Persons with homosexual orientation are successfully lobbying for civil rights protection, yet sexual orientation is not equivalent to race. Although the original sexual orientation is not necessarily voluntary, the choice of acting on it is. If people with homosexual orientation are given additional protections beyond those of all other citizens, what about pedophiles and sado-masochists? How could you differentiate homosexuality from them? No one is injured? Consenting adults? Caring relationships?

Would it be homophobic to point some of the facts about homosexual practice? About 41% of homosexual males have experienced "fisting" and 75% have had sex with boys 19 or younger. The average sexually active "Gay" has had 500 sexual partners. There is plenty of injury, questionable consent and very little caring.

Incidentally, Minneapolis Public Schools refused to state within its first AIDS Curriculum the fact that 85% of the AIDS in Minnesota was in Gay males at that time. They felt it violated the city ordinance against discrimination on the basis of affectional preference. This is a dangerous portent. The truth is considered discriminatory and therefore illegal.

A person caught in the Gay lifestyle needs sympathy, love and understanding, leading to real help. Endorsement of a maladaptive behavior is the worst thing that can happen. It is not even in the best interest of the victim, much less society.

The origin and nature of homosexual orientation has been hotly debated. But to many, the best evidence is that it is not an inborn tendency. Rather, there is a typical history, with lack of perceived affection and approval from the parent, or parent surrogate, of the same sex. This leaves a child longing for the missing warmth. It is a legitimate need that should have been fulfilled. Tragically, in some, the desire becomes sexualized.

This means that lack of family warmth is one of the etiologic factors that may produce homosexual orientation in a susceptible individual. In our present culture, we are sowing these very seeds. We have absent parents because of divorce and single parenting. We have preoccupied parents who put career above children.

We also have men with great trouble showing affection, even to their own children. This is a tendency made worse by the fear of being accused of sexual abuse. Sexual abuse exists and is a terribly destructive thing. The solution, however is not that adults avoid touching children. That approach produces even more problems since children need touch and if they do not feel a sense of warmth and closeness at home, they tend to gravitate towards adolescent sexual activity.

In addition, there are ambivalent stages in a child's development where sexual attraction can go towards the same sex but be later redirected. Ideas that imply homosexuality to be an acceptable alternative lifestyle may push borderline kids that way. In addition, sexual experimentation tends to perpetuate itself because of the intense pleasure involved.

"But what is wrong with that?" some will say. If it is considered normal, why not just let it happen. First of all, when you ask parents whether they want their children to become homosexual, most will say they do not. A parent with an adult child who has already declared homosexuality, and who has come to accept and support that child, will often call for general acceptance of the lifestyle as part of the acceptance of their own child. Yet even parents who have struggled with homosexual tendencies themselves most often hope their children can avoid that struggle.

There is a strong desire to give the impression that homosexuality is fairly common. The numbers given are those of Kinsey which claim 10% to be homosexual. Yet those figures came from volunteers and prisoners. Kinsey has been shown recently to have used fraudulent and unethical research methods. More representative studies indicate that 1 - 2% is a much more likely estimate.

What difference does it make what the percentage is? People look around them and wonder which 10 of their 100 friends are closet Gays. This is especially true of teenagers who wonder in their period of ambivalence, "Is it me?" Misguided activists, in their attempts to "reach out" to troubled Gay youth, actually recruit more.

What's wrong with that? To send a teenaged boy into the Gay culture is a death sentence. With fewer emotional tools to protect themselves than even the adults whose practices are incredibly self destructive, they will be destined for certain AIDS. Will condoms protect them? They grossly break or slip off at least 1/3 of the time when used for anal intercourse, not to mention the intrinsic problems that lead them to fail to prevent pregnancy when used by heterosexual teens 15 - 18% of the time.

It is often said that the Psychiatric profession recanted on its classification of homosexuality as a disease, but that has only political and public relations significance. On what basis is it to be called normal. By public opinion poll? Contrary to popular opinion, truth is not determined by popular opinion.

For one who believes in evolution it cannot be called normal. Even though homosexual behavior does occur in the animal kingdom, it is not "adaptive" because it will not leave increased offspring. Therefore from a Darwinian point of view, it must be called maladaptive. For those who believe in creation, the record is even more clear. The Creator showed what is "normal" by physical and emotional design factors.

It cannot be denied that, for whatever reason, in present society there is a great tendency for promiscuous behavior among male homosexuals. There is not the same tendency among female homosexuals. This speaks of the differences in psychological makeup between men and women. Men are more oriented towards physical attraction and gratification. Women are more oriented towards relationships. Emotionally, this makes male/female sexual relationships more inherently stable than male/male sexual relationships. A woman needs to be wooed and is not so likely to lose interest in a man after being wooed. This will be likely to stimulate continued interest by the man.

Physically, the sexual activities of male homosexuals run into problems of using equipment for purposes other than original design. This could also be a factor in producing a sense of incomplete fulfillment and leads to a restless search for satisfaction from another person or activity.

But how can something as beautiful as sexual attraction be considered wrong? This is one of the most difficult questions to answer. What of the person who feels a loving attachment with sexual overtones. Are they not free to act on it? I submit that although sexual attraction and the whole experience of sexual activity carries beauty and great significance, still it is intended to be kept within strict limits. Even when used outside those limits, some of the original beauty remains. Yet, at the same time, there are destructive features.

Think of the analogy of eating. It is pleasurable, probably because if it were not, some of us would never take the time. Yet it can be misused. The 500 pound individual probably still gets pleasure from eating and the child who eats dirt does it for a reason. Yet we would not accept these activities as normal or good.

In the same manner, sexual activity remains pleasurable even if it is being misused. And I submit that even the most liberal will draw the line somewhere. What of the pedophile who feels real attraction and desire for sexual activity with children? Do we say that it is OK because it comes from an inner motivation? What of the extreme sadist, the individual who gets intense sexual pleasure from not only inflicting pain but actually torturing and killing? ("Snuff films" command large prices, I am told.) Are we to allow this behavior because it is pleasurable to the perpetrator? Ah, someone will say, we only allow activity between consenting adults. But this gets into convoluted determinations of what is consent and what is an adult. Regardless, there are those waiting in the wings, ready to call for legitimization their own "sexual orientation" if this one passes muster.

The point is that other factors enter into the discussion of what is considered acceptable and what is not. I submit that the social and psychological toll, not immediately apparent to the participants, is one of those factors.

But would I deny sexual expression to a certain segment of society? As mentioned above, that will always be true in any society that rises any height above pure anarchy and barbarism. What happens to these people? Down through history, there have been those who have voluntarily given up sexual activity. It is possible although perhaps often difficult and even painful. Sometimes it may, however, produce strength of character and creative energy that comes all too often only through suffering.

Of course, as human beings, we have free will which allows us to chose either the hard way or the easy way among a whole host of choices. Even if the benefits of a harder choice are clearly spelled out, and even if they are agreed upon, it is no guarantee that the best course of action will follow. So, in the area of sexuality, there will always be misuses. Yet it is no solution to define these as normal and pretend that everything is therefore wonderful.

Rather we need to clearly define the best choices, both from the viewpoint of the individual and the viewpoint of society. We should certainly not promote anything less. We should seek to meet the deep and painful needs within those afflicted by a sexual aberration and we must find ways to spare the next generation from that pain.

This article will probably raise the blood pressure of anyone committed to an alternative view of reality. Yet I ask for intellectual honesty and patience to reexamine the arguments when the mind is in a more rational state. The truth is not always popular. Changing an opinion never comes easy and is especially difficult when public pronouncements have been made. Still the truly honest person must ask three things: 1) Have I considered the possibility that I might be wrong on this point? 2) If I were wrong, could I be convinced? and 3) If I were convinced, would I have the courage to change. That takes real courage, just like it does to stand up for truth you already recognize if it happens to be unpopular.

Resources

National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.
http://www.narth.com

Restore Hope Network http://www.restoredhopenetwork.org/

Outpost Ministries http://www.outpostministries.org//

The URL for this document is