Homosexual Health

This is "Homosexual Health," the second half of point three in a six point case regarding the same-sex marriage debate. The case is outlined here.

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

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

Homosexual Health - Lesbian Health

  • Lesbians have the richest concentration of risk factors for breast cancer than any subset of women in the world.
  • They have higher risks for cervical cancers.
  • They are more likely to be obese.
  • They use more tobacco, alcohol, and illicit drugs.24
A study of over 1,400 lesbians found the following:
  • Lesbians experience higher rates of bacterial vaginosis and hepatitis C.
  • They have more than twice the number of male partners than heterosexual women (only 7 percent who identify themselves as lesbians never have sex with men).
  • They are 4.5 times more likely to have fifty or more male sexual partners in a lifetime.
  • They are three to four times more likely to have sex with men who are at high risk for HIV—homosexuals, bisexuals, and IV drug users.
  • They are six times more likely to • abuse drugs intravenously.25
Other studies also confirm lesbian health problems.26

Many homosexual activists get angry when you cite these health facts. But why would anyone get angry over facts? As Augustine said, we love the truth when it enlightens us, but we hate it when it convicts us. However, other homosexual activists acknowledge negative health effects and then use them as a reason to support their cause. This “conservative” case for same-sex marriage suggests that homosexual monogamy, encouraged by government-backed same-sex marriage, would alleviate these health problems. Andrew Sullivan writes, “A law institutionalizing gay marriage would merely reinforce a healthy social trend. It would also, in the wake of AIDS, qualify as a genuine public health measure.”27

Unfortunately, health problems and life span are not likely to improve significantly in so-called “committed” homosexual relationships. Why not?

Homosexual Health - Reasons for Homosexual Health
There are at least four reasons. First, monogamy is not the main issue—homosexual behavior is. Homosexual acts are inherently unhealthy, not just multiple-partner homosexual acts. This is especially true of male homosexuality. Does anyone really believe that it is natural and healthy to insert the penis into the rectum—the organ whose sole purpose is to expel poisons from the body? The rectum is a one-way street. It’s a sewer. It was designed that way. Labeling its abuse as an act of “love” will not change that fact.

The standard homosexual response to this is, “It’s natural for me because I desire to do it.” I don’t mean “natural” in the sense of desire, but “natural” in the sense of design. Human beings have all kinds of “natural” desires to do things that are physically destructive (e.g. smoking, getting drunk, violence, etc.), and those things often feel good. But we don’t excuse those behaviors because they come “naturally.” The human body was not designed for anal intercourse. Such an act violates the natural design, and having a desire to engage in it does not change the fact that it is unnatural and physically destructive.

Second, coupled homosexuals tend to practice more anal intercourse and more anal-oral sex than those without a steady partner. They also forego safer-sex practices because they are “in love.”28 In other words, coupled homosexuals tend to engage in more risky sexual contact than their single counterparts. So while married men improve their health and life span by being faithful to their wives, there is no comparable benefit in homosexual couples.

Third, if AIDS will not break promiscuity in homosexuals, it is unlikely government-backed marriage will. As AIDS is falling among heterosexuals, it is rising among homosexual men.29

Finally, even if monogamy could reduce health problems, monogamy is the exception rather than the rule among homosexuals. The average number of sexual partners in a lifetime for a heterosexual is four, but for a homosexual it is fifty. The vast Sex in America survey published by the University of Chicago found monogamy among heterosexuals to be 83 percent but less than 2 percent for homosexuals.30 Another survey had more moderate results, but still found infidelity in about 62 percent of gay couples. That led researchers in the Journal of Family Psychology to write, “The practice of sexual non-monogamy among some gay couples is one variable that differentiates gay and heterosexual couples.”31

Why is monogamy much more common between men and women? Could it be because men and women are designed for one another and are therefore complementary? Think about it. One of the least-mentioned aspects of this debate is how men and women complement one another. Each sex balances and moderates the other by providing what’s lacking in the other.

However, in same-sex relationships, the pairing of identicals propels them to extremes not balance. Lesbians tend to push one another to emotional extremes as evidenced by the intense demands they often put on one another, but male homosexuals experience the most damaging effects of imbalance. Instead of the sex drive of the man being balanced by the emotional needs of the woman, male homosexuals reinforce and amplify the sex drive of one another. That’s why their behavior often becomes compulsive to the point of explosive promiscuity—anywhere from 21-43 percent of homosexual men have several hundred sexual partners!32

In the late 1970s, A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners. In the late 1990s, a 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. The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a 101 to 500 lifetime sex partners.33

Tragically, some of those partners are children. While male homosexuals comprise only 2–3 percent of the male population, they commit about one-third of all child molestation cases. That is, about one-third of all pedophile cases are homosexual in nature—man to boy.34

Now when someone connects homosexuality to pedophilia, homosexual activists are quick to deny the connection. However, the denial is for publicity reasons. In gay and academic publications and at gay “pride” parades, both which are largely unfamiliar to the general public, the gay rights movement and the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) are working together. Homosexual publications make favorable references to pedophilia, and homosexual activists and NAMBLA both want the age of consent lowered. They have friends in high places too. As an ACLU attorney, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once advocated lowering the age of consent to twelve! Current Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, marched with a leading advocate of manboy “love” in the 2001 San Francisco gay “pride” parade.35 (Of course, there was not a peep about this from the mainstream media.)

While homosexual activists try to deny the connection to pedophilia, most admit that homosexuals tend to be extremely promiscuous. As we have seen, reducing promiscuity is a central par t of Andrew Sullivan’s argument for same-sex marriage. Yet despite making the claim that same-sex marriage could improve homosexual monogamy, Sullivan doesn’t really believe that gay monogamy is possible. Instead, he claims that homosexuals “need” multiple partners! According to Sullivan (and just about every survey), monogamy is not “flexible” enough for homosexuals. He calls monogamy a “stifling model of heterosexual normality” and thinks homosexuals have a greater “understanding for the need for extramarital outlets.”

But that’s not the worst of it. Incredibly, Sullivan believes heterosexuals could learn from the promiscuity of homosexuals. He writes “something of the gay relationship’s necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds.”36 In other words, instead of gays becoming more like straights, Sullivan thinks straights should become more like gays. As we’ll see later, this is what homosexual activists are really after—they don’t want same-sex marriage so they can live in monogamy like most heterosexuals do—they want to tear down the standards of normalcy to the level of their own behavior. Only then will they feel validated.

In the meantime, let me point out that Sullivan is absurd to assert that the “flexibility” to engage in “extramarital outlets” could “strengthen” any marital bond, especially of a husband and wife. Certainly the last thing any family or our nation needs is for more married men and women to avail themselves of “extramarital outlets.”

Sullivan’s viewpoint on “extramarital outlets” is not surprising. It represents the strong strain of narcissism that runs through the homosexual movement and some homosexual relationships. From his perspective, homosexual relationships are all about self-gratification—they are about him and his desires. But a truly loving relationship isn’t about the narcissistic desires of the individuals in it. Love, by definition, seeks the ultimate good of the loved one by “forsaking all others.” It binds the lover to the loved one, not a nightclub full of anonymous partners. Now, Sullivan is one of the most conservative advocates of same-sex marriage you will find. If Sullivan is for “extramarital outlets,” imagine what the more radical advocates are for—the complete destruction of monogamy and natural marriage (quoted below). Actually, the “conservative” Sullivan is not far from that. By admitting that homosexuals “need” multiple partners, Sullivan is admitting that he wants to change marriage completely into something unrecognizable. Since his new definition cannot be about love, monogamy, or children, what will it be about?

Obviously, it will not be anything like natural marriage. The pairing of identicals, particularly in men, only feeds insatiable lust that leads to explosive promiscuity. But the natural balancing that takes place in a natural marriage is conducive to love, monogamy, and children. Anyone in natural marriage knows that a strong marriage requires the frequent sacrifice of your own comfort and desires for the good of your spouse and children. With loving sacrifice comes growth, maturity, and contentment.

This is the polar opposite of the average homosexual relationship where you betray your family’s trust, health, and well-being so you can indulge in the lust of an “extramarital outlet.” Since this is the kind of relationship that homosexuals like Sullivan want to extol as “marriage,” they need to call it something else. The homosexual relationship they have in mind is closer to prostitution than natural marriage. Yet even if homosexuals stopped their “extramarital outlets,” and even if same-sex marriage could reduce some of the health problems of homosexuals, those unlikely possibilities do not justify making same-sex marriage the legal equivalent of natural marriage. The unique abilities to procreate and parent children should always keep natural marriage as the only legally and socially-encouraged sexual relationship in our society.

Why does the law matter? Keep Reading

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

24 Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, “Ten Things Lesbians Should Discuss With Their Health Care Provider,” http://www.glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageID=691.
25 Katherine Fethers, et al., “Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviors in women who have sex with women,” Sexually Transmitted Infections 76:345-349 (2000).
26 For a summary of lesbian health problems, see John R. Diggs, Jr. M.D, “The Health Risks of Gay Sex,” Corporate Resource Council, 2002, pgs. 5-6. http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf.
27 Ibid, Sullivan.
28 David Dunlap, “In Age of AIDS, Love and Hope Can Lead to Risk,” New York Times, July 27, 1996.
29 Mike Stobbe, “CDC understated number of new HIV infections in US,” Reuters, August 2, 2008. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080802/ap_on_he_me/med_hiv_infections.
30 Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), 54. The data from which Dr. Satinover draws these figures is the Sex in America survey published by researchers from the University of Chicago in 1994.
31 Quoted in Warren Throckmorton, Ph.D., “Chris Matthews’ Hard Sell: Pay attention to the common Assumptions about Gay Marriage,” online at http://www.pfm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=13210.
32 See Van de Ven, Paul,; Pamela Rodden, June Crawford, and Susan Kippax (1997). “A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men.” J. of Sex Research Vol. 34, No. 4, 1997. For a bibliography and summary of studies, see Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D., “The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality,” Insight, Issue No. 232. Available online at http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1.
33 Ibid.
34 One study found the figure to be 36 percent. See Kurt Freund, et al., “Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,” Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 10 (1984): 197. Another study found the figure to be 25 percent. See Ray Blanchard, et al., “Fraternal Birth Order and Sexual Orientation in Pedophiles,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 29 (2000): 464. Whatever the precise number is, it is widely agreed that sexual abuse of boys is underreported. For additional studies and data on this issue, see Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D., “Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse”, Insight, Issue No. 247. Available online at http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3#edn22.
35 See Brent Bozell, “Democrats on Sex and Children,” TownHall.com, October 11, 2006, available online at http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BrentBozellIII/2006/10/11/
democrats_on_sex_and_children. For more on the connection between homosexuality and pedophilia see: The Problem of Pedophilia, National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, September 21, 2004, available online at http://www.narth.com/docs/pedophNEW.html.
36 Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal, (USA: Vintage Books, 1996), pgs. 202-203.

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