Homosexual Behavior

This is "Homosexual Behavior" point two in a six point case regarding the same-sex marriage debate. The case is outlined here.

Homosexual behavior - Point Two
Homosexual behavior is inherently destructive

This point often sends homosexual activists into a rage. They want so badly for homosexual behavior to be the equal of heterosexual behavior that they will deny the evidence and attack the character of the researchers who report about the negative health effects of the gay lifestyle. Despite their objections, there is valid data to show that male homosexuality in particular is extremely unhealthy.

Before we look at that data, I need to make clear that this point is not necessary for the case against same-sex marriage. In other words, even if homosexual activity was just as healthy as sex between a man and a woman, same-sex marriage should still be opposed because of the negative effects it would have on natural marriage and children, as we’ll see later. I include this point only because it answers the claim that same-sex marriage would improve the health of homosexuals. It will not improve their health but probably hurt it. So let’s get started. It has been said that everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts. Unfortunately, homosexual activists act as if they are entitled to their own facts, one of which asserts that there is no real difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Same-sex marriage advocate Andrew Sullivan writes, “[Gay marriage] says for the first time that gay relationships are not better or worse than straight relationships.... ”20

Sullivan is right—that’s what government-backed gay marriage would say to the world—but that’s exactly why we should not endorse it. The idea that “gay relationships are not better or worse than straight relationships” is utter nonsense. How can he deny that man-woman unions are the foundation of civilization? Doesn’t he realize that he would not exist or have grown up in such a civilized society without natural marriage?

The truth is that some relationships are better than others. People are equal, but their behaviors are not. Since homosexual behavior is contrary to the natural design and compatibility of the body, same-sex relationships can never function like man-woman relationships, nor can they birth the same benefits. So let’s stop trying to equate same-sex with heterosexual relationships. They never can be the same. Biology prevents it and the evidence we are about to see disproves it.

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

  • Results in numerous health problems to those who practice it, including increases in AIDS, other STDs, colon and rectal cancer, and hepatitis. According to the Center for Disease Control, more than 82 percent of all known sexually-transmitted AIDS cases in 2006 were the result of male-to-male sexual contact. Moreover, gay and bisexual men account for more than 60 percent of all syphilis cases.21

  • Shortens the life span of homosexuals, probably by eight to twenty years (see note 22 for data on homosexual life span studies, some of which are controversial).22 Smoking, on average, reduces life span by seven years. Since we discourage smoking, why are we thinking of endorsing homosexuality?

  • Spreads disease to innocent people who never engage in homosexual sex. A prominent example is Ryan White, the teenage boy who died of AIDS after a blood transfusion. There are thousands of Ryan Whites—according to the CDC, there are nearly ten thousand known cases of innocent people in the United States who have contracted AIDS the same way, including 160 in 2005 and 131 in 2006 (this despite improvements in blood screening).23 Moreover, there are thousands of innocent heterosexuals (many are spouses) who have contracted STDs via sexual contact with bisexuals.

  • Costs Americans millions in higher health insurance premiums because increased health costs from homosexual behavior are reflected in those premiums. In fact, the homosexual lobby has induced some states to prevent insurers from asking potential consumers any medical questions, including if they are HIV positive! As a result, every consumer is paying a higher premium because insurance companies are prevented from identifying clients who engage in high-risk sexual behavior.

Keep Reading!

Compliments of Correct, not Politically Correct, authored by Frank Turek. For more information, visit www.impactapologetics.com.

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

21 The actual AIDS figure is probably higher than 82 percent because nearly all of the supposedly heterosexually-transmitted cases have a “risk factor not specified.” Since homosexual contact is one of the most efficient ways of transmitting the disease, many of those not specified cases probably originated with homosexual contact. See Center for Disease Control, Cases of HIV infection and AIDS in the United States and Dependent Areas, 2006 HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, Volume 17, April 2008. See Table 17: Reported AIDS cases, by age category, transmission category, and sex, 2006 and cumulative—United States and dependent areas. Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/
2006report/table17.htm. According to the Centers for Disease Control, gay and bisexual men account for the vast majority of syphilis cases (more than 60 percent in 2005). See also William Dunham, “Syphilis rise in U.S. gay, bisexual men causes worry,” Reuters, May 4, 2007. Posted online at http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2007-05-04T170053Z_01_N04373052_RTRUKOC_0_US-SYPHILIS-USA.xml&src=rss&rpc=22.

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

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

23 Center for Disease Control, Cases of HIV infection and AIDS in the United States and Dependent Areas, 2005 HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, Volume 17, Revised Edition, June 2007. See Table 17: Reported AIDS cases, by age category, transmission category, and sex, 2005 and cumulative—United States and dependent areas. Available online at http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/
2005report/table17.htm. See http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2006report/
table17.htm for 2006 numbers.

WHAT DO YOU THINK? - We have all sinned and deserve God's judgment. God, the Father, sent His only Son to satisfy that judgment for those who believe in Him. Jesus, the creator and eternal Son of God, who lived a sinless life, loves us so much that He died for our sins, taking the punishment that we deserve, was buried, and rose from the dead according to the Bible. If you truly believe and trust this in your heart, receiving Jesus alone as your Savior, declaring, "Jesus is Lord," you will be saved from judgment and spend eternity with God in heaven.

What is your response?

Yes, today I am deciding to follow Jesus

Yes, I am already a follower of Jesus

I still have questions

Facebook   YouTube   Twitter   Google+   RSS Feed