Active Homosexuality
“Hey, I don’t care what people do behind closed doors. Not my business.”
“Two consenting adults can do whatever they want, it is a private matter.”
“Not that there is anything wrong with that.”
We have all heard these statements before or variants of them. They are usually voiced by people who know that active homosexuality is wrong but are afraid to seem judgmental or unkind. To avoid the topic altogether, many convince themselves or are convinced by homosexual activist that active homosexuality is merely private matter, a choice that has no impact on anyone else and thus should not be the subject of public policy (or discussion).
It is not the purpose of this post to get into the morality of the gay lifestyle, rather to make the point that it is not merely a private matter between consenting adults that harms no one and thus has no public policy implications. First, some facts. I have excerpted the executive summary of an article by physician John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D.
Executive Summary
Sexual relationships between members of the same sex expose gays, lesbians and bisexuals to extreme risks of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs), physical injuries, mental disorders and even a shortened life span. There are five major distinctions between gay and heterosexual relationships, with specific medical consequences. They are:
* Levels of Promiscuity
Prior to the AIDS epidemic, a 1978 study found that 75 percent of white, gay males claimed to have had more than 100 lifetime male sex partners: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500- 999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. Levels of promiscuity subsequently declined, but some observers are concerned that promiscuity is again approaching the levels of the 1970s. The medical consequence of this promiscuity is that gays have a greatly increased likelihood of contracting HIV/AIDS, syphilis and other STDs.
Similar extremes of promiscuity have not been documented among lesbians. However, an Australian study found that 93 percent of lesbians reported having had sex with men, and lesbians were 4.5 times more likely than heterosexual women to have had more than 50 lifetime male sex partners. Any degree of sexual promiscuity carries the risk of contracting STDs.
* Physical Health
Common sexual practices among gay men lead to numerous STDs and physical injuries, some of which are virtually unknown in the heterosexual population. Lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs. In addition to diseases that may be transmitted during lesbian sex, a study at an Australian STD clinic found that lesbians were three to four times more likely than heterosexual women to have sex with men who were high-risk for HIV.
* Mental Health
It is well established that there are high rates of psychiatric illnesses, including depression, drug abuse, and suicide attempts, among gays and lesbians. This is true even in the Netherlands, where gay, lesbian and bisexual (GLB) relationships are far more socially acceptable than in the U.S. Depression and drug abuse are strongly associated with risky sexual practices that lead to serious medical problems.
* Life Span
The only epidemiological study to date on the life span of gay men concluded that gay and bisexual men lose up to 20 years of life expectancy.
* Monogamy
Monogamy, meaning long-term sexual fidelity, is rare in GLB relationships, particularly among gay men. One study reported that 66 percent of gay couples reported sex outside the relationship within the first year, and nearly 90 percent if the relationship lasted five years.
Encouraging people to engage in risky sexual behavior undermines good health and can result in a shortened life span. Yet that is exactly what employers and governmental entities are doing when they grant GLB couples benefits or status that make GLB relationships appear more socially acceptable.
We have public policy designed to discourage many private behaviors that could possibly harm the participants or those around them(e.g. smoking, illegal drugs,etc). The risks of active homosexuality are frightening. The statistics about promiscuity (most with hundreds of partners) and monogamy prove the lie that homosexuality is about love for most. It is about compulsion. This compulsion leads to higher risks of contracting and spreading STDs and higher risks of injury. The gay lifestyle exposes the participant to other serious health risks resulting in high rates of psychiatric illnesses, including depression, drug abuse, and suicide attempts. These are all behaviors and maladies with clear public health concerns. Finally, a study shows that this behavior can reduce overall lifespan by twenty years.
I ask you, what other behavior that carried such risks to the participant with clear implications for public health would be treated as merely a private matter between consenting adults?
So if you have ever used the phrase “Not that there is anything wrong with that,” remember these statistics. Next time, for the sake of accuracy, you should say, “Kill yourself, what do I care?”
May 24, 2009 at 6:20 pm
There’s just so many battles to fight. So, if I have to pick one, I’ll take the Abortion controversy because a helpless people helplessly get murdered there. Last night, I saw this documentary about the sexual revolution that started in the 60’s and evolved into everything that Sodom and Gomorrah might have made legal. I felt overwhelmed. So, all I can do is treat homosexuals with respect and maybe they will change and not be forced into circling their wagons and sticking to their guns.
May 24, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Excellent post Patrick.
We should treat everyone with dignity. But we should also love one another and that means looking out for the welfare of others. We simply can’t be lukewarm because we all know where that can lead to.
May 24, 2009 at 7:55 pm
I’ve always treated people that claim to be gay with respect. However, I refuse to have their sexual lifestyle shoved into my face, that’s where I draw the line. Sorry… I don’t consider it normal, I’ve read this study you’ve provided at one point or another in the past, and I just don’t accept that it’s good for our society.
May 24, 2009 at 9:25 pm
We should treat all people with respect, but it is a tragic commentary on our society to have been literally bullied by the promoters of dangerous homosexual activies into treating an obvious sickness as normality. What is most deranged is the attempt by “gay” zealots to force their salacious propaganda into the educational curricula of children and young teens. It’s an utter abomination.
May 25, 2009 at 1:30 am
HOMOPHOBE!!!!!
*waits ten seconds*
Alright, now that 90% of the likely responses are out of the way….
I wish there was some way to help most of the homosexuals I know, that wouldn’t instantly turn them away.
The horribly insidious fact of it is, now that homosexuals have been told for generations that to “deny” their urges is to lie, and any attempt to control their urges is paramount to murder… there’s just not a whole lot that can be done promptly to great effect.
Keep on keepin’ on, I suppose– love the sinner, hate the sin, try to explain the difference if they’ll listen.
Good luck to us all.
May 25, 2009 at 3:32 am
Can you give links to ANY of the studies you mention?
May 25, 2009 at 3:36 am
He linked the entire paper…..
May 25, 2009 at 4:03 am
here’s the link to the full report, along with 129 footnotes.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html#12
Joe K
May 25, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Sadly, we need to publicly acknowledge the reality of Neo-Nazi skinheads beating homosexual persons. Also, are Christians now supposed to deny that certain people have any loving impulses whatsoever? Also, be careful about sources where you pull your statistics–are you quoting legitimate medical sources or are you quoting discredited screeds? Please think about what I just typed. In fairness to you, though, the linked article did seem to be actually reasonable.
May 25, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Post an article saying “these are the health risks,” get accused of not paying enough attention to the folks at risk having loving desires, being beaten up, and then have the source be assumed to be illegitimate– even though it’s right there to be checked.
I wish one fiftieth of this amount of concern was shown when the homosexual agenda was being shoved down my throat in school!
(They even used that discredited study that counted how many men in jail had been involved in homosexual encounters, including being raped, and considered them all active homosexuals….)
May 25, 2009 at 5:33 pm
“…an Australian study found that 93 percent of lesbians reported having had sex with men, and lesbians were 4.5 times more likely than heterosexual women to have had more than 50 lifetime male sex partners.”It would seem axiomatic to me that any woman who has had fifty male sex partners has no claim to be a “Lesbian.”
May 25, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Most of the lesbians I know were married and had at least one kid when they “discovered” they were lesbian and left.
I’d take a wild guess and suggest that females would be more likely to be pan-sexual because of the tendency to view sex as a way to get the affection they need, where males are more likely to see sex as a goal in and of itself.
May 25, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Excuse me, but I was simply trying to guide the discussion in a constructive direction, as opposed to reinforcing an echo-chamber.
See, this is why I rarely comment on Catholic ‘blogs anymore.
May 25, 2009 at 8:35 pm
How dare we object to you changing the subject…. Heaven forbid.
May 25, 2009 at 9:54 pm
If I did unintentionally change the subject, then I apologize. That’s one of the problems that I’ve had.
And now I will bow out of this thread.
May 25, 2009 at 10:53 pm
It’s not just homosexuality that gets treated this way in spite of the damage done by the lifestyle. A number of years ago I was at a conference for prenatal instructors. At this conference, not one of presentors used the words husband or wife. The preferred term was partner. After about 3 sessions, I had had enough. During a question and answer period, I brought up the facts of increased risk of domestic abuse, increased risk of child abuse and child sexual abuse, the statistics concerning children in single parent homes regarding educational success, criminal activity and future marital success. I then asked why we were supposed to encourage women to develop the kinds of relationships that lead to those results. Half the room applauded, the other half looked at me like I had just announced that I was the Grand Klegal of the KKK. Sometimes I think our entire culture is up for a Darwin award. Terentia
May 26, 2009 at 7:43 pm
I think it’s a given that practicing in promiscuous sex (heterosexual AND homosexual) is unsafe behavior. On medical grounds, the premise of this article is flawed in that it is basically saying if people engage in homsexual acts are monogamous, then things should be just right (no STD’s). And once again, the same could be said for heterosexual couples.
If we want to expand on this train of thought, we can say, obese people should be monitored, smokers and drinkers should be monitored, extreme sports enthusiasts should be monitored etc all because there is a significant health risk. “What if I only smoke 1 cigar a year at special ocasions?” Doesn’t matter; you fall into a group of smokers who we all know are habitual abusers.
We as Catholics oppose homosexuality on religious grounds. Trying to bring science into it is inane, since you can apply the same “science” to all the situations above. I’m with Rick – let’s pick our battles carefully.
May 26, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Thing is, you won’t change anyone’s mind on religious grounds.
So you have to meet their arguments– the arguments being countered here are listed at the top.
Having 50+ partners who prefer sexual activity which has increased risk of STD transmission is a *lot* more dangerous than smoking, being overweight, or driving without a seat belt.
May 27, 2009 at 5:12 am
Foxfier/sailorette the CDC statistics for deaths from STD’s in the US is 1 per million, or roughly 3057 people. Deaths from not wearing a seatbelt usually account for 60% of road fatalities, so this year under conservative estimates, that would mean approximately 24,635.4 deaths in 2008 from not wearing a seatbelt. So, not wearing a seatbelt is far more deadly than being sexually promiscuous, statistically speaking. The biggest killer for men is heart disease (see: drinking, smoking, obesity) and 96,835 men die a year die from lung cancer (see: smoking). But who needs a little thing like facts to get in the way of “science”.
May 27, 2009 at 6:05 am
Anon-
You’re not comparing similar statistics; also, your link for STD deaths expressly excludes AIDS, and cites the WHO, not the CDC.
You linked page says that 60% of those killed in automotive accidents in 2001 were not restrained. (they also claim 12,000 lives saved, but don’t give a source for that statistic)
The same site gives the 2001 total automotive related deaths as 42,196, which includes pedestrians and motorcyclists.
Digging a little lets you find out that of the accidents reported in 2001, measuring only passenger vehicles, 57.3% used restraints, 32.8% did not, with a note that seatbelt use may be over-reported for survivors.
Their passenger car occupants killed total is 32,041, of which 54.7% were not restrained, and 37.3% were.
This leaves over ten thousand automotive deaths unaccounted for, and the missing 5+% means they were fudging a bit to get better numbers. (Counting motorcyclists, pedestrians? Hard to know.)
The 2007 estimate for how many persons in the USA have AIDS is 1,051,875. Take the 2008 US population guestimate and that’s one in less than 300. Take 50 partners, and that means a one in six chance of being exposed to AIDS– which has a 100% fatality rate. (I’m ignoring the likelihood that someone who would sleep with someone who has over 50 partners would also be likely to have a large number of partners, and thus higher risk)
Factor in other STDs that can kill you and you get an idea.
For a comparison between your motor vehicle deaths with and without seatbelt and the 50+ partner deaths (which, I’ll note, isn’t the comparison *I* made) you’d have to do a study only on those who have 50+ partners, then see how many have a deadly STD.
Wait… studying the effects of a higher number of partners… isn’t that what the article linked up top *does*?