media and the world at large, your homosexual orientation can be changed. I want you to know there is hope. . . . And I’m not just talking about behaviour or surface stuff. I’m talking about deep-down change. I no longer have the feelings, desires, temptations, orientation, or identity of the past. I am convinced you can experience this also.”

Or as one former British lesbian says, “It is possible for your sexual orientation to change. It is also possible for a former lesbian to marry and to be happily married. I am.”

The thousands of individuals who have left the homosexuals lifestyle comprise the most important counterweight to the claims of the homosexual activists and their demands for preferential treatment. As Robert Knight puts it, “The greatest threat to the gay rights movement is the ex-gay movement, with its message of compassion, hope and healing.” That is why militant homosexuals try so hard to shout down and deny the message of those who have left the ranks of homosexuality. Their transformed lives belie the claims of the homosexual lobby.

VI. GAY RIGHTS AND DISCRIMINATION

The push for gay rights, as we have seen, is the main means by which the homosexual lobby seeks to further its agenda. By talking about discrimination, civil rights and minority status, the impression is created that homosexuals lack basic human rights that others enjoy, and that they are a persecuted minority.

There are several things wrong with regarding homosexuality as a civil right. For example, homosexuals enjoy the same protections under law of basic civil rights as does anyone else.

Moreover, one’s behaviour should not be the basis of civil rights legislation. Homosexuality is not a benign factor like race or gender, but is primarily a behaviour-based activity. We do not extend special rights to other behaviour-based groups, like smokers or stamp collectors.

Analogies between homosexuality and race have proven to be insupportable. Special protected status has historically been granted when three criteria are met. First, economic, educational and cultural opportunities are denied a group. While this has been true of various races in the past, it is not true of homosexuals. Homosexuals as a class have higher than average annual incomes, are more often college educated than non-homosexuals, and especially predominate in culture, as in the arts world.

As a recent example, a study of 20,000 Australians found “associations between homosexual identity and experience and higher socio-economic status as marked by profession and education.” The authors of this study says that such findings are “consistent with some previous national studies”. For example, a 2001 American study of nearly 6,000 gays and lesbians found that they were “overwhelmingly high-income, highly-educated, professionally employed, urban-dwelling and property owning”. The findings left an Australian homosexual to ask, “This is an oppressed minority?”

Second, obvious, immutable traits must be identifiable in protected classes. Again, this is true of race, but not of the homosexual community. Blacks cannot help being black, but as we have seen, gays can help being gay. Moreover, some characteristics are immutable but not protected. Height, good looks and predispositions to obesity are also immutable, but do not warrant in themselves special protection. Homosexual behaviour is not innate or immutable, so again, they fail the test.

Third, protected classes should demonstrate political powerlessness. Just the opposite is the case in Australia. The amount of influence one to two per cent of the population has over the rest of the population is staggering.

Shouts of discrimination, so often heard from homosexuals, need to be examined more closely. Often we hear lesbians talking about a right to children, or homosexuals talking about being denied the right to marriage. But discrimination means the denial of a right that one really has. It makes no more sense for a same-sex couple to talk about the right to have children that it does for me to talk about the right to be 5 metres tall. If two people decide to place themselves outside of the conditions that make procreation possible, then it is silly to talk about discrimination and the denial of rights.

Gay rights laws, in summary, meet none of the traditional criteria for human rights protection.

Also, it needs to be stressed than whenever you grant special rights to homosexuals you have to take rights away from other people. If gays are granted special rights to force homeowners to rent to them, those homeowners will have lost certain rights - the right to conscientiously choose who one wishes to rent to, for example. If a homosexual is granted the right to teach sex education in schools, the parent of the child in that school loses the right to have a say in the moral calibre of the teacher.

Admittedly, morality and law is not based on numbers, but how is it fair that one and a half percent of the population should be granted special rights at the expense of the other 98.5 per cent? Why should Australia’s four and a half million families be forced to concede rights to Australia’s 300,000 or so homosexuals?

Let’s illustrate the situation this way. Mrs. Murphy is renting a room. A student applies. Mrs. Murphy asks him, “Do you like the music of J.S. Bach?” “Yes” he replies. “Then you will never rent from me” she retorts. Next come two men dressed in female clothing. Mrs. Murphy eyes them over and tells them to get lost. What are the rights of each? Roger Magnuson puts it this way: “Before the passage of a gay rights law, both the student and the homosexuals have the same rights: none.” Mrs. Murphy may be opinionated, bigoted or confused, but she can reject both applicants. Neither party has the right to claim special protection of the law for its preference for Bach or homosexuality. However, after a gay rights law is passed, says Magnuson, “the homosexuals win a privilege for their unnatural sexual practices that the student does not have for his baroque musical tastes, or the average citizen for his normal preferences. The homosexuals can sue, and win.”

The truth of the matter is this: almost all societies and cultures throughout history have recognized the importance that the institutions of marriage and family offer to society. Especially in the raising, teaching and protection of children, families, preferably cemented by marriage, offer the most secure, stable and loving context for preparing the next generation for their role in society. Societies thus have a vested interest in promoting marriage and family. Indeed, societies have therefore granted special recognition to marriage and family. In this sense they have positively discriminated in favor of marriage and family. But such a discrimination is both desirable and healthy. In the same way that society “discriminates” against 8-year-olds by not granting them licenses to drive, so society “discriminates” against those who choose to remain outside of the institutions of marriage and the natural family. A homosexual relationship is just that, a relationship. It has never been, nor can it ever be, considered to be a family. Thus if a person wants the benefits and privileges of family life, then he or she needs to meet the criteria and responsibilities thereof.

But it is nonsense for a person to eschew male-female relationships in favor of same-sex ones, and then complain of discrimination. If I choose to lop off both my arms, and then demand that the Melbourne Tigers hire me as a basketballer, they have every reason to tell me to get lost. Even if I retain my arms, my shortness and my inability to throw a ball may disqualify me as well.

Society is like that. It is full of distinctions, of differentiations. I may complain bitterly that I am not able to breastfeed, but that is life. Nature itself discriminates. The word discriminate simply means to differentiate, to distinguish. When I chose my wife over millions of other women, I discriminated. When a professional basketball team chooses a two and a half meter athlete over me, it is discriminating. When societies pass laws saying 7-year-olds cannot get a driver’s license, they are discriminating. When a nation says a 4-year-old does not have the right to vote, it is discriminating.

Thus it does no good for the homosexual lobby to forever complain about discrimination and inequality when such is the very fabric of living in a democracy. (Genuine unjust discrimination – e.g., racial discrimination - of course is another matter.)

Nor will it do for homosexual activists to argue that they are the objects of all kinds of economic and social discrimination based on their sexuality. A homosexual activist once made just this claim in a radio debate with me. He bewailed the fact that as a taxpayer he was denied access to all kinds of government benefits because he was gay. He challenged me to name just one area where I was being discriminated against.

Unfortunately I was not given the right of reply. I could have produced a very long list. There are all kinds of benefits that I as a taxpayer also do not get. I do not receive the youth allowance. I do not get a single-parent benefit. I do not get a widow’s pension. I do not get maternal health benefits.

The point is, as a married heterosexual male, there are all sorts of benefits that I am not qualified for. Yet I am a tax payer like everyone else. I am just as much a victim of discrimination in this regard as is any one else. Yet I do not hear of male taxpayers saying they will withhold part of their tax because they do not directly get the benefits of breast cancer screening or gynecological services.

The issue of rights is often one of whoever shouts the loudest, gets the most attention. Homosexual activists have made many noisy demands over the years and have done quite well, often at the expense of other groups who may in fact exhibit more genuine need. Anthony Butcher offers this example: “In 1992, with some 250,000 Australians suffering from major mental illness, approximately $8.2 million was spent on psychiatric research. In the same year $10.6 million was spent on AIDS research, even though by December 1994 the total number of AIDS cases diagnosed had reached only 5732”. For a “poor persecuted minority group”, homosexuals have done quite well out of the public purse.

PRO-HOMOSEXUAL DISCRIMINATION

Moreover, if there is discrimination against homosexuals taking place, it is not just the heterosexual community that is doing the discrimination. Homosexuals seem to have a pretty good track record of discriminating against each other. For example, organisers of a lesbian festival in Victoria sought to exclude not only male homosexuals, but transsexuals as well. The organisers wanted to ban everyone except female-born lesbians. They even managed to persuade the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to grant the organisers exemption from state equal opportunity laws.

While this blatant example of discrimination went largely unnoticed in the mainstream community, there was a huge uproar amongst the gay community. Various sides took to the debate, in numerous heated and acrimonious exchanges, as recorded in the gay press. The infighting lasted for several weeks until VCAT reversed its decision, saying that such a ban was illegal after all. In the end “Lesfest” was cancelled because organisers did not want to accept the VCAT decision.

During this kerfuffle, one homosexual writer penned an interesting article in the gay press. He spoke of rampant discrimination within the gay community, and said that the “bickering and infighting that I have witnessed within the GLBTIQ community in the last 12 months is atrocious”. He continued, “the gay and lesbian community continues to discriminate, ignore or even ostracise bisexual, transgender, transexual or intersex people. . . . I can cite many examples where the gay and lesbian community has done the above either accidentally or deliberately. It still does.”

As another example of pro-gay discrimination, the same VCAT recently ordered that Melbourne gays could get special rights over the rest of the community. It allowed an exemption for a gay hotel to have men-only dance parties. They even ruled that similar men-only parties could be held throughout the state.

Many other cases could be cited. For example, in Cairns there is a gay-only resort. Interestingly, however, it has been forced to allow straights to come in as well, because of low returns from the gay travel market.

VII. JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND HOMOSEXUALITY

As the VCAT examples above make clear, various courts and judges have been aiding and abetting the homosexual agenda in many instances. Indeed, along with a complicit media, and pro-gay activities in our educational system, the judiciary is a leading body of pro-gay activism. Increasingly judges and courts of various kinds are using their judicial powers to promote and implement the homosexual agenda, often against the express wishes of the majority.

A number of examples could be mentioned. Let me begin with some major cases from overseas. In December of 1999 the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples must be granted the full rights and privileges of heterosexual unions. In June of 2003 the Ontario (Canada) Court of Appeals declared that same-sex couples had the right to legally marry. In the same month the US Supreme Court decided that the laws banning sodomy in Texas were unconstitutional. Somehow the US Constitution is now interpreted to mean that every American has the right to homosexual relations. And in November of 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that a state ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. (Some of these cases will be further discussed below.)

In Australia similar judicial activism continues apace. Having a practicing homosexual on our highest court of course helps to explain, in part, this activism. But it seems that many of our courts, both state and federal, are involved in this promotion of the homosexual agenda.

In July 2000 a landmark court case in effect struck down state laws on IVF access by saying they violated the federal Sex Discrimination Act (1984) by banning single women and lesbians. In April 2002 a High Court ruling threw out an appeal to that ruling. Thus our un-elected Federal judges struck down the lengthy and careful consultative processes that resulted in the legislation of reproductive technology in several states. And tax-payers will have to foot the bill for allowing lesbians access to expensive IVF treatment.

In October 2001 Justice Chisholm of the Family Court ruled that, in effect, two women could marry. A woman who decided to become a man, and renamed herself Kevin, had taken up a relationship with another woman, Jennifer, and began steps to marry in 1999. The judge ruled that “man” could mean a variety of things, and not just be related to the constraints of biology. Psychological and social considerations, in other words, could also be considered when we define (or redefine) ‘male’ and ‘female’. The full bench of the Family Court later upheld that decision.

Some recent cases took place in December of 2003. In that month the Family Court granted a Melbourne gay couple parental responsibility for a baby boy born to a surrogate mother in the US. Justice Sally Brown ruled that it was in the “best interests” of the child to be looked after by the homosexual couple!

Also in December, The Australian High Court declared that homosexuals who might suffer persecution overseas were entitled to refugee status in this country. In a 4-3 ruling, the Court declared that a gay Bangladeshi couple could win the rights to be refugees. It was a world-first ruling, and will likely have ramifications in other similar cases.

In April 2004 Chief Justice Alistair Nicholson of the Family Court declared that a 13 year old girl could undergo a sex change procedure because she felt that she was really a boy. Also in April 2004, an Auckland Family Court ruled that a toddler could have three parents: the lesbian mum, her female partner, and the Sydney male sperm donor.

A glowing example of government sponsored pro-gay activity is the conduct of the Equal Opportunity Commission. It regularly goes out of its way to the gay community, seeking to get homosexuals more active. Instead of being an impartial observer, it seems the EOC wants to stir up trouble. Diane Sisely of the EOC complains that only 77 out of nearly 3500 discrimination cases taken to the Commission in 2003 were about sexuality. She is unhappy with that, and wants to see more such cases. She said the 77 complaints were “only the tip of the iceberg”. But how does she know that? Never mind that maybe it is just not as huge a problem as the EOC hopes it is. Nonetheless, she has had the EOC set up booths at gay festivals, informing people there of their rights, and encouraging them to make complaints if need be.

Numerous other examples could be cited. But it should be clear that various judges, courts, commissions and tribunals are attempting to align themselves with the homosexual agenda, regardless of whether such actions are in the best interests of the community, or in fact reflect the desires of the majority of its citizens.

VIII. THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA

We have already examined gay strategies. However, a few more words must be devoted to what the homosexual lobby actually wants. What are their demands? What changes do they propose? How will the family be affected by such changes?

Since Australian groups like GLAD (Gay men and Lesbians Against Discrimination) quote freely from their American counterparts, let me mention some of the agenda items listed in the USA. The homosexual lobby’s list of demands, as presented at the 1993 March on Washington, includes the following:

Recognition of same-sex “marriages” and “domestic partnerships”.
Adoption of children by homosexual couples.
The implementation of homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered curriculum at all levels of education.
Repeal of all sodomy laws.
Passage and implementation of graduated age-of-consent laws for sexual relations.

Much of this is already happening in Australia. An earlier list of demands stated similar goals:

Repeal of all laws prohibiting private sexual acts involving consenting persons.
Repeal of all laws prohibiting prostitution, both male and female.
Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.
Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit, regardless of sex or numbers.
Enactment of legislation that child custody, adoption, visitation rights, foster parenting and the like shall not be denied because of sexual orientation or marital status.
Encouragement and support for sex-education courses, prepared and taught by gay women and men, presenting homosexuality as a valid, healthy preference and lifestyle as a viable alternative to heterosexuality.

It should be noted that many of these proposals have been put forward in Australia, and many have already been adopted. Indeed, one way to see how the gay agenda is being implemented is to examine earlier proposals made by the gay community and see just how many of their demands have been met.

Consider several earlier documents which list some of the demands that the homosexual lobby have been making. One source of information is from comments made by the homosexual community during a two-day Senate hearing concerning the Sexual Conduct Bill held late in 1994. Homosexual representatives at the hearing were quite frank about what they wanted achieved in the near future. For example, Mr Michael Alexander of the Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations, mentioned three areas which needed changing. The first area, he said, is the issue of criminal law (overthrowing anti-sodomy laws, etc.); “anti-discrimination legislation or equality is the second thing, and I think the whole recognition of relationships is a third thing.” He mentioned a number of laws that could be affected: “laws on intestacy, laws on family provisions, challenging wills - that sort of stuff. There is a whole range of laws.”

Changes to the definition of marriage and family are part of the package. Former Archbishop D’Arcy pointed out that in a letter former Attorney General Michael Lavarch wrote to D’Arcy, Lavarch made this admission: “The bill does not purport to endorse nor condemn any alternative to the dignity of marriage and the procreation of children, but it does appear to equate them.” Exactly, and this is just the point homosexual activists will seize on in their next set of claims. Indeed, as one witness said, well-placed homosexuals had informed him that “this bill was just the beginning of a wide range of things that will come before Parliament.”

In fact, in a number of submissions by the gay community, such demands were already being made. For example, Mr David Buchanan of the Lesbian and Gay Legal Rights Service stated at the committee hearing that his group had argued that “the age of consent is excessively conservative . . . [and] the age of consent should be reduced to 16.”

Some of the most revealing comments came from Tasmanian homosexual activist Rodney Croome. Concerning homosexual relationships being as valid as marriage, he said, “I think it is a form of chauvinism to elevate heterosexual relationships, be they sanctioned with marriage or not, to a position that is superior in some way to relationships between members of the same sex.”

Concerning hiring and education, he said, “If the Tasmanian government was to introduce legislation to protect us from discrimination in employment and housing, goods and services some time in the distant future, then we would ask that there be no exemption in that for people who have care or responsibility over children, for instance, teachers.”

Most frightening was his answer to Senator Abetz who asked him if he would make an exemption for religious organisations and religious schools: “In principle, Senator, we would argue that if a religious school found it acceptable to employ people of a different denomination or different religion who may not share the convictions and may actually disagree with the convictions of the people who run the school, then we could see no difference between that