Thursday, December 30, 2010


(* 1.  The state or quality of being proper, correct, and socially acceptable.  2.  The state or quality of being accepted as valid or important.... (from Google dictionary)).

I believe many gay men have a respectability problem:  that is, they don't respect themselves, and, as a result, our society doesn't respect them either.  How else to explain some of the things many gay men do?

Unfortunately, the ones who don't respect themselves--who comprise the more visible part of our community--make us all look bad, because that's what our society sees.  And that's what it erroneously assumes we're all like.  

Here's the bottom line:  If we don't respect ourselves, who will?


A few days ago, I asked our next door neighbor, M., a question about her husband, P.  I said, "P. seems to be pretty open about gay men.  Is he really like that, or is it all just a big act?"

"I think before you and Chris moved in next door," M. answered, "P. didn't know what to think about gays.  But since we've been neighbors, talked to each other over the fence, been over to each other's house, I think he's more accepting than he was before."

I smiled to myself.  I've long thought attitudes toward gay people will change one person at a time, when straight people interact with gay people, sharing small, everyday experiences, seeing firsthand we're not so different from them.  That's how acceptance is built, how the distance between different people is shortened.

It's also why all of us as gay people have a responsibility to ourselves, and to other gay people, to live exemplary lives and to set a good example.  What you do today as a gay man or a lesbian woman will have an effect on how we, individually and as a community, are perceived in the future.  When you have the chance, please be sure to play your part.              

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

A Matter of Choice

In a recent blog post, I wrote I was done defending myself as a gay man.  I said that isn't what my blog is about anymore, and it's not what I want to spend my limited writing time working on when I have the opportunity to add something new and constructive.

Then this happened:

Last Saturday evening, our next door neighbors came over for a little Christmas holiday cheer and home-made pumpkin cheesecake.  I had the opportunity to ask the seventeen-year-old daughter, Lindsay, what the response was in the high school she attends when the half dozen or so young people in the United States committed suicide during the early part of the school year.  (For those unfamiliar with this story, the young people in question were bullied either because they were gay, or because they were assumed to be gay, deciding the only way to end the pain was to kill themselves.)  Specifically, I wanted Lindsay to talk about if these tragic and senseless deaths registered in the high school she attends, several thousand miles north, in a community that could be described as red neck and a little rough on anyone who's different.

Remarkably, the deaths were acknowledged, and, on a specific day, students were asked to wear something purple to show their support.

Lindsay related the story of a young man her age, in her graduating class, who wore something purple, but not because he supports gay people or feels strongly about young gay people who are bullied.  Apparently, this fellow is a devout Christian, whose goal is to become a church minister when he graduates next June.  To this end, he carries a portable Bible around with him, and he uses every opportunity he has in a secular public school to communicate his version of God's truth.  Lindsay said this young man had made clear in conversations with his peers that being gay is unacceptable and, in fact, a choice people consciously make.

That got me thinking.  I wrote something recently about the issue of people choosing to be gay, but maybe I hadn't explored the subject as thoroughly as I could have.  So here are a few other things I came up with, for those of you who still think being gay is a choice:

1.  Why would I choose to be gay?  Why would anyone choose potentially to turn family, friends, neighbors, colleagues, society, the church, the world, God, against him by actively choosing to be gay?  Who in his right mind would do that?

2.  What would I gain by choosing to be gay?  If sexual orientation truly were a choice, how would anyone benefit from choosing to be gay over choosing to be what most everyone else is (that is, straight)?

3.  Finally, if I had the choice to be gay or straight, then presumably you, a straight person, had the same choice, too.  At some point, you must have consciously realized your sexual orientation could go one way or the other, right?  So why did you choose to be straight when you could just as easily have chosen to be gay?  And why did I choose to be gay when you didn't?  What's different between me and you that led to our individual choices?    

Just a few questions to ponder.

What's so disheartening to me is the young man in Lindsay's school, purporting to believe in, to live, and to teach God's word.  Trying to influence his peers to believe the same things he does about homosexuality.  He's seventeen, has virtually no life experience, and has probably never known anyone who is gay--spoken to him or gotten to know him as a human being.  Yet, he presumes to know people make the choice to be gay, and he's already passed judgment on them as a result, wholeheartedly condemning them because they didn't make the right choice, according to him or to his understanding of God's word.      

I don't consider this blog post as much about defending myself as a gay man as highlighting how misguided some people are, even young people, because of what they were raised to believe, and how they've done themselves a disservice by accepting the notions of others without opening themselves to what they could learn from their own experiences.  

Despite this, I believe the upcoming generation offers more hope than ever--that we can and should count on a greater degree of understanding and acceptance from our young people, because they live in a very different world from the one I grew up in--who are more familiar with gay people, who may even have gay friends, and who are more open to diversity between human beings.

One misguided young man, manipulating God's word to judge other people and make himself look better or right, doesn't concern me.  Lindsay didn't buy what he had to say, and, for that matter, neither did her parents.  In general, people are savvy to what's been done in the name of God, and they are fed up with how the world's been negatively affected by religions and zealots since the beginning of mankind.  

We have every reason to believe circumstances will continue to improve for gays and lesbians, just as they have over the past two or three decades, and, fortunately, people like this young man will end up preaching to fewer and fewer followers, which is as it should be.

Monday, December 20, 2010

Greeting Cards for Gay Men

I can't be the only gay man frustrated with the greeting card industry at times of the year like this one.

First, what families do these companies think they're writing these cards for? I did not have a selfless mother, who did everything for her children, and who created happy and wonderful memories my sister and I will cherish for the rest of our lives. Nor did I have a father who was always there for us, who willingly provided his understanding, support, and guidance, and who created happy and wonderful memories my sister and I will cherish for the rest of our lives.

Who the hell has a Beaver Cleaver family?  Greeting card companies need to get their heads out of their asses and sell real cards for real people.  (Come to think of it, I came up with that idea recently--for a whole new line called "Keeping It Real: Real Cards for Real People."  I dare Carlton or Hallmark or some competitor to do something with it.  I'd even write some realistic yet gracious verses for them.  I'm just saying.)

Now, let's talk about greeting cards for gay men.  Oh, I've seen what's available, at places like Little Sisters, Vancouver's gay and lesbian emporium, featuring naked hunks, sporting huge erections, with smart cracks (no pun intended) inside (just because we're gay men, why does everything have to be about nudity and sex?).  In fact, on several occasions, I've spent a few minutes among these cards, amused or playfully mortified by just how brazen and tasteless they are. Buy one to give to someone?  You must be kidding.  No one buys these things, do they?  Aren't they nothing more than novelty items, meant to entertain customers when they come into the store, but destined to remain there forever?  I could never give one to someone who means a lot to me, certainly not to my life partner, Chris, the man I've been with and loved for nearly two decades.

No, at certain times of the year--like Valentine's Day, or Chris's birthday (November 6), or our anniversary (June 13), or Christmas--I need to find something just right--meaningful yet appropriate, and definitely not obscene.

So there I am, standing in front of the wall at Carlton or Hallmark (or both), every kind of greeting card imaginable at my disposal, and not one of them appropriate or right or suitable, for so many different reasons.  I can't tell you how hopeful I've been walking into these stores, sending out positive energy the perfect card will catch my attention, so I won't have to spend ridiculous amounts of time looking, outright rejecting most, reading a choice few over and over, trying to expand my imagination to somehow make them fit the person or how I feel about him, only for my spirits to deflate and my frustration level to rise, as I'm sucked into the vortex of craziness that is the greeting card business.

The problems with greeting cards a gay man might give to his life partner are endless but mostly characteristic, regardless of the occasion.  Sometimes, I find one with the perfect verse, exactly what I want to say to the man I know I'm so blessed to call mine, only to be faced with a picture, or an illustration, of a man and a woman on the cover.  Do I draw a mustache on the woman and call it a day? Haven't gotten that desperate yet, but the thought has occurred to me, on more than one occasion.  

This past weekend, I found a Christmas card with the perfect sentiment inside to give Chris, but the picture on the cover was of a man's hand holding a woman's, hers long and slender, fingernails carefully manicured and painted.  Can't exactly give Chris that one, now can I?

After I eliminate all the "sweetheart" or "man I love" cards, finding something wrong with every single one, I move into the "husband" and "wife" cards.  Is Chris my husband?  I suppose so, if I look at him in the broadest sense, even though we're not officially married.  He certainly isn't my wife.  If anyone is the wife in our relationship, it's me.  (Fortunately, Chris doesn't look at me that way, so I've never received a "wife" card from him, not yet anyway.  Perhaps he hasn't gotten desperate enough.)

On occasion, I've had to settle for a "husband" card--it's the only one I found with the right expression of sentiment for Chris, without a picture of a woman, or some part of a woman body, or something reminiscent of a woman, on the cover.  "So I'm your husband, am I?" Chris asked me once, skeptically.  I understood his raised eyebrows. What do we call each other?  In the heterosexual world, you have husbands and wives.  In the gay world, we have...lovers, partners?  No one's produced lovers and partners cards yet, and I'm not certain that's how I feel about Chris anyway.  So I explained to him, it was the only card I could find, before I snapped in the store and had to have mall security escort me out the door.

This Christmas, the greeting cards were the worst I'd ever seen, THE WORST, not just for family members but for Chris, too.  Oh, the cover pictures were beautiful, inspired, artistic expressions of a warm and wonderful time of the year. But the verses?  Are you kidding?  They were dreadful.  Or maybe I wasn't in the right frame of mind to search for greeting cards on the occasions I made the concerted effort, hopeful, so hopeful, I'd find them all in one location and put an end to that part of holiday lunacy.  And the "sweetheart" or "man I love" cards? Hopeless.  Absolutely hopeless.  I can't tell you how many stores I looked in--London Drugs, Save-On Foods, Carlton, Hallmark, in several different locations, over and over--always hopeful, always disappointed.

In the end, I bought the exact same card I gave Chris last year.  I remember the picture on the cover--completely generic, not a man or a woman, or anything to point to a specific sex, in sight--and this entirely suitable verse:  "Your love is a gift I treasure more with every passing day, and as time goes by...I find myself discovering more and more reasons for loving you.  That's why this Christmas, I'm thinking about how wonderful it is to have your love in my life, and how much you mean to me [Carlton]."  (Collective, "Awww!").  I just hope Chris doesn't have as good a memory as I do.  Come to think of it, I know he doesn't.  Greeting cards aren't as important to him as they are to me.

Maybe I should have followed my first impulse and bought all ten or so copies of the same card so I'd have a decade's supply, thereby saving me from having to endure the anguish of searching futilely for just the right cards to give him well into the future. Anything to avoid the endless frustration of greeting card stores at Christmas time.


Postscript dated December 4, 2012:

Nearly two years after I first published this post, it continues to receive a phenomenal number of pageviews–to date, nearly 1,000 in total.  This tells me many gay and lesbian people have an interest in giving each other greeting cards, and they continue to have difficulty finding something suitable, either through companies like Carlton or Hallmark, or through gay and lesbian emporiums in their cities.

So, let me tell you how Chris and I solved this problem for ourselves, starting last Christmas (2011).  We made our own customized greeting card.  

On our local drug store's (London Drugs) website, under photo development, there is the option to order greeting cards.  All you have to do is select a border consistent with the occasion (in this case, Christmas) and insert a picture of your choice.  Then submit your order.

To be sure we had our cards well in advance, we ordered them in early November.  They arrived several weeks later, and we just sent them off this past weekend.  The price, by the way, is less than if we'd bought personal cards for all of our friends and family members.

The bottom line is, you don't have to rely on what the big greeting card companies have available.  Sure, there are many Internet greeting card companies, all of them headed by folks who are willing to work with every customer to ensure the desired product is made. But why not do it yourself?  It couldn't be easier.        

If you click on this link, you'll see a sample of the Christmas card Chris and I sent to friends and family in 2011.  It will give you an idea of what you can do for yourself, with minimal effort and maximum result.

Good luck, and I hope you never have a problem finding suitable greeting cards again.

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Response to a Comment on "Homosexuality is NOT a Moral Issue!" -- Part Three

For the preamble belonging to this series, please see the first number of paragraphs in 'Response to a Comment on "Homosexuality is NOT a Moral Issue?" -- Part One.'


You stated that “you are what you are” and that can’t be changed. The documented evidence paints a much different picture.[23][24][25][26][27][28]

Please see my previous comments on this subject in Part Two.  I have nothing more to add.    

It’s apparent there is a concerted effort by government, judiciary, the homosexual lobby, the media and the education system to promote and support the gay agenda. Anything  contrary to this program of indoctrination is ridiculed, opposed or suppressed.29]

I don't believe for a moment the government, judiciary, homosexual lobby, the media, or the educational system promote and support the gay agenda.  (Again, I have no idea what the gay agenda is, and I'm a gay man.  Don't you think if there were one, I'd be aware of it?)  Rather, I believe they are finally recognizing a lot of gay people make up the population at large, and those gay people deserve to be treated the same as everyone else--not better, not worse, just the same.  Let's not forget the point I've tried to make in countless blog posts:  Gay people are human beings first, and gay second.  As human beings, we are entitled to the same rights and privileges as everyone else.  It's not because of our sexual orientation that we're not.      

The denotation of indoctrination is:  "teach a person or group a set of beliefs uncritically."  I think enough criticism has been leveled toward gays and lesbians throughout history on any number of subjects.  You can understand why we, as a group, are fed up with being criticized for who and what we are, over which we have no choice (which I wrote about extensively in Part Two).  It's past time to move beyond criticism to acceptance.          

As Shakespeare astutely once noted, “the truth will out.”30]

Yes, "The truth will out."  And the truth is homosexual people are here to stay.  We have always been here (even in Shakespeare's time), and we will always be here.   It's time society gets over it and moves on.  Let's focus on what makes us similar rather than what makes us different.  And believe me, we're far more similar than we are different.     

“Heterosexual” is the state of sexual normalcy. It’s our God-given design. There remains no credible or replicated scientific evidence to the contrary.

A statement like this is nothing more than simple arrogance--like heterosexuals, as a whole, are somehow superior to homosexuals simply because 1).  God made them that way, and 2). they are able to procreate.  

Sometimes, I've wondered if God created homosexuals because, if He hadn't, the world would be even more over-populated than it is now.  The fact is, homosexuality exists in all species of animals, including human beings (my apologies to anyone who thinks the comparison between human beings and animals is inappropriate).  Is it possible God created homosexuals in all species as a natural mechanism to ensure the population didn't grow out of control?  I'm just asking.  If it hasn't already, the human population has exploded far beyond what Earth can realistically support, and it's only a matter of time before we cross the line of no return and find ourselves in a much worse position than we are now.  

Homosexual conduct is but one of many sexually deviancies, including Pedophilia, Pederasty, Incest, Sadomasochism, Exhibitionism, Transvestism, Voyeurism, Ephebophilia, Zoophilia and Necrophilia. The irrefutable evidence demonstrates they are abnormal and unhealthy behaviors that negatively impact all of society. Even Darwin’s theory of evolution, which imagines “survival of the fittest,” would seem to bolster this self-evident truth.

There's a whole lot of wrong in this paragraph beyond my ability (or interest) to address, beginning with lumping homosexuality with everything from pedophilia (discussed previously) to necrophilia.  Consider this possibility:  I'm going to go out on a limb here and state the vast majority of gay men and lesbian women are no more interested in any of these sexual behaviors than the vast majority of heterosexual people.  And one more point:  You don't have to be a homosexual to be into any of these other behaviors.  How homosexuality continues to be grouped with all the rest is beyond me.  Does anyone out there seriously think because I'm a gay male, I enjoy having sex with young children, family members, animals, or dead bodies?  I don't get it.       

I'll challenge anyone who thinks homosexuality negatively impacts society.  If anything, it may negatively impact other homosexuals, for the reasons the writer of these comments and I agree on.  

But how does my being a homosexual negatively impact you as a heterosexual person? Sure, I can't procreate.  Frankly, I know I'd be a horrible father, so I think not being able to procreate is a good thing, in my case.  And, let's face it, if all heterosexual people think they're doing the world a lot of good by having children, well, take a look at how some of those children have been raised and what's been unleashed on us as a result.  Really, just because they can doesn't mean all heterosexuals should give birth.                   

Clearly, the moral and ethical path to follow is one of biological correctness, not political correctness.

I don't believe heterosexuality constitutes biological correctness.  Heterosexuality is nothing more than a sexual orientation alternative that the majority of people possess. Doesn't make them superior to anyone else. And despite everything the writer of this extensive comment has written, I'm not in the least convinced heterosexuality is necessarily the moral and ethical path to follow.  Nothing here supports that. 

In closing, I would ask this… if Homophilia was in fact a normal, healthy and traditional form of sexuality, why would anyone have objections to it, and why would it have to be tolerated, or put up with, in order to be accepted?

This is a loaded question.  Unfortunately, we live in a largely Judeo-Christian world, where people have taken a literal reading of the Bible, which is supposedly God's word, and applied it inappropriately to a group of people God created just like everyone else. Throughout history, Christians, as a whole, have used God's word to justify all manner of deplorable conduct toward fellow human beings, thereby, in my opinion, missing the point of God's word altogether.

Some people have objections toward other people, and thus tolerate them--in this case, homosexuals-- because they come from a place of superiority, thinking they are better than everyone else, using God's word to assume that mighty position.  This is not my understanding of God's teachings.  Not by a long shot.  My God is a God of love, and He loves homosexual people as He loves heterosexual people.  They are no different to Him.  

And, in fact, I believe my God looks down unfavorably on those who don't accept homosexual people (as well as other kinds of people) and will hold them accountable on judgment day.  If you are heterosexual, think you are better than homosexuals, and don't have acceptance and love in your heart for gay men and lesbian women, I hope you'll have an adequate explanation for the deplorable and arrogant manner in which you conducted yourself while on Earth.  You'll need it.               

An attraction to the opposite sex and an ability to procreate is what has historically been the normal and accepted lifestyle, and that universal law will never change, regardless of whatever someone else contends. Imagine where you'd be now if your parents held the same ideology that you do.

I have nothing further to add to this comment except to make the point that, in all likelihood, heterosexual parents give birth to--or at least have a hand in creating--homosexual children.  So, yes, heterosexual people are responsible for procreating and ensuring the survival of the human species, but the survival of the human species includes gay people.  That's just the way it is.    

And if you want to debate dictionary definitions, it seems self-deprecating that anyone attempting to convince society their behavior was commonplace or worthy would choose to identify themselves with a term like “queer”. Demented, unnatural, unbalanced, freakish, psycho, deviant, phony, twisted and perverse hardly sound normal or something to aspire to.

The word queer is nothing more than a word, a term that many homosexual people--not me among them--have adopted in order to take it back from heterosexual people who have used it against them.  The same goes for faggot, again, a word I dislike immensely, because of the number of times it was used against me, but that many gay men use to remove the sting in it, to neutralize it, so to speak.

If you've read my other blog posts, I don't think gay people should use the word queer to refer to themselves.  But I don't have control over what other gay people do.  I can only control what I do.  And I would never refer to myself as queer because the term in no way describes me or the way I live my life.  But, in light of what I wrote above, I understand why some homosexual people use the word, and that's their choice.      


[23] "Homosexuals have been known to change." - International Journal of Psychiatry.
[24] "The majority of homosexuals come from homes where the father figure was either absent or neglectful". - Dr. Lorraine Day, acclaimed surgeon from the University of California who has treated hundreds of homosexuals.
[25] "There is no DNA or medical test to determine if someone is homosexual. Sexual orientation is a matter of self-affirmation and public declaration. - Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX)
[26] Homosexuality and the Truth
 [27] Living Proof that Homosexuals Can Change
 [28] The National Association of Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, a branch of the American College of Pediatricians, offers effective psychological therapy for homosexual men and women who seek change.
 [29] Gay Reversal Advocates Say School Libraries Banning Their 'Ex-Gay' Books
 [30] The Three Stages of Truth

“We cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease. We have to own up to that and face up to that.” - National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Leader, Matt Foreman.

I don't know in what context Matt Foreman used this word.  Elsewhere in this series, I made my position clear on whether or not I believe HIV or AIDS is a gay disease.  For the record, I don't.    


And so, we've come to the end of this series.  A few parting comments, if I may.

1).  Vanessa/Anonymous put considerable time and effort into trying to prove homosexuality is indeed a moral issue.  I respect her for that.  It's obviously important to her.  Did she prove her point?  I guess that all depends on what side of the fence you fall on.  I'll let you decide for yourself.       

2).  I'm struck by the academic tone of these comments, accompanied as they are by extensive footnote references and clarifications.  Does Vanessa/Anonymous think by using footnotes, her argument is stronger and irrefutable?  Perhaps.  But academic arguments are no different from legal arguments.  Anyone can use any information, turn it around to serve her purpose, and believe she's proven her point beyond a doubt.  

More important to me is what your gut tells you is right, what your heart tells you is right.  If your gut and your heart tell you homosexuality is immoral, that gay people should be derided, then I feel for you.  Somewhere along the line, human compassion has to come into play.  And your compassion for other human beings should tell you most homosexual people are just like you in their daily march toward the grave, trying to do the best they can with what they have.       

3).  Did I intend, by using Vanessa/Anonymous's comment as the basis of this series, to convince her homosexuality is not a moral issue?  No, not at all. Vanessa/Anonymous has obviously made up her mind, and I know I can't influence that.  Did I hope to use this opportunity to share with my readers how I feel on a myriad of subjects I haven't written about here before?  Absolutely.  Now you know me a lot better, good and bad.  

4).  As I come to the end of this series, I'm struck by how unimportant all of this feels to me now.  I've had my say, now I'm moving on.  My blog has evolved and is no longer about defending myself as a gay man.  Rather, using my own experience, my intention is to help gay men and lesbian women see the role internal homophobia plays in their ability to love themselves, and to accept true love from significant others within the context of long-term and committed relationships.  If you don't love yourself, who will? 

Thanks for reading.   

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Response to a Comment on "Homosexuality is NOT a Moral Issue!" -- Part Two

For the preamble belonging to this series, please see the first number of paragraphs in 'Response to a Comment on "Homosexuality is NOT a Moral Issue?" -- Part One.'


You raised the question as to how can someone who engages in gay sex be looked upon in the same manner as a murderer, thief or rapist.

Let me cite you a few examples of how the comparison can be made:

Dean Corll ("Candyman") was a homosexual who murdered teenagers in Huston. Other notable homosexual serial killers were Randy Steven Kraft ("Score Card Killer"), David Maust, Wayne Williams, Fritz Haarmann (”Butcher of Hanover”), Luis Alfredo Garavito, Michael Swango (“Doctor of Death”), David D. Hill, Huang Yong, Adolfo de Jesus Constanzo ("Matamoros Cult Killer"), Henry Lee Lucas, Ottis Toole, Jeffrey Dahmer (homosexual cannibal) and Canada’s infamous, sadistic, homosexual rapist, Clifford Olsen.[12]

Before he was executed in Utah State prison for the killing of five boys, Arthur Gary Bishop said of his crimes, "With great sadness and remorse, I realize that I allowed myself to be misled by Satan. I am a homosexual pedophile convicted of murder and pornography was a determining factor in my downfall."[13]

I can't believe this continues to come up, so let's see if I can write something to put it to rest once and for all.

A distinction MUST be made between homosexuality, and everything from pedophilia to murder.  Sure, some of the people noted above--which I spot checked on Google because, I confess, I'd never heard of them--may have been gay.  But there is no correlation whatsoever between homosexuality, and child sexual abuse or cannibalism or murder.  Some homosexuals are pedophiles and killers just as some  heterosexuals are, too.  In fact, I don't have the statistics nor do I have specific names (because this is not my area of expertise), but I'm certain most pedophiles and murderers are heterosexual.  It's not because one is gay that one is into sex with underaged children leading to all manner of depraved acts.  So let's stop with these inappropriate comparisons.  They are erroneous at best, and insulting at worst.      

And I'm going to make a statement here that might make some people angry.  Perhaps the reason why at least some of these gay men went off the deep end and committed crimes both straight and gay people find utterly heinous is because they learned early on being gay was unacceptable.  Perhaps they were bullied so badly, they got messed up in the head, and, instead of finding constructive ways to deal with the hate directed at them (like the majority of us do), they lashed out and discovered completely dysfunctional ways of coming to terms with who they were.  I'm just saying it's possible. As one who was taunted and bullied for years in the public school system (which I've written about extensively here), I understand the pressure they felt.  Most gay people deal with it, a few don't.  Perhaps, then, our society has to take some responsibility for what happened.          

There have been many instances of homosexuals and bisexuals wittingly or unwittingly infecting their partners with AIDS. If the person was aware they were carriers of the disease before the liaison transpired, it’s fairly easy to perceive that as an act of manslaughter. If it were a pre-meditated event, a charge of first-degree murder might even be warranted.[14][15]

Obviously, I can't address every instance of homosexuals knowingly infecting their sex partners with HIV or AIDS.  Let's just say I'm sure many infected heterosexuals have done the same thing, whether they knew it or not.  Anyone, gay or straight, who engages in this misconduct must be held accountable in a court of law and face the appropriate consequences, whether that be a verdict of manslaughter or whatever. Immoral conduct in this regard is not the exclusive domain of homosexuals.  

The homosexual lobby likes to cite stories of violence against them as a justification of acceptance. As my references cite, much of this violence towards the gays is emanating from their own community. As usual, the MSM is silent on these issues.[16][17][18][19][20]

Physical violence occurs in some relationships, period, whether the people are straight or gay.  All of us are familiar with stories of men who physically, not to mention, emotionally abused their wives.  Conversely, I have read about some instances where a man in a gay relationship abused his partner.  It happens.  Again, not something exclusive to homosexuals.

The greater concern, I think, is in discrimination against gays that leads to violence. These stories are far more numerous--instances when, for no apparent reason, gay men are bashed simply because of their sexual orientation.  

A recent local example involves a supposedly straight man who sucker punched a sixty-plus year old gay man in a Vancouver gay pub.  Reportedly, the victim hit his head hard on the cement floor and is now mentally impaired to some degree.  Fortunately, the straight man was found guilty of a hate crime and has been sentenced to time in prison, but the gay man will likely never recover completely from the assault .  These are the instances where gay people say enough is enough, and demand acceptance of who and what they are so this sort of thing stops.  (I don't know what the MSM is, sorry.)             

The Mass Resistance organization has reported that gays have terrorized groups that oppose the homosexual agenda. PFOX (Parents & Friends of ex-gays) have stated they have been targets of harassment and hatred by gays.[21]

Unfortunately, I can't speak to this.  I don't know about the Mass Resistance organization.  But I will say this.  As far as I'm concerned--and bear in mind I'm in no way political--there is no such thing as a homosexual agenda.  At least, I'm not aware of it.  If the agenda has to do with being accepted and having the same legals rights as everyone else, well, then, I'm aware of that and I wholeheartedly support it.  But I don't think we have a homosexual agenda, per se.  If we do, someone should tell me about it.  And if a vigilante group of gays has actively harassed anyone, then, in the same way I'd expect straight people to be, their actions must be addressed through the legal system.  I'm not in favor of harassment of anyone, gay or straight, for any reason.  Live and let live.     
You stated that you and you partner have sex with each other in the same way that straight couples have sex. How is that possible, unless your partner has a vagina? If you're talking about anal sex, I think I speak for the majority of straight couples when I say that sodomy isn’t a standard form of copulation between mates. Certainly anal sex has become more commonplace with the advent of widespread pornography in the media but I believe if people were aware of the inherent dangers of this aberrant activity, they would think twice before indulging.[22]

If you want to be specific about how Chris and I have sex, all right, I admit we can't have penis/vagina sex, because one of us doesn't have a vagina.  But, as I wrote in part one of this series, sex is sex.  For me, especially having been with Chris as long as I have, I think sex is less about the physical mechanics and more about the emotional connection between two people.  For that reason, I don't believe any sexual act between two consenting people of legal age is off limits.  

Sex is intended for two people to enjoy within the context of a loving, committed relationship.  That's what I was raised to believe, anyway.  If some straight, as well as gay, people are disgusted by the idea of anal sex, then they shouldn't engage in it.  End of story.  But it is an option for those who are interested, of whatever sexual orientation.  As human beings, we are entitled to engage in and enjoy sex.  If any of us have hang-ups about any sexual acts, then don't do them.  It's that simple.  Just don't dictate to the rest of us what we can and cannot experience.  It's really no one's damn business.             

I’d also like to contest your statement that whether you were born gay or turned out gay because of how you were raised makes no difference whatsoever. Actually, it makes a monumental difference since being “born gay” is one of the myths that homosexual activists use to further their cause. The fact that you even give consideration that your sexual propensity was attributed to your upbringing indicates the questionable validity of the “born gay” argument.

You know, at this point, I can't say one hundred percent that I'm gay because I was born that way or I became that way because of how I was raised (science hasn't proven that either).  All I know for sure is that I've been gay for as long as I can remember.  When I imagine other little boys were turned on to attractive women and their various body parts, I was turned on to handsome, hunky, and hairy men I came into contact with--from next door neighbors to teachers to men on the street.  

Regardless of the cause, I am the way I am, and being gay is as much a part of me as anything else.  Why should the legitimacy of homosexuality be based on how its caused?  The point for me is that I'm gay, and many millions of people around the world are gay as well.  That's what we are, regardless of the reason why, and we should be able to live our lives accordingly. 
The truth is that homosexuality is not a lifestyle pre-determined by genetics or God. If it were, it could not be altered by mere choice. You cannot "choose" to be blonde, Caucasian, tall or attractive. But homosexuals, bisexuals, pedophiles, and the like, CAN choose to alter their behavior.

First, to lump homosexuals and pedophiles in the same category, and say we all have a choice as to who we are, is insulting.  As far as I'm concerned, there's no comparison between the two, in any respect, which I've made clear in my other comments.  So enough already.  

Second, for the vast number of gay people, being homosexual is not a matter of choice as suggested.  I did not make the conscious choice to be gay.  I don't believe anyone does.  Why would we chose the constant battle of being gay as opposed to fitting neatly into a heterosexual world?  

Look at it this way.  Sexuality occurs on a continuum, with exclusive heterosexuality at one end and exclusive homosexuality at the other.  The sexuality of every human being falls along that continuum somewhere.  Thus, for example, those who identify themselves as bisexual probably fall somewhere in the middle.  These are the folks who may have identified themselves as gay at some point, then, through sheer will, counseling, even prayer, supposedly converted to heterosexuality.  All I can say is, good for them.  Unfortunately, they make the rest of us look bad because we can't all be converted--that is, we can't all identify ourselves as gay one day and straight the next. Doesn't work that way.            

And here's something else I want to add this argument.  I've written numerous posts in this very blog about wishing for all the world I were straight.  My life over the past fifty-one years would certainly have been a lot easier if I had been.  Instead of writing posts about gay people overcoming their self-loathing, learning to love themselves despite what society and our culture says about them, and finding and keeping those loving relationships so many of them want, I'd be able to write about gardening or automobiles or books or whatever else I feel passionate about.   

The fact is, no amount of wanting to be straight will help me be that way.  Not even if I were one hundred percent motivated to be straight would I be able to change my sexual orientation.  I know what physical attributes I'm attracted to.  Straight men love women's breasts and legs and asses, for example.  I love men's muscular bodies, facial hair, and hairy chests.  Anyone would be hard pressed to convince me I could go from being obsessed with hairy chests to breasts.  Not going to happen in this lifetime.  So regardless of how I turned out to be gay, I AM GAY.  Who cares how it happened. There's no turning back now.  That's my fate in life.  That's what I have to deal with.  And I believe I'm doing the best I can with what I have.       
Some people mistakenly equate a black person to a homosexual. Skin color is a neutral, immutable characteristic. Being “black” is what someone is. On the other hand, being “gay” is what someone does. It involves feelings and changeable behaviors. Homosexual conduct is more akin to alcoholism, gambling or pot smoking behaviors than it is to skin color (and for those in the lifestyle, especially men, sodomy most definitely involves rolling the dice). Comparing “black” or “heterosexual” to “gay” is a deception and one that is totally erroneous. Understandably, many African Americans find this disingenuous comparison tremendously offensive.

No, contrary to the comment above, homosexuality is not just what someone does.  It's who and what you are.  Countless posts I've written and published here talk about the irrefutable connection to someone of the same sex.  I'm not in a relationship with Chris simply because he turns me on physically and I want to have sex with him.  I'm partners with him because I connect to him on all levels--intellectually, spiritually, emotionally, and physically.  In the same way I imagine a heterosexual man derives from a heterosexual woman what he most wants and needs in a partner, I achieve the same with Chris.  

How insulting to state homosexuality is akin to alcoholism, gambling, and pot smoking. The comparison isn't even remotely appropriate.  Again, this comment suggests homosexuality is a choice, but, I can assure you, unless you are gay yourself, you can't make this claim.  I can't turn being gay off and on at will.  I can't be gay today, and, for whatever reason, choose to be straight tomorrow.  Any gay person on that continuum close to the homosexual extreme would agree with me.  Being gay isn't a choice, and let's put an end to that notion immediately.     

I notice the final sentence in this part is not supported by documented evidence, so I have to believe the person writing these comments is perhaps black herself.  If I've ever offended a black person by claiming being gay is the same as being black in terms of not having the choice to be otherwise, then I apologize and won't make the comparison again.  That said, I assure you being gay is not a choice, for me or for anyone else who identifies himself as gay and has made peace with it.  I can't imagine going through the misery I have over the years because I chose to be gay instead of straight. What fool would ever actively make that choice?      


[12] Homosexual serial killers
[13] Catholic aide says gay men commit most pedophilia
[14] AIDS Director to China Warns Gays on High-Risk Behavior
[15] Everyone Should Know these Statistics on Homosexuals
[16] A study by the Canadian government regarding homosexual couples states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples".  - 2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005
[17] According the American College of Pediatricians who cite several studies, violence among homosexual couples is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples. "Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years."

[18] In June of 2004, the journal, Nursing Clinics of North America reported the following regarding homosexual couples: "Domestic abuse is under-reported in the gay community, citing a number of cases of abuse and violence among intimate partners. - Nursing Clinics of North America North Am. 2004 Jun;39(2):403
[19] In 2000, the New York Times in an article entitled "Silence Ending About Abuse in Gay Relationships" cites this statement from Dave Shannon, co-ordinator of the violence recovery program at a gay and lesbian clinic in Boston. "For years, gay people have tried to keep quiet about the problem. Why should we air our dirty laundry when people feel so negatively about us already? The last thing we should do is contribute to negative stereotypes of us." - New York Times, 11/06/2000
[20] "Domestic violence is the third largest health problem facing the gay and lesbian community today and trails only behind AIDS and substance abuse in terms of sheer numbers and lethality." - Susan Holt, coordinator of the domestic violence unit of the L.A. Gay Lesbian Center
[21] Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays
[22] “Having receptive anal intercourse is a known risk factor for anal cancer.” - National Cancer Institute

Friday, December 3, 2010


I'm thrilled to advise I received an email today from Rachel M. Stevenson, Co-founder of Counseling Masters, to say this blog has been selected as one of the "Top 50 Blogs to Help Your Personal Relationships."

In her email, Ms. Stevenson wrote:  "I'm writing this because I thought both you and your readers might want to check out our article "Top 50 Blogs to Help Your Personal Relationships", wherein This Gay Relationship is listed at #13."  The website where the entire list is located is:

Further, the reference to this blog on the above website says: "If you are interested in having a successful homosexual relationship, this blog can help you with insights from a man who has been in a monogamous gay relationship for nearly two decades."

As a said to Ms. Stevenson, when I wrote back to thank her for the recognition, I've worked at this blog for nearly two years, and my first intention has always been to share through my own example that long-term, loving, committed, and monogamous gay relationships really do exist, and they are possible for everyone.

I also said I've tried to help gay people see they must work on loving themselves first for successful relationships to become a part of their lives.  I believe this more than ever, and, if I've written anything in any of my posts to help make that happen in someone's life, then I've truly succeeded at what I set out to do.

Please check out the above link, and, again, my sincere thanks to Rachel Stevenson and Counseling Masters.  I'm overjoyed my humble blog is listed on her website.

Response to a Comment on "Homosexuality is NOT a Moral Issue!" -- Part One

What a gift!

The gift I refer to is a recent comment I received to a post I published in April of this year titled "Homosexuality is NOT a Moral Issue!"  The comment arrived in five parts--three containing the text and two containing extensive footnote documentation and elaboration on the points made.

The initial comment was received from someone named "Vanessa," who later changed her ID to "Anonymous."  I'm disappointed Vanessa or Anonymous set up her comments in such a way that I am not able to access her Blogger profile or contact her via email.  Note for the future, Anonymous:  If you leave a comment, positive or negative, you should have the courage to take ownership of it.  Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, you shouldn't leave it.  

The gift also has to do with the enormous opportunity Anonymous gave me to include such a meaty treatise in rebuttal to my little post on my little blog, not visited by enough people or garnering enough attention to devote such inordinate time and energy to.  Given the extensive footnotes provided to accompany the comment, I suspect Anonymous may have used my post as the basis of an academic writing, which I take as a compliment.  All I have to say to Anonymous is, thanks.  I appreciate your interest and the time you took to share with me and my readers what you think about homosexuality as it relates to morality.  You've spiced up my blog considerably.

How I'd like to address Anonymous's comments is throughout the post itself, following each piece I wish to address, in red, so you, dear readers, know the difference.  No doubt, Anonymous speaks for many people, and she deserves full credit for her enthusiasm and her passion on this subject.  My only hope in affixing my own comments is to add some much needed balanced and perspective to what Anonymous has to say.  Everything has two sides, especially this issue.

(I hasten to add I could have deleted the comments from Anonymous and dismissed them outright; however, I know from what she wrote she feels strongly about this subject--what she's written is obviously considered, thought-provoking, and not at all a rant.  How could I possibly ignore this opportunity to add clarity to this matter.)


To a certain degree, you're correct in stating your mutually consenting gay relationship is nobody else’s business. I agree that the Catholic church is being hypocritical with its stance on homosexuality. The lesbian in question is likely being used as a martyr in an attempt to restore faith in a failing religion.

Though I consider myself a Christian, I believe for the most part that organized man-made religion is a sham. Jesus never had a church of his own, nor did he expect people to bow down to him or offer payment. He never asked what religious denomination someone was, or if they believed in the Holy Spirit. Jesus said "Those that worship me shall do so not in a building built with hands but in spirit and in truth". It's curious that the centre of Christianity is the Vatican in Rome, yet Jesus never set foot there.

I'm not biblically savvy but I know that Jesus often spoke in parables so at times scripture cannot be taken literally. “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits”. As you eluded to, God gives man free will and the choices we make largely determine our fate.[1]

True enough, my consenting gay relationship is nobody's business.  But I believe, to some degree anyway, I've made it other people's business by using aspects of it as the basis of more than a few blog posts.  So, as long as people who wish to comment on it are respectful of me and my relationship, I'm open to what they have to say.

On the subject of religion, you and I take much the same position:  I consider myself to be a Christian, too, but I don't think much of formalized religion, and, even though I was raised a Catholic, I have little respect for the Catholic church.  I think formalized religion is largely the construct of human beings, and, for that reason, I'm not certain God appreciates it.  I'm not biblically savvy either, and I have no plan to quote verses from the bible in any of my comments here.  I couldn't agree more that "scripture cannot be taken literally." 

When you state homosexuality is not a moral issue, I would have to disagree. If you consider that the lifestyle of a typical homosexual shortens a lifespan by 20 years[2], greatly increases the risk of STD's[3][4], and is responsible for an epidemic of AIDS[5] and other sexually transmitted diseases disproportionately, there should be no question about whether homosexuality is good or bad, righteous or unholy.

Of course, you already know how I feel about whether or not homosexuality is a moral issue (my original post was titled "Homosexuality is NOT a Moral Issue."  I'm pretty clear on that one).  

I'm not sure about homosexuality itself shortening the lifespan of the typical gay person by 20 years.  Perhaps that's been the case over the past two decades, considering the disproportionately high number of gay men who died of AIDS since the early 1980s. But, historically, I suspect the lifespan of most homosexuals has mirrored that of most straight people.  

I also don't believe for a moment gay men have been responsible for the AIDS epidemic, or that HIV/AIDS is a gay disease.  Many, many straight people the world over have died from AIDS (take a look at current statistics for the African continent), so, for that matter, if we want to say AIDS is God's revenge on gay promiscuity (which has been said), then, given some straight people are just as, if not more, promiscuous, God may have it in for straight people as well.  AIDS does not discriminate.           

As with any monogamous relationship like yours, the odds for a long and healthy live [sic] greatly increase. What I think you’d admit though is that the average gay relationship is anything but monogamous. At least all the studies would concur.

Although gay activists often argue that legalizing homosexual marriage would help make such relationships more permanent, the reality is that most gays desire variety in their sex partners, not the monogamy of traditional marriage. Numerous studies throughout North America and Europe show that the plea for legal homosexual marriage is less about marriage than the push for legitimacy. Most gays and lesbians are not in monogamous relationships, and in fact often live alone by preference.[6]

Yes, sadly, I have to admit many gay men have open relationships, where both partners are able to have sex with other people for the sport of it.  Anyone who's read my blog knows I deplore this conduct; it is the single aspect about being gay I have the most difficulty with.  A little secret:  Back in my early twenties, when I was the most conflicted about being gay, the biggest reason was because I couldn't imagine living that lifestyle. Don't ask me where I got the idea, but I was certain most gay men preferred promiscuity to monogamy.  In fact, I believed gay men lived for sex and had no interest whatsoever in settling down with one person and building a life together.  For these reasons, I thought if I admitted to myself and to others I was gay, my fate would be one of loneliness and promiscuity, and that was unacceptable to me.  

Not until I realized I could set my own course--that is, I could choose to be monogamous within the framework of a gay relationship--did I ultimately decide to accept who I was, come out of the closet, and pursue the true happiness I believed could only come from a loving, committed, and monogamous relationship.  (For the record, every sexual encounter I had always came from a place of believing I'd found the right person for me, and that what we had, flimsy as it was, would develop into so much more.  I don't remember ever having sex for the sake of having sex or engaging in one-night stands.  Several men took me home when I was much younger; however, if I had the least inkling nothing would ever develop between me and them, which I usually did, I didn't put out.  Instead, the man who took me home became frustrated and went to sleep, and I laid in bed awake all night, listening to them snore, wondered what the hell I'd gotten myself into and hoping it would soon end.)       

Here's my thought on gay marriage:  Chris and I have talked about getting married many times over the eighteen-plus years we've been together.  For all intents and purposes, we already believe we are married, in all the ways that are important.  Any gay man or lesbian woman who thinks his or her relationship will be more permanent just because he or she gets married is delusional.  Take a look at the number of straight marriages that don't make it.  I have no reason to believe gay marriages would fare any better.  

I don't think the push for gay marriage is as much about legitimacy as it is to be seen as equal under the law.  Chris and I have taken appropriate legal measures to ensure if one of us dies, the other is fully protected: that is, our relationship is seen as valid insofar as our last wishes are carried out, whether one or the other of us pulls the plug or inherits everything.  At the last minute, we don't want one of our relatives or the government to step in and claim our final wishes are null and void simply because we were a gay couple and not legally married.  Gratefully, neither one of us has died.  We can't be sure we've accounted for everything without having a valid marriage certificate, but we're hopeful. That, to me, is the real reason why gay people want to be legally married.    

And a word on the subject "most gays and lesbians are not in monogamous relationships, and in fact often live alone by preference."  Despite what any study might suggest (one in Denmark doesn't speak for the entire world), I know of many gay couples who are in long-term, monogamous relationships.  This comment is the very thing that upsets me, because gay men in general don't do a great PR job for themselves.  The most visible part of our community, that of the overly-sexual, promiscuous tramp, misrepresents a diverse community, comprised, oddly enough, by many, many people in long-term, loving, and monogamous relationships.  These are the gays and lesbians who live their lives quietly, with no fanfare, and that the straight world knows little about.  But, believe me, they are out there.  Chris and I are among them (although, through my blog, I hope to create a better understanding of just how diverse the gay community really is).                  

Homosexuality becomes a personal issue to me, as it should with the general public when it’s presented to young children as something normal and virtuous[7], or when it’s taken to the streets and displayed in a lewd and licentious manner.[8]

I wouldn't necessarily say homosexuality is virtuous (that is, "having or showing high moral standards").  I can't say I've ever seen it that way.  What I do believe is homosexuality should be presented as normal, because it is normal for many millions and millions of people in the world who are gay.  It's normal for me, as an example, because it's all I've ever known.  I don't consider myself to be abnormal just because I'm gay.  

If we fail to show children homosexuality is normal, just as heterosexuality is normal, then, and if any of those children are gay, as they inevitably will be, we send them down the long and difficult road of believing who and what they are is abnormal.  From my own experience, and that of many gay people, the consequences of that are far worse than if our society stopped being so judgmental and accepted that homosexuality has been, is, and always will be normal for a good many human beings.  For thousands of years, society or our cultures have tried making homosexuality wrong, and we've succeeded in making gay people hate themselves as a result, with negative consequences too numerous to discuss here.  Why don't we try the alternative and see what happens.  We might be surprised by the beneficial results.  

Yes, I agree our Pride parades are often lewd and licentious.  I've written about that in at least one past blog post.  That's why I don't attend them anymore and have no interest in them.  It's one thing to be proud of who you are; it's another to present yourself as filthy and disgusting to the public at large.  Pride parades don't represent me, and many people like me, and that's why I've chosen to dissociate myself from them.    
Recently, a Toronto school board backed off from a planned sex-ed course due to opposition from many of the parents who felt that subjects regarding masturbation, oral and anal sex were not appropriate for their children. I don’t think anyone could convince these parents that morality and ethics weren’t a major issue here.

Despite my position on promiscuity and public lewdness, I'm not a prude, and I believe children of an appropriate age should receive education on matters of sexuality.  Should the schools do what the parents think they should do?  That's a matter for debate.  I'm certain many parents don't fulfill their responsibility to teach their children on all aspects of human sexuality.  Somebody has to.  If the schools must, then so be it.  There are plenty of studies to suggest, just because the schools teach children about sex, the children don't go ahead and have sex.  I'm all for education to give people, in this case, children, the information they need to make informed decisions about their bodies and their sexuality.    

There is absolutely nothing wrong with masturbation, and oral or anal sex.  In fact, most people enjoy masturbation, and many people, straight or gay, engage in oral and/or anal sex.  As long as the people in question are of legal age and consent, no one should be restricted to the type of sex they have.  In this case, no sexual act is right or wrong, good or bad, moral or immoral, ethical or unethical.  I've made my position clear on this in the past:  Sex is just sex.  So what.  Let's get over it already.     

In some Boston high schools, known sex-offenders have been giving classes to students not only in oral and anal sex, but in rimming and fisting.[9]

Okay.  All I have to say here is the public school system didn't do their due diligence if in fact sex offenders were hired to teach classes in Boston high schools on any subject, let alone sex.  On rimming and fisting, I can't say these are two of my favorite sexual practices, but they exist, and people--I suspect gay and straight--engage in them.  For that reason, yes, I think children--again, of an appropriate age--should be made aware of them.  If parents are prepared to do that, great.  If not, then I believe someone has to, but obviously not sex offenders.  Just because people have the information doesn't mean they'll go ahead and do it.  (I hasten to add, whoever provides this education should also discuss the inherent risks of these sex acts so young people are completely informed and make right decisions for them.) 

You don't need a PhD to see that indoctrination of this nature is unconscionable and has no place in the school system. Anyone who thinks otherwise would clearly be suffering from something far worse than a mere “phobia”.[10]

I think my comment above speaks to this matter.  I don't believe students taught about some of the more out-there sexual practices are likely to be indoctrinated to engage in them.  People still have the ability to choose what's right and wrong for them and must use their discretion accordingly.  The last line of this paragraph confuses me.  I'm not sure what it means.   

Again, I don’t hold the entire homosexual community responsible for extremist behaviour like this, but it casts a dark shadow over everyone involved in "gay liberation". As John McKellar states, the actions of “gay activists” is what’s responsible for the push for homosexual marriage.[11]

Agreed.  But let's not forget extremist behavior exists in the heterosexual community, too.  The homosexual community doesn't have a monopoly on this.  It's important to know the gay community is made up of a majority of decent, hard-working, law-abiding, generous, and (insert whatever positive adjective you want to here), just like the straight community.  There is a fringe of the gay community you, as a straight person, may or may not agree with.  There are many gay people who don't agree with it either, but it's there, and it's not going away any time soon.    

While writing this, I've realized I won't be able to address all three parts of this reader's comments in one post--it would be far too long.  Please look for parts 2 and 3 in upcoming posts.


[1] “I have set before you life and death… therefore choose life.” - Deuteronomy 30:19
[2] "The median age of death is less than 50 years for those involved in homosexuality." - National Institute of Health.
[3] The San Francisco Public Health Department reports that syphilis among the city's gay and bisexual men was at epidemic levels. Men having sex with other men leads to greater health risks than men having sex with women not only because of promiscuity but also because of the nature of sex among men.
[4] A study in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that homosexuals and bisexuals contracted potentially fatal ailments such as AIDS, anal cancer, tuberculosis and hepatitis disproportionately.
[5] An epidemiological study from Canada of data for AIDS-related deaths reveals that male homosexual or bisexual practitioners lost up to 20 years of life expectancy.
[6] In Denmark, a form of homosexual marriage has been legal since 1989. Through 1995, less than 5% of Danish homosexuals had gotten married, and 28% of these marriages had already ended in divorce or death. The Danish experience provides no evidence that gay 'marriage' is beneficial. Men who married men were three times more apt to be widowers before the age of 55 than men who married women. Similarly, a woman who married a woman was three times more apt to be a widow than a woman who married a man. In 1990, only 12% of gays in Toronto, Canada said that they were in monogamous relationships.
[7] Horror stories in the schools
[8] Pride parade
[9] Fistgate
[10] It is alarming, disheartening, and medically unethical that this information (“The Little Black Book - Queer in the 21st Century”) be distributed to anyone. That it is distributed at taxpayer expense to vulnerable and confused youth should awaken every citizen and legislator to immediately de-fund this organization, and the attorney general to pursue prosecution for endangering minors on a grand scale. - John R. Diggs, Jr., MD, South Hadley, Mass.
[11] John McKeller, President of Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism (HOPE) publicly states he staunchly opposes gay activism and the "marriage" of two men to be lawfully considered the same as the union of man and woman. Besides demonstrating that not all homosexuals want to abolish the sanctity of “marriage”, it also clearly indicates the term "homophobe" is erroneous, and that the gay rights movement is largely controlled by a minority of radical activists intent on subverting morality and sexuality.