********************************************************************************
THE GAY PACKET: Framing the Issue of Homosexuality in Society
********************************************************************************

This post of over 4000 lines contains information, argument, and
Biblical overtones against the notions of gay rights, the gay gene theory,
and whether,or not homosexuality can be overcome.  Other material will be the
gay agenda and how homosexuals recruit and exploit.  Everyone on this list
is welcomed and even encouraged to respond to this post, but if you choose to do
so, please respond to the entire post in the best way you are able.  Yes, it
will take time to answer it.  So it would be advisable to prepare a
rebuttal and post it when you have it done, just as I have done.  Please do not 
nit pick at certain portions, deleting the rest.  Everything has to be in 
context otherwise it will be hard to understand.

********************************************************************************
There is a great influence within major media for politically correct causes. 
When the issues come to you, they are sanitized and editorialized, so that they
appear to be what they are not.  You don't get the news anymore, you get the
views.  You aren't told what is going on, you are told what to think about what
is going on.  

The gay agenda takes advantage of ignorance.  It is an attempt to get you to
react emotionally by putting the label "Civil Rights" on the agenda.  What do
we know about Civil Rights?  Well first we know that the African Americans in
this country were not allowed to have the same job opportunities and privileges
that we have.  There was discrimination and segregation.  Now this is a very
emotional subject.  Many people have seen the light that treating a black
person less than human is wrong.  So what the gay community has done is to
transfer that same concept to the issue of their own agenda.  They try to frame
the issue in such away that you are made to think that you are dealing with a
Civil Rights issue when you are not.  They have framed the issue this way to get
you emotionally involved.  It is away of taking a conditioned society and
ringing the bell of Civil Rights to get you react the same way to gays as you
would react to black people.  If you resist, they attempt to continue the 
manipulation by throwing out emotional buzzwords like "bigot" "homophobe"
"discrimination" "hatemonger" and many others to demagogically pigeon hole and
broad brush stroke you into their own bigoted campaign.   The brunt of their 
attacks are on what they call "The Religious Right." 
When we hear these kinds of words, we immediately see a correlation between 
the gays and the blacks, and are intimidated and are made to believe that our 
religious convictions are wrong by undermining them and by telling us that we
are denying people's rights by holding these positions.
This is what the Homosexuals want.  

Well there is no correlation between gays and blacks, very few if any.  When
was the last time you rode a bus that said "Homosexuals to the back?"  When was
the last time you went to get a drink and there was one drinking fountain for
Heterosexuals and one for homosexuals?  When was the last time you went to the
bathroom and there were three doors, one for men, one for women, and one for
homosexuals?  This kind of stuff happened with the African Community and is not
happening with the gay community.  Here are some other interesting statistics
about how homosexuals operate in our society.  
   Homosexuals make over $55,000 a year average income
   Over 60% are college grads
   Over 60% travel overseas
Source--Wallstreet Journal

Any statistic will tell you that the homosexual community is anything but
economically deprived.  Are they politically powerless?  Well, they gave over
$3 million to Bill Clinton's campaign.

The problem is, the homosexuals and the liberal media have taken this issue and
have made it out to look like gays are these persecuted, honest, loving people. 
The media is promoting the agenda big time. 

For example: In Newsweek, one headline read "One of the New thrusts for the Gay
Agenda will be homosexual marriages."  This is public relations.  It is an 
attempt to jerk on your heart strings and get you to make an emotional 
decision so that you won't talk about what they do, you'll talk about who they 
are.  Why didn't they put a couple of dykes on bikes on the front cover....
NOT GOOD FOR THE AGENDA.  

Another example:  Gays in the military issue in another newspaper.  They have a
homosexual on there as a discriminated, persecuted person.  He's not a
discriminated, persecuted person, he's a lawbreaker.  The Uniform Military Code
of Justice says he can't be a homosexual and have that uniform on.  Why didn't
Newsweek put "Law-Breaker" on the cover....NOT GOOD FOR THE AGENDA.
 
How you frame the debate determines everything, because debate has to do with
perceptions.  Perceptions give consensus. 
For example:  I am going to debate a guy named Joe on World
Peace.
I am for World Peace
Joe is against World Peace

Who lost the debate?
Joe.
Why?
Because everyone is for World Peace (as in the case of the gay agenda--No one
is against Civil Rights when Civil Rights isn't the issue at all).  It is a
loaded question.  I am giving the perception that Joe hates World
Peace.  Do you see what position I have put him in.  This is what has
happened with the homosexual argument.

Now, let's start out the argument this way, but this time the debate is going
to be around "At what cost?"  What have I done?  I have made it even playing
ground, because we're not all willing to pay the same price for World Peace.

Now if this is Civil Rights, let's take the issue of race--red, yellow, black,
an white.  Now if you were to go up to David White, could you tell just by
looking at him that he is a good person or not.  No.  Why?  Because being black
tells you nothing about a person's character.  If you go up to an hispanic,
could you determine that this person is immoral in anyway?  No.  Because race
has nothing to do with that person's character.  

But if you go to a person and he says "I am gay."  What does that
tell you?  It tells you everything about his behavior, it speaks of their
behavior, it is identity around behavior. So this is not a Civil Rights issue, 
it is a behavioral issue.   

********************************************************************************
First, let us begin with the gay population:

sources:
FROM THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL RELIGION REPORT: MAY 3, 1993
VOL 7, NO 10 and stated in the Conservative Chronicle last spring.

Additional Sources: Alan Guttmacher Institute/ Human Affairs Research Center/
Family Research Council

"Gay men do not comprise 10% of the American population, although
the statistic is frequently cited, according to a $1.8 million
federally funded study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a former research
affiliate of Planned Parenthood.  Researchers at the Seattle-based Battelle 
Human Affairs Research Center found that 1.1% of men between the ages of 20-39 
had participated exclusively in homosexual relationships over the last 10 
years.   About 2.3% had engaged in some homosexual activity within that time 
frame.  The 10% figure, based on the 1948 Kinsey sexual research reports, has 
long been criticized as an unrepresentative figure.  Conservative groups such 
as the Family Research Council, as well as some other researchers say 
homosexuals have padded the numbers to encourage acceptance of their 
political-civil rights agenda.  Other 2%-7% of all Americans, and 
international studies generally support those figures.  Almost all researcher 
agree that lesbianism is less common than male homosexuality and that not all 
survey respondents of either sex will admit openly to homosexual liaisons."


Questions and Observations:

1.  Why would homosexuals fabricate statistics?

2.  It would seem that the statistics in different age groups of practicing
homosexuals aren't consistent.  1.1% of men (if consistent) would be from birth
to death.  Two conclusions and maoist OR the majority of participating
homosexuals are not through the teen years where heterosexual teenagers (sadly
enough) are sexually active and age 40 on where the majority of heterosexual
couples are married, who are dating.  What happened to the Homosexual
population during this time frame.

      a.  Many teenagers who grow up in abusive relationships or are in an
environment of homosexuality can be drawn in and influenced during that time. 
Sex is a very powerful thing.  What parents do in the bed rooms do come out at
least psychologically, because we are sexual beings.  If you don't think sex is
powerful, take a look at MTV or sex commercials.  Do you honestly believe that
that doesn't affect society or influence society.  Kids are blank sheets of
white paper and when you have an environment set up where they have family
members or people around them that are gay, chances are, THAT child will mimic
the behavior and establish his own disposition.  That is why it's a very serious
issue about homosexuals adopting children.  I am not pointing any fingers on
this subject matter.  This is only something to consider in the whole argument. 
Homosexuality is also being taught in the public school setting. 
                                                                
Sources: The Gay Agenda in Education Documentary video

                                                       
       b.  Many homosexuals die of AIDS or other diseases after age 39, 40. 
Suicide, and drugs, and murder is also a part of this. 

Sources: D.C. Research Council
         FRC Report
         Conservative Review


3.  Why are there more gay men than lesbians?  Why has the gay community said
it is 50-50 between homosexual men and lesbians.  This is another inconsistency
especially with the fact that females make up the majority of the population.
                                                    
********************************************************************************
Conservative Chronicle, April 28, by Samuel Francis states the following:
Additional Sources: Alan Guttmacher Institute/National Opinion Research Center/
Human Rights Campaign Fund/ Atlantic Monthly.

"For years, homosexual propaganda has purported that 10% of the male population
of the United States is composed of Homosexuals.  So embedded is this claim
that there's even a homosexual magazine that calls itself "Ten Percent."  Now a
survey of sexual behavior released by the Alan Gutmacher Institute shows that
the claim is wildly unreliable, that the more accurate the figure is more like
1%.  That figure refers to men who are exclusive homosexuals.  The number for
men who have had any homosexual experience is only 2%.  

"The findings also happen to be consistent with those of other recent surveys. 
A french study in 1992 found that only 1.4% of men had homosexual
intercourse in the previous 4 years.  A National Opinion Research
Center Survey the same year found that only 2.5% had a homosexual experience in
the previous year.  A 1991 National Survey of Men found 2% had such
an experience in the previous 10 years and only 1 Percent were exclusively
homosexual.  

"Yet despite the mounting evidence that the 10% figure is hooey, Lavender Lobby
leaders are struggling---well---manfully to maintain it, 'If everyone examines
their conscience,' whimpers Gregory Kind of the Human Rights Campaign Fund,
'they know that more than one in 100 people are gay....Common sense tells you
this survey is nonsense.'  'I feel the 10% figure is probably about right,'
sighs Cathy Renna of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

"Well, of course if you start examining your conscience, there's no telling what
you'll come up with.  You might even reach the conclusion that sexual
attraction to people of the same sex is just plain not natural, which after all
is the conclusion of several thousand years of ethical reflection about it. 
Speaking of nature, while the case for the 10% claim is collapsing, so too is
the claim that homosexuality is genetic.

"Just as Homosexual propagandists want to make out that they compose 10% of the
population to inflate their social and political importance, so they also want
to claim their sexual orientation is genetic and therefore natural.  Thus
Robert Bray of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has invoked a scientific
study alleging a genetic basis of homosexuality to claim the study supports
'our belief that nature created us just the way we are and that there is not
reason to fix anything because nothing is broken.'  Quick to snort at arguments
drawn from the natural law of traditional homosexuality is unnatural,
propagandists are equally quick to grab studies that supposedly show it's
really what Mother Nature wants.

"Yet, in a long article on 'Homosexuality and Biology' in the Atlantic last
March, homosexual author Chandler Burr can find hardly any reliable scientific
evidence for inheritability.  He finally comes up with one study of twins that
claim to show 'up to 70%' inheritability of homosexuality.  But the study was
not based on twins raised in different environments, so there's no way to
exclude environmental and cultural factors that may have influenced sexual
development.

"Yet, even if homosexuality were shown to be genetic in origin, that wouldn't
make it normal.  Plenty of people are born with genetic birth defects and
diseases, and no one considers their conditions normal.

"Homosexuality is 'unnatural' in the same way a tumor is.  The tumor exits "in
nature," but no doctor will tell you it is normal.  Medicine, like morals, is
founded on an ideal of what the natural body and natural human behavior should
be, and sports of nature don't become normal just because there are genes
behind them.  

"Homosexual activists have had a gay old time with the facts and the truth
about the inflated numbers and unnatural preferences of the Lavender Lobby is
leaping out of the closet, we need to make sure our laws and policies reflect
it."

********************************************************************************
For the Conservative Chronicle, April 27, William F. Buckley, Jr.
Additional Sources: Book 'Conduct Unbecoming'/ 60 Minutes.

He states:
"Randy Shilts, the gifted author of 'And the Band Played On,' has AIDS. 
Eventually he suspected this might be the case and so had asked his doctor to
take a blood specimen but not to advise him of the results until he finished
his book---he didn't want to face the demoralization of knowing that he had
contracted a terminal disease.

"The moment came, and Shilts learned of his fate, but even so decided to embark
on a new book, "Conduct Unbecoming: Gays and Lesbians in the U.S. Military,
whose thesis is to the effect that roughly speaking everybody from David to
Sergeant York was gay and that therefore there is zero point in excluding, or
rather trying to exclude gays from the military.

"The book was published during a weekend heavy with pressure on the points of
contention.  There was a the very big blast in Washington, several hundred
thousand gays and pro-gays marching through the streets in an assembly termed
"celebratory" by most observers, though there was much advocacy going on at the
same time.  More money for AIDS research, an end to discrimination in military
[6~duty, and "equality" in all other matters.

"New York Mayor David Dinkins said that he had served in the Marines during a
period when blacks were segregated, and he thought it logical now to end
other forms of segregation.  President Clinton did not show up, but left
endearing messages to a wing of supporters that claims to have voted for him
overwhelmingly.

"And this brings up the question: How many Americans are gay?  The figure
floated by Alfred Kinsey in 1948 turns out to have been based on unreliable
data, and therefore inflated.  The talk now is not of 10 percent gay, but of
1% or 2%.  If the figure is indeed so low, never has a minority of such
exigious size mounted greater political power than the gay movement."   

"Some of the goals the movement desires can be given them, the effects being
problematic.  We do know that gays have fought bravely in wars, when
unidentified as such.  During the Weekend in question, "60 Minutes" ran a
segment on gays in the Dutch army, including sequences with upward bound
officers who claim that there is no longer any obstacle to a Dutch gay serving,
say, as chief of staff."

"From real cheifs of staff, like Colin Powell in America, we do not hear such
declarations.  On the other hand, it isn't possible absolutely to predict what
would be the result of an end to the old ban.  It could be that the integration
would succeed; on the other hand, it could be that pockets of disruption would
inhibit the development of an efficient war machine."

"It is a curiosity that during the weekend several sponsors of immediate
integration quoted, like Mayor Dinkins, the antecedent separation of blacks and
whites, insisting that the two divisions have in comon their unreasonableness,
and that the same '60 Minutes' hour that told us about the integration of gays
in the Dutch military turned next to the apparent failure of racial integration
in the nation's colleges and universities."

"Duke University was cited as an example.  There, blacks eat together,
socialize together, and go so far as to decline to patronize even college
sports in which blacks are star figures.  We are shown one black student who
accepted an invitation to join a white fraternity and was blacklisted by black
organizations."

"The chiaroscuro forces on the mind a relevant question---those that press
upon society's organs of thought and meaning.
Why did Randy Shilts contract AIDS?  It has been a long time since we
discovered what brings on the terrible disease.  That he should have exposed
himself suggests an obsessive appetite alien to common sense.  Do such
appetites argue against totally felicitous relations between gay and non-gay?"
                                                                     
Observations:

>"And this brings up the question: How many Americans are gay?  The figure
>floated by Alfred Kinsey in 1948 turns out to have been based on unreliable
>data, and therefore inflated.  The talk now is not of 10 percent gay, but of
>1% or 2%.  If the figure is indeed so low, never has a minority of such
>exigious size mounted greater political power than the gay movement."

And...
Aaron stated:
>Any statistic will tell you that the homosexual community is anything but
>economically deprived.  Are they politically powerless?  Well, they gave over
>$3 million to Bill Clinton's campaign.

********************************************************************************
My Son Is a Homosexual: Dramatic testimony for and against the gay ban
Source: Newsweek, May 24,1993

"Struggling with the question of gays in the military, a Pentagon panel last
week considering a partial retreat from Bill Clinton's pledge to end the
military's ban on homosexuals.  The 'Don't ask, Don't shout' compromise would
allow gays in uniform as long as they made no public declarations of their
sexuality and refrained from their homosexual behavior.  The proposal followed
a Senate tour of a submarine at Norfolk, Va, and days of at times highly
personal testimony from both supporters and opponents of the ban.  Marine Col.
Fred Peck, just back from Somalia, told of learning that week that his son is
gay---and warned of the violence that might be directed toward him if he
enlisted.  Peck argued to maintain the ban; his son Scott, 24, thinks soldiers
would act 'professionally' if it were lifted.  Former S/Sgt. Thomas Paniccia,
discharged from the air force, made an appeal for reinstatement.  Excerpts from
the hearing:"

Marine Corps Col. Fred Peck:
"We are not saying that because people are too short or too tall, or mentally
deficient or physically deficient somehow or another, that their personal worth
is something less; we are just saying that they do not fit in.  And if you want
to start breaking down those barriers and trying to make people fit in where I
do not think they belong, you are going to hurt the United States Military.  I
have three sons...and if the ban on gays and lesbians serving in the military
were dropped, I would counsel all three of my sons to stay out of the military. 
Absolutely.  My oldests son Scott is a student at the University of Maryland. 
He is just about to graduate.  If he were to walk into a recruiter's office, it
would be the recruiter's dream come true.  He is 6 foot 1, blue eyed, blond
hair, great student.  But if he were to go and seriously join the military, I
would have to, number one, personally counsel against it, and number two,
actively fight it.  Because my son Scott is a homosexual, and I do not think
there is any place for him in the military.  I love him.  I love him as much as
I do any of my sons.  I respect him, I think he is a fine person.  But he
should not serve in the military.  And that is the strongest testimonial I
think I can give.  I spent 27 years of my life in the military, and I know what
it would be like for him if he went in.  And it would be hell.  And if he went
into combat...which is the whole purpose for us being here, he would be at
grave risk if he were to follow in my footsteps as an infantry platoon leader. 
I would be very fearful his life would be in jeopardy from his own troops.  And
i am not saying that is right, or wrong, whatever.  I am telling you that is
the way it is.  You get into war, the first casualty is truth, the second is
the value of human life.  And fraggings, let me tell you, did not begin or end
in Vietnam."


Former Air Force S/Sgt. Thomas Paniccia:

"I was born on the 17th of May, 1964, in Ticonderoga, N.Y., a small town in the
Adirondack Mountains.  When I was younger, I remember watching planes fly over
my house from an air force base just north of Ticonderoga.  Like many boys, I
developed a fascination for planes, rockets, just about anything that flew
through the air.  The United States Air Force was the way to go for me...so
just four weeks after my 17th birthday, I went to Lackland Air Force Base,
Texas, for basic military training.  I will never forget the day that I
received my very first stripe.  The rank and title of airman will always be an
integral part of who I am.  It is my identity.  What I believe in cannot be
attributed to me, but rather to the man who instilled those beliefs in me: my
father.  His influence, his steadfastness, even his stubbornness, provided me
with the tools to build a life in the military.  With a successful carreer
established, why would I come out of the closet?  When I finally stopped
denying that I was gay, when I realized I was a good person, that I was normal,
I finally understood that not even working 14 hours a day, pouring myself into
my work, would make that struggle go away.  I wanted people to see what I saw
as truth.  I realized that being gay did not change who I was at all.  I was
still the airman first, and then I was a man who was gay.  This past Sunday we
honored our mothers.  Lately I have been wondering what my mothers would have
thought of me, if she were alive today.  I believe Mary Paniccia would be very
proud of her son and all that he has accomplished.  I must believe this, not
just because I am aware of what she was like as a woman and a mother, but
because I cannot bear...to think of how it would feel to lose both parents over
this issue.  Unfortunately, right now my father doesn't talk to me and has all
but disowned me.  I believe the current ban on gay Americans runs counter to
the highest ideals of our military: honor and integrity, being tried and true. 
And today my uniforms are pressed, my combat boots are spit-shined and I am
ready to serve, as I have always been.  On the last day of my career, in
October of last year, air force officials cut up my military ID card.  The
symbolism of that event absolutely overwhelmed me.  Here was my identity, my
actual identity, being taken away, severed.  Gentlemen, the air force is more
than a career, it is more than my livelihood, it is my home.  And I want to go
home."

Observations and columns from Aaron Greenway, on the Paniccia column:
I typed this part of the article for a reason.  Number one, it is "fair" to
give the other side of the coin and to examine what is happening here.  Now as
I see it, this is a very "emotional" issue, VERY "emotional" and if we are not
careful, we can be trapped back into the issue of homosexual civil rights.  Now
in this case, there is a man who has been kicked out of the military, someone
who has honorably served his country, but the Military Code states that
homosexuality is imcompatible with military service.  I don't deny that he
served his country well.  I don't deny that Paniccia was a good person.  This
is not the issue.  The issue is whether or not homosexual behavior and the
homosexual lifestyle should be given a social status in society.  Lifting the
ban on the military would not only cause disharmony within the military, it
would and has sent a message to all homosexuals that it is ok to be gay.  It
says to the struggling homosexual, "You don't have to change.  You can practice
your lifestyle and be a soldier too."  Now I am not going to argue whether
Paniccia should have been kicked out or not.  I don't know, being put in the
position, if I would kick him out.  However, things like this fuel the
emotional propoganda of the homosexual community when in most cases (being that
1% of the pop. is gay---probably less in the military ratioed-out) the hero or
the admirable soldier is not homosexual.  

Another thing I observed is that this guy talks about how great his father is,
and then turns around talking about how his father disowns him.  Why is this
so?  I have more on this later, but I just want to briefly say, that this kind
of response to your own son says something about your attitudes and emotional
responses to him and may very well explain why T. Paniccia is gay to begin
with.  Before you make a rebuttal, read further.


Another source: Washington Post, February 6, 1992, section A, page 3, col. 2

********************************************************************************
Funds to Scouts Halted Because of Ban on Gays:
Source: The Washington Post, April 9, 1992, section A, page 10, col. 6

"The United Way of the Bay Area said today it was halted of nearly $1 million-a
year donations to local Boy Scouts because the youth group refused to change
its ban on homosexual members.  The board of United Way asked the Boy Scouts of
America in February to drop its long-standing policy about gay members and
leaders, or at least grant its chapters in San Fransisco metropolitan area an
exemption.  The national Boy Scouts refused, and a spokesman for the
organization, ased in Irving, Texas, today repeated the groups position that it
would not negotiate on the issue."

********************************************************************************
Some of you know my friend Evan Marshall.  Some referred to him as my faithful
friend Tonto when he was on here taking the liberal philosophies on with me. 
Evan has made some very good points in the twins study.  A few months ago in
the March issue of Atlantic Monthly, an article about Male Sexual Orientation
by Richard Pillar was printed.  He compared 56 monozygotic twins, 54 dizygotic
twins, and 57 genetically unrelated adopted brothers.  If homosexuality is
largely genetic in origin, then the more closely related the people are, the
greater should be the concordance of their sexual orientation...That is, in
fact, what the study found.  Bailey and Pillard reported a gay-gay concordance
of 11% for the adoptive brothers, 22% for the dizygotic twins, 52% for the
monozygotic twins.  The findings suggest that homosexuality in this study would
be highly attributed to genetics.  (This was the translation of a
homosexual on my campus when we were discussing it last spring).  

Evan gave a great refutation to this.  He states:
"Please take into consideration that identical twins tend to be closer than
fraternal twins or unrelated brothers.  Identical twins are more likely to
share the same beliefs over the others.  Now, if homosexuals make 
10% of the total population (Every 10th person) of the planet and identical
twins make up less than 5% of the total population and 52% of those have a
gay-gay conclusion that means that the conclusion is highly attributable to
genetics is based on a study that involves only .26% of the total population of
the earth.  This is poor evidence and the conclusion probably would more likely
stem from association rather than genetics."

********************************************************************************
Now let's take a look once again at the "Born Gay?" article.  It is taken from
a Christian perspective, but it holds vital information that must be taken into
account.  Now here is an article that at least considers homosexuality to be
genetic disposition.  Here is what the article said: 

"Born Gay?"  by Joe Dallas   _Christianity_Today_   June 22, 1992

How politics have skewed the debate over the biological causes of
homosexuality.

Recent findings by scientists suggest that homosexuality is an
inborn trait.  Simon LeVay, a neuroscientist with the Salk
Institute of La Jolla, California, found the area of the
hypothalamus that allegedly governs sexual activity to be smaller
in homosexual men than in heterosexual ones.  (The brains of 41
cadavers were studied by LeVay, 19 of which had belonged to
homosexuals.)

On the heels of LeVay's work came the findings of psychologist
Michael Bailey, a gay-rights advocate, and psychiatrist Richard
Pillard, who, like LeVay, identifies himself as a homosexual.
Published in December 1991, Bailey and Pillard's research with
identical twins (who have identical genetic codes) and fraternal
twins (whose genetic codes differ) showed that if one identical
twin is homosexual, the other's chances of being homosexual are
three times higher than among fraternal twins.  This, they say,
suggests a link between homosexuality and genetics.

Predictably, this has been grist for the media mill.  Although the
researchers themselves show some restraint in their claims (LeVay
admits his findings do not establish "cause and effect"), the press
has not always been as careful.  Major talk shows and news articles
have used the research to take the argument a step further, not
only telling us homosexuality is probably inborn, but also that our
views on the subject should be modified.  The argument goes
something like this:  "Homosexuals are born that way, which means
homosexuality is a normal condition.  What is normal cannot be
immoral.  Therefore, prohibitions against homosexuality make no
sense."

Many Christians, especially those of us involved in ministry to
homosexuals, react strongly to such a message.  Scientific inquiry
should, of course, be welcomed instead of shunned; but when such
inquiry is used to challenge biblical teaching, then a clear,
balanced response from the church is called for.  To give it, we
need to ask and answer four essential questions:  (1)  Were the
studies conducted in an unbiased and fair way?  (2)  What are the
true implications of the results?  (3)  Are they accepted almost
universally by the scientific and medical communities?  (4)  Are
they compatible with biblical truth?

_Agendas_and_Outcomes_

Having an agenda is no crime.  So when prohomosexual doctors are
motivated to promote gay rights through research, that is no reason
to ignore the research itself.  At the same time, it goes give us
sufficient reason to explore how their bias may have shaped their
conclusions.

To their credit, these men have been open about their agendas.
LeVay, for example, told _Newsweek_ that his lover's death from
AIDS prompted him to find an inborn cause for homosexuality, a
quest so important that he would give up his scientific career
altogether if he did not find it.  He hopes to "educate" society,
affecting legal and religious attitudes about homosexuality.
Pillard is just as direct about his goals:  "A genetic component
in sexual orientation says, 'This is not a fault, and this is not
your fault.'"  Both he and Bailey consider their findings to be
good news because they will "disprove homophobic claims"; or as gay
journalist Randy Shilts puts it, they will "reduce being gay to
something like being left-handed, which is all it is."

To simplify homosexuality by equating it with left-handedness is
tempting if you are homosexual or a gay-rights activist or a parent
feeling guilt over your child's homosexual orientation.  But to
those who cannot view homosexuality as a normal condition, even if
it is inborn, the researchers' assumptions sound questionable.

Are we to think that because something might be genetic in origin,
it is therefore "natural"?  What, then, do we say about genetic
deformities or birth defects?  Are they, too, "normal" because a
significant number of people were born with them?

This raises a larger and more vital question:  Should the standard
for normality be determined by what is inborn?

Before addressing that question, though, let's consider whether
these studies have indeed proven homosexuality to be inborn.

_Facts_and_Implications_

As we examine LeVay's and Pillard and Bailey's findings, we have
to distinguish between what the facts really are, and what they
imply.

The facts are simple enough.  One bundle of neurons in the
hypothalamus (which regulates heart rate, sleep, hunger, and sex
drive) was found to be nearly three times as large in the brains
of the 16 heterosexual men studied by LeVay as it was in the
brains of the 19 homosexual men.  At first glance, that looks
conclusive:  an open-and-shut case for the genetic argument.

But it is not that simple.  It is questionable whether the portion
of the hypothalamus LeVay studied (the INAH 3) can be accurately
measured.  It is smaller than a snowflake, and scientists are not
in agreement as to how its size should be determined.  According
to _Newsweek_, "Measuring brain structures is notoriously difficult
and controversial -- neuroscientists cannot agree on whether the
most meaningful gauge is the volume of the region [LeVay's method]
or its number of neurons."

Further complicating matters is the sensitive nature of the
hypothalamus itself.  Does its size determine homosexuality, or
does homosexuality determine its size?  No one is sure.  "You could
postulate," says neurophysiologist Kenneth Klivington of the Salk
Institute, "that brain change occurs throughout life, as a
consequence of experience."  Klivington refers to a "feedback loop"
in which the brain influences behavior, behavior shapes experience,
experience "affects the organization of the brain."  Which raises
the question:  Are homosexuals born with a smaller portion of the
hypothalamus or does the size decrease later in life?

We do not know.  Nor do we know for certain what the sexual
histories of LeVay's subjects really were, as LeVay himself admits.
Those he identified as homosexual are assumed to have been so by
information gleaned from their files, but can we be sure the other
subjects were heterosexual?  By what criteria was their sexuality
determined?

These are other questions have no doubt led LeVay to be
conservative in his conclusions:  "What I reported was a difference
in the brain structure of the hypothalamus.  We can't say on the
basis of that what makes people gay or straight."  So what appears
to be "proof positive" turns out to be, by LeVay's admission,
"perhaps and maybe."

Pillard and Bailey's twin studies are similarly vague.  Like
LeVay's work, they look conclusive to the casual observer:  52
percent of the identical twins of homosexual men were also found
to be homosexual.  If a homosexual man has an identical twin,
these statistics suggest his twin brother will more likely than
not be homosexual as well.  Therefore, something in the genes
causes homosexuality.

Not so, says Anne Fausto Sterling, a biologist at Brown University
in Rhode Island.  Declaring Pillard and Bailey's conclusions to be
"badly interpreted genetics," Sterling insists that "in order for
such a study to be meaningful, you'd have to look at twins raised
apart."  Common sense would lead us to agree -- identical twins
raised in the same family environment will have any number of
similarities, many of which are linked to their shared upbringing
rather than genetics.

Like LeVay, Pillard shows restraint in his conclusions:  "There
must be something in the environment," he concedes when confronted
with the fact that many identical twins have different sexual
preferences.  In fact, environmental influences seem to be a
predominant factor in the development of homosexuality according
to another twin study, similar to Pillard and Bailey's but
different in its conclusions.

In March of 1992, the British Journal of Psychiatry published a
report on homosexuals who are twins, interviewing 46 homosexual men
and woman who were twins.  (Both fraternal and identical twins were
included in the study.)  Only 20 percent of the homosexual twins
had a homosexual co-twin, leading the researchers to conclude that
"genetic factors are insufficient explanation of the development
of sexual orientation."

All of which brings us back to the issues of facts, suggestions,
and implications:  The _fact_ is, differences may exist in the
brains of some homosexual men.  Likewise, some sets of identical
twins have been studied, and a scant majority of them (52 percent)
share the same sexual orientation.  The _suggestion_ that
homosexuality is therefore inborn, though, is interpretive and
arguable.  The _implication_ put forth by some that society should
therefore accept homosexuality as common, normal, and morally
neutral cannot be supported from the facts alone.  "Different" does
not mean "inborn," and "inborn" does not mean "normal."  The leap
from facts to implications is too large.

_Professional_Critics_

There might be more force to the "inborn" argument if it were
almost universally accepted by the professional community.  But
far from universal acceptance, the studies in question have raised
more than a few scientific hackles.  "This is not a debate about
biology, but about the body politic," scoffs Anne Fausto Sterling.
Her initial response to LeVay's findings was even more pointed:
"My freshman biology students know enough to sink this study."
William Byrne, resident of psychiatry at Columbia University's
College of Physicians and Surgeons, is no less subtle in his
criticism of LeVay, Bailey, and Pillard:  "If you look at any one
piece of that [born gay] evidence, it is inconclusive.  It's like
trying to add up a hundred zeroes so you can get one."

Others agree that the results are far from final:  "I'm not willing
to say there isn't a biological component, but there's too much
else we haven't explored," says John D'Emilio, an associate
professor of history at the University of North Carolina at
Greensboro.  Richard Nakamura of the National Institute of Mental
Health takes a similar view.  Allowing that LeVay's research shows
"a very interesting initial result," he concludes, "it will take
a much larger effort to be convinced that there is a link between
this structure and homosexuality."  Adding to these criticisms are
the implied disagreements of the many professionals who consider
homosexuality to be a changeable condition and could therefore
hardly endorse a genetic theory.

So if the studies in question have not really proven homosexuality
is genetic, and if the scientific community is not in agreement as
to whether or not they are even valid, why have we been inundated
with news stories touting the latest "evidence" that gays are born
gay?

Welcome to the politically charged world of the popular media.
Initial findings by homosexual researchers with a clearly stated
agenda were fed to a sympathetic press, which generously splashed
these findings (and the alleged implications) across America's
front pages.  It should be remembered that a recent polling of
media representatives showed 80 percent do not think homosexuality
is wrong, 90 percent favor abortion rights, and only 20 percent
attend church or synagogue.  So it comes as no surprise that the
studies in question have been given more than generous coverage.

In fact, a comparison to the news media's handling of a similar
genetic study will show how disproportionate the current hoopla
really is.  In the fall of 1991 (around the same time as LeVay's
results were published), researchers at the City of Hope Medical
Center found a certain gene to be present in 77 percent of
alcoholics who were studied, yet absent in 72 percent of the
nonalcoholics also studied.  This presented significant evidence
for a genetic predisposition toward alcoholism, which has long
been a subject of interest and concern to Americans.  Yet no major
magazine featured these studies on their covers, and they received
only passing mention in the press, though they were written up in
the _Journal_of_the_American_Medical_Association_.  Why?  Was one
study "better" or more important to the population than the other?
Hardly, but one study (LeVay's) was clearly more important to the
press, despite the opinions of the scientific community.

_Compassion_and_Conviction_

What, then, do Christians have to say in response?  Criticizing the
latest research is not enough.  We, too, have something to say
about human sexuality.  We have a frame of reference--the Bible--

which is an intelligent, explicit document with specific guidelines
for sexual behavior and vital insights into human needs.  From that
reference point, we too have something to contribute to the
national debate on homosexuality.

We probably don't need to convince each other that homosexuality
is not God's design.  A 1991 survey of American churchgoers found
that 75 percent disapprove of homosexuality, and 81 percent of
those who frequently attended church believe homosexual acts are
always immoral.  Still, as Peter said, we should be ready to give
an answer for our beliefs (1 Peter 3:15).  The way we answer may
be as important as the answer itself.

Our response should show interest and concern, two qualities the
church has rarely shown when dealing with homosexuality.  We must
admit we have mishandled the issue in many ways:  we have veered
between ignoring the problem to becoming obsessed with it; we have
made hasty and false generalizations at times about homosexuals
themselves; and we have shown a tremendous zeal for defeating the
political goals of gays while showing less concern for their
eternal well being.  [See _Christianity_Today_, Feb. 6, 1981,
"Homosexuals Can Change".]  So when we respond to progay research,
let's keep in mind the sad truth that our own record on this issue
is less than ideal.

Let us also be open-minded toward new evidence.  Simply saying,
"The Bible says homosexuality is a sin--so I don't care what your
studies show!" sounds suspiciously like intellectual insecurity.
Of course we must hold to biblical values, but let's at least hear
the evidence before we judge it.

However, we cannot afford a naive, gullible response, either.  We
can and should look critically at new claims, weighing them not
only against Scripture but against established and current
objective data.

A biblical response to the "born gay" question begins with
Scripture's view of the human condition.  Humanity is fallen,
incomplete, and beset with physical, psychological, and spiritual
problems.  Adam and Eve's disobedience in the Garden brought
consequences onto every aspect of our being (Genesis 3:16-19), our
genetic and biological structures included.  Physically we are not
what we were meant to be; death and corruption entered the world
as a result of sin, not divine intent.  As the psalmist laments,
"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother
conceive me" (Psalm 51:5); the apostle Paul describes how we "groan
inwardly as we wait for...the redemption of our bodies" (Romans
8:23).

Thus we can easily allow that there are, in some cases, physical
imperfections that predispose people toward certain behaviors.
That is not to say anyone is predestined to engage in these
behaviors; rather, some inborn tendencies could make it easier
for a person to fall into them.

Even if it can be proven that genetic or biological influences
predispose people toward homosexuality, that will never prove
homosexuality is in and of itself normal.  It will only prove what
we already know--that genetic variances can and do affect future
behavior, sometimes in undesirable ways.  If some people have a
genetic predisposition toward alcoholism, as the City of Hope
research suggests, should we conclude the disease is a "normal"
condition and refuse to treat it?  Should the biblical prohibitions
against drunkenness be nullified?

The principle is the same regarding homosexuality.  Let research
conclude what it may about the causes; genetic origins do not
justify sinful behavior.

And that is the crux of the issue.  While the Bible praises
sexuality and commends sexual enjoyment, it also gives specific
guidelines for sexual expression.  Homosexual behavior is
consistently condemned throughout the Old and New Testaments
(see Genesis 19 and Romans 1:24-27 in particular), and there is
no contingency in this condemnation.  Nowhere does Scripture
suggest that if one is born with homosexual inclinations, this
negates the prohibitions.

Rather than continue the "nature versus nurture" debate on origins,
we ought instead to be asking whether homosexuality is desirable,
healthy, and moral no matter what factors led to its existence.
The greatest error being promoted by LeVay, Pillard, Bailey, and
others is the assumption that they can normalize homosexuality by
proving its biological sources (a questionable goal, since
discrimination against blacks and women has been defended on
genetic grounds).  One wonders how many other aberrations will be
normalized in the future if they, too, can be shown to have been
inborn.

God's standards are absolute and not subject to our latest
discoveries.  (The Bible says wisdom to man is foolishness to God.)
For those wishing to maintain those standards, God's grace is
available to overcome any number of sinful tendencies,
homosexuality included.  ("I can do all things through Christ which
strengtheneth me."  Philippians 4:13.)  As for those who have no
desire to do so, we cannot force them, nor should we try.

But there are those outside the church who would coerce us into
changing.  The Christian view of sexuality is being increasingly
denigrated and dismissed as archaic, irrelevant, and at times
dangerous.  Christian spokespersons are increasingly vilified
and ridiculed when they stand in public for biblical morality.
James Dobson frequently refers to a "civil war" in America
between conservative and liberal forces.  This war seems to be
escalating.

In this context, some are tempted to react with aggression and
contempt toward anyone suggesting homosexuality is determined
before birth.  Others are tempted to bow to the wishes of the
progay lobby and apologize for our beliefs.  But striking the
proper balance of compassion and conviction is our only legitimate
option.  Unintimidated, but unsparing in our love, we still have
something to say.  And say it we must.

********************************************************************************
From Lambda Report newletter, September 1993
Latest Findings in 'Genetic Homosexuality' inconclusive:
Additional Sources: National Institutes of Health.

"On few other subjects, it seems, are reporter's instincts to probe and
investigate more blunted than the largely gay-pursued scholarship attempting to
prove that genes cause homosexuality.  The last media deluge on the topic
surrounds the findings of Dr. Dean Hamer, a National Institutes of Health
researcher who found that a relatively high percentage of male homosexuals had
the same genetic "marker" on their X chromosone.  In what has become a
predictable ritual of gay-sympathetic "pack" journalism, scores of reporters
ran with the Hamer study (published in the journal 'Science' July 16), with
most supplying the same spin that it heralded the imminent discovery of a "gay
gene."  In what was a remarkable ommission considering the political import
many gay activists have assigned to the 'born gay' research, neither the
Washington Post nor the New York Times bothered to seek out critical comment on
Hamer's study in their front-page coverage of it.  For those willing to
question, opponents are available with warnings about drawing far-reaching
conclusions from such studies.  MacNeil/Lehrer reporter Jeffrey Kaye sought out
Harvard neurobiologist Evan Balaban, who noted that merely because individuals
whith a common behavior share a trait does not mean that trait caused behavior:  
        ...it is probably possible for many years of data to come up with some
        some significant correlation between stock market prices and phases of
        of the moon...if you are only correlating differences in genetic 
        variations with one aspect of people, you're risking doing something
        similarly ludicrous.
Other observers noted that Hamer and his team of researchers failed to study a
control group of heterosexual men to see if their X chromosones contained the
genetic marker.  And, like other studies purporting to show an innate
connection to homosexuality, Hamer's is said to suffer from a small sample
size.  Despite these deficiencies, at least Hamer is committed to trying to
replicate his work.  A cohort in the field, Dr. Simon LeVay, walked away from
the science lab after the publication of his 1991 study contrasting the brains
of allegedly gay and straight men set off a fury of media speculation of
genetic homosexuality.  Critics said the study by LeVay, a homosexual, was
riddled with defects.  Among them: his tiny sample size; questions over who of
his deceased subjects were heterosexual and who were homosexual (a majority
died of AIDS); and doubts about whether the brain differences he found were the
result of behavior or AIDS rather than the cause of 'sexual orientation' as he
asserted.  Despite these criticisms, LeVay---rather than try to duplicate his
findings---gave up on his research and now tours the world promoting his new
book, 'The Sexual Brain.'  LeVay had said it was his life's goal after the
death of his male lover to find proof of inborn homosexuality.  In the end, he
proved more the gay activist than the scientist who is gay.  This brings us to
another widely overlooked pitfall of 'genetic homosexuality' research.  Many of
its practitioners are gays out to show that homosexuality is innate and thus
and irrepressible part of one's being---like the skin color of blacks.  Such
assertions have obvious implications for the political agenda of gay activists. 
'[If] groups are discriminated against for, among other things, traits which are
determined to be immutable, then the discriminatory law can only be valid if
[the government] can show a compelling national interest,' said Richard Green,
quoted in the gay magazine Frontiers.  Green, an attorney and professor of
psychiatry at UCLA, was one of the 10 'possible press sources' whose names were
faxed by Hamer to reporters covering his study.  Others on Hamer's list:
homosexual researcher Richard Pillard, whose study on homosexual twins paved
the way for Hamer's study, and LeVay, whose work Hamer cites uncritically.  In
addition Hamer's research partner, Dr. Angela Pattatucci, is reported by
Newsday to be a 'lesbian and feminist,' according to the Family Research
Council (FRC) Pattatucci will soon release her own corrollary study on
genetics and lesbianism.  FRC's Robert Knight notes that Hamer---in assessing
his subject's homosexuality---embraces the 'Kinsey Scale--an arbitrarily
concocted measurement from the discredit studies of Alfred Kinsey.'  Moreover,
Knight states, Hamer betrays his biases in the Science study with his
definition of homosexuality as a 'naturally occurring variation' of sexuality. 
This claim is still open to fervent debate, as testified by the many
pschyiatrists and psychotherapists who hold that homosexuality is a
developmental disorder and can be changed.  Of course, thousands of once 'gay'
men and women have abandoned their homosexual past and are living happily in
heterosexual relationships, a fact that belies the 'natural' explanation of
homosexuality.  Yet Hamer, appearing on ABC's 'Nightline,' dismissed the
psychiatric explanation for male homosexuality arising from a distant father as
'an idea which was widely accepted but never based on fact.'  Ironically,
Hamer's colleague and 'press source,' Simon LeVay, is himself a living witness
to the validity of psychiatric explanations, noting in one interview that he
hated his father.  Enthusiasts for 'genetic homosexuality' would be wise to
read the June Scientific American and its article, 'Eugenics Revisted.'  Writer
John Hogan delves into the poor track record of recent claims by researchers
attempting to prove a genetic cause for alcoholism, schizophrenia, and other
maladies.  Hogan writes, the media hailed the publication of studies (like
Hamer's) linking the disorders to genetic 'markers.'  However, he notes, 'far
less attention was paid to the retractions that followed.'

********************************************************************************

Scriptural reference against Homosexuality:


Leviticus 18:22  "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, that is
detestable,"

Leviticus 20:13  "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of
them have done what is detestable.  They must be put to death; their blood will
be on their own heads."

After the New Covenant, established by Jesus Christ, death for homosexuals was
no longer mandated, BUT, homosexual behavior would still be judged eternally
and spiritually.  It was still sin.  

Romans 1:24-31  "Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their
hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created
things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.  Because of this,
God have them over to SHAMEFUL lusts.  Even their women exchanged natural
relations for unnatural ones.  In the same way the men also abandoned natural
relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.  men
committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due
penalty for their perversion.  Although they know God's righteous decree that
those who do such thing deserve spiritual death, they not only continue to do
these things but also approve of those who practice them."

I Corinthians 6:9-10  "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the
kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived:  Neither the sexually immoral not
idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders, nor
thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers wil inherit
the kingdom of God." 

********************************************************************************
One thing that must be addressed is how homosexual behavior has
impacted our societies.  People have said that homosexual behavior and the
homosexual agenda produces no harm to society.  


According to D.C. Family Research Council:

The average age of men dying of AIDS is 39.  
The average age of homosexuals dying of all other causes, 41.
Only 1% lived to 65 or older.
Other studies have found only 3% of all homosexuals over the age
of 55.
Where have the children gone?

While obituaries in the gay press focus on those out of the
closet, they suggest that a homosexual "lifestyle" may cut 2 or 3 decades off
one's life expectancy.


According to the FRC report:  

"Gay men are 3x as likely to have alcohol or drug
abuse problems, 14x more likely to have had syphilis, 23x more
likely to contract a venereal disease, thousands of times more likely to
contract AIDS."

Nor is the phenomenon restricted to males:
"Compilation of recent studies have shown that Lesbians are 19x more likely
than heterosexual women to have had syphilis, 2x as likely to
suffer from genital warts, and 4x as likely to have scabies."

In San Francisco, most openly gay city in America, FRC reports a
"rate of infectious Hepatitis A twice the national average, a rate of
infectious Hepatitis B 3x the national average, and the rate of venereal
diseases 22x the national average."


In "Homosexuality, a Public Health Problem," in Conservative
review, Raphael Kazmann extrapolates from the obituary study:

"Among Homosexuals, the ration of men murdered (1 in 200 deaths)
was 50x that of the general population; for suicide, 60x; for death in auto
accidents, 45x. (As the total number of victims of murder, suicide and accidents was
small, ratios may very widely; still, the disparity is glaring and ominous)."


Pat Buchanan, April 16, states:

"If rampant disease and early death are so connected to homosexuality, how can 
anyone, other than an ideologue impervious to reason, call this a happy and
healthy lifestyle?

"Because we associate alcohol with crippling and fatal auto
accidents, we have raised the drinking age across America, and begun imposing
heavier penalties on drunken drivers.

"Because we believe even "passive smoke" is "hazardous to your health," we are,
more and more, segregating smokers, discriminating against them on airlines, in
restaurants, and in public buildings.

"But none of the killer diseases associated with smoking---cancer, heart
disease, emphysema ---is contagious or infectious.

"However, many of the diseases associated with homosexuality---VD, hepatitis,
enteric diseases, "gay bowel syndrome"---and many diseases associated with AIDS
victims---from common cold to influenza to tuberculosis---are either infectious
or contagious.

"Why, then, are employers and restaurateurs who segregate smokers judged
progressive, while those who decline to hire gays or AIDS victims considered
bigots?

"Is cigarette smoke more hazardous than homosexual sodomy?"

"There is a matter of promiscuity.

"According to every study of sexual BEHAVIOR, homosexuals are
notoriously promiscuous.  In one 1978 study, 43% of male homosexuals admitted
to having sex with 500 partners, 28% to having sex with over 1,000.  Most of
their "partners" were anonymous, or men with whom they had sex once. (A 1981 
study found only 2% to be "near monogamous," i.e. with 10 or fewer partners in a
lifetime.)"                                                          


Questions and observations:

1. A connection:

>         Many homosexuals die of AIDS or other diseases after age 39, 40. 
>Suicide, and drugs, and murder is also a part of this. 
(my observation earlier in the text)


And...

>Researchers at the Seattle-based Battelle Human Affairs Research
>Center found that 1.1% of men between the ages of 20-39 had participated
>exclusively in homosexual relationships over the last 10 years.


And...

>According to D.C. Family Research Council:

>The average age of men dying of AIDS is 39.  
>The average age of homosexuals dying of all other causes, 41.
>Only 1% lived to 65 or older.
>Other studies have found only 3% of all homosexuals over the age of 55.

2.  Why have homosexuals covered up these kinds of statistics? 
Why is such a high risk BEHAVIOR (seeing that the behavior is what this is all
about) being smoothed over by the national press and the homosexual community?

3.  Whether or not these studies were done on monogamous homosexuals is not
even a factor considering that only 2% (possibly a higher percentage like maybe
8%-10%) are homogamous.
>(A 1981 
>study found only 2% to be "near monogamous," i.e. with 10 or fewer partners in a
>lifetime.)"                                                          

4.  Why should this kind of behavior be accepted in society?  The facts are,
there are certain types of behavior in society that are harmful?

5.  What is "Gay bowel syndrome?"  Could we determine it is the result of anal
sex which is a unnatural, high risk behavior.  If it is not, can you prove "gay
bowel syndrome" to be the effect of some other source?

6.  With all the AIDS cases, that must be a real drain on society.  I am sure
Bill Clinton's health care plan looks really good to homosexuals, and guess who
is picking up the tab....me!

********************************************************************************
NEA Resumes Funding of Gay Film Festivals
Source: The Lambda Report/The Washington Times

"On the same issue of taxpayer funding for pro-homosexual 'art,' the National
Endowment for the Arts elected August 25 to reverse a Bush administration
decision and approve grants for 3 homosexual film festivals

"The decision freed up $17,000 in federal monies for the Lesbian Media
Coalition in Los Angeles, the New Festival in New York, and the Pittsburgh
International Lesbian and Gay Film Festivals.  

"The Washington Times reports that among the films included in the Pittsburgh
festival are 'Chumlum,' a 'surreal and gossamered transvestite orgy'; and
'We're talking Vulva,' 'an outrageous five minute feminist romp concerned with
the care and feeding of happy female genitilia.'

"The NEA's Senior Senior Deputy Chairman, Ana Steele, ruled that there was an
'abuse in process' in the decision by Anne-Imelda Radice, NEA Chairman under
President Bush, to cut funding for the gays festivals, which are heavily
pornographic when measured against non-gay film festivals.

"The NEA said Miss Steele's review did not examine the artistic merit of the
festivals, the Times Reported."

********************************************************************************
Opposition to Gay 'Marriages' Grows in Hawaii:
Sources: The Lambda Report/ Honolulu Star-Bulletin/ Hawaii Supreme Court 
Rulling/ Political-Media Research Inc (June '93)

"A recent poll of Hawaii voters find rising opposition--especially among
men--to the notion of homosexual 'marriages.'  In May, Hawaii's Supreme Court
ruled that same-sex couples should be allowed to 'marry' unless the state can
show compelling reasons to deny it.  

"In the poll of 419 Hawaiians, overall support for gay 'marriages' fell from
34% in 1991 to 30% today.  Opposition rose to 61% of respondents.

"Among men, antagonism to homosexual 'marriage' climed from 55% to 72%, with
22% supporting and 6% unsure.  Among women, support for gay 'marriage' held
constant at 37%, with 50 opposing and 13 unsure.  The poll was conducted in
early June by Political/Media Research, Inc.

"Dan Foley, a lawyer for the homosexual couples that sued the state two years
ago in an attempt to rescind the marriage law, said, 'We never expected to win
a court of public opinion.  That's why we're here in a court of law.

"Typical was the reaction of octogenarian Ruth Scott, who summed up her belief
in 'old values' with the following comment to the Honolulu Star-Bulletin: 'A
marriage is between a man and a woman and that's that.'"

********************************************************************************
Understand that this type of lifestyle is now trying to be infiltrated into the
public school systems with children at very early ages.

I have 3 children's books here.  I am going to give you some of the text and
plots and motives of each book.
Source: The Gay Agenda in Public Education.  The Report.
1-800-462-4700

1. Gloria Goes to Gay Pride: for ages 3-8
Two lesbians are really enlightened about loving the earth (no propaganda in
that is there?).  One lesbian is a gay nurse healing the earth, and the other
lesbian is a gay mechanic healing the planet.
There is a song in the book that goes "2, 4, 6, 8...being gay is really great."  

Observation: If they begin to legislate this into law, you will be considered
the law breaker for not allowing it.


2.  Daddy's Roommate: ages 3-8
It shows 2 dads working around the house like moms and dads should.  They're 
in the rest room shaving together, and it shows them in bed together.  The
explanation of gays to kids in this book goes like this, "Being gay is just one
more kind of love, and love is the best kind of happiness.  Daddy and his
roommate are very happy together and so am I."

Observation:  Do we advocate books that poison the minds of little children. 
This is the kind of stuff they are having kids read in the schools.  They are
being exposed that being gay is OK, and that it is ok for 2 daddies to go to
bed with each other.  If they weren't they wouldn't have shown them in bed
together.


3.  Heather Has 2 Mommies: ages 3-8
The book starts out showing one of the mothers going to get to get artificially
inseminated.  Then it shows Heather and other kids sitting around at nap time. 
The kids are telling about their fathers.  Heather begins to cry because she 
doesn't have a father and starts to cry.  Molly says "You have 2 mommies, 
that's pretty special.  Mariam doesn't have a daddy either, she has a mommy 
and a baby sitter.  Let's draw pictures of our family so we can see what 
families really look like."

Observation: A mommy and a baby sitter?  See what these people are doing.  They 
are trying to get into the schools and indoctrinate kids with a lifestyle that
is a high risk and abnormal behavior in our society.  The kids don't know any
better and they are going to accept all of this as normal.  You don't think
gays recruit?  This is an attempt to reconstruct society.                                                   

             
Don't believe it?  Check out this load of evidence from the documentary video
"The Gay Agenda in Public Education"  by the Report.

Project 10--in schools to promote homosexuality
"Perhaps the most controversial of the prohomosexual classroom program are the
NY's "Children of the Rainbow" and the "K-6 HIV/AIDS corriculum", variations of
which are quietly being introduced in other cities under a veil of secrecy. 
These programs are usually installed before parents have been informed of their
existence.

John D. Hartington, legal counsel for school board 24; Queens, NY, states:
"'One of the major issues that was raised by the Children of the Rainbow
corriculum here in NYC was whether the information presented was age
appropriate and quite obviously it wasn't.  On page 372, teachers were told
that they should take up with 1st graders in every single subject that they
taught gay and lesbian issues.'

"In San Francisco, under School Superintendent Bill Rohaus, "Fourth, Fifth, and
Sixth Graders have been required to attend sexually graphic panel discussions
presented by gays and lesbians.  Outraged parents have sought legal remedies in
response to the lack of any notification of these in prompt to presentations.

Joe Dallas, Genesis Counselling, states:
"'There's a natural modesty in children that should not be tampered by anyone,
heterosexuals and homosexuals.'

Joanne Highley, counselor, states:
"'As a counselor, I'm very concerned about the fact that the focus on the sexual
at a young age is a kind of mental and emotional molestation because these
children are not meant to think about sex at such an age and even if they are,
not EVER to think of it in the context that it's being presented because it's a
false context, and it will cause them to dwell on thoughts that should not be
and it will do damage.'

K-6 HIV/AIDS corriculum glossary states:
"---Barrier Method: A device that prevents the exchange of body fluids during
sexual intercourse (vaginal, anal, oral).
---Dental Dam: A piece of latex that can be placed over the vulva during oral
sex or over the anus, during oral sex involving the anus.
---Abstinance: Refraining from sexual intercourse (anal, vaginal, oral)
---Sexual Orientation: Physical and emotional toward the same sex (homosexual),
the opposite sex (heterosexual), or both sexes (bisexual).
---Sexual intercourse: Physical contact between individuals that involves the
genitalia of at least one person (oral, vaginal, anal)
---homophobia: fear or hatred for homosexuals."

"Clearly, these definitions are designed to condition children to regard
homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality as equally common, to be
comfortable with the idea of anal intercourse and to view it as a normal
healthy activity."

"Gay activists have vowed to exert effort until every public school conforms to
this corriculum."

John D. Hartington, "'What people need to understand about programs like
Children of the Rainbow is that its not legitimate education.  It's really
social indoctrination propoganda pushed by pressure groups who have no interest
in mind other than advancing their own cause and their own cause is not simply
to avoid persecution or mistreatment, their cause is to make children think
that Sodomy is perfectly common, perfectly natural, perfectly normal, perfectly
safe...and it's not!'"

Edie Gieb, President of Parents and Students United states:
"'The conservatives have just only caught on to what the liberals have know all
along and that's this, that if you get a child early enough that you can form
that mind to your agenda and you can change that child and as a result, you can
change society.'"

Project 10 Handbook of things Heterosexuals may not say:
--"I don't agree with it but I still like you"
--"Have you tried dating the opposite sex"
--"I accept you, but I don't agree with your choice"
--"I don't dislike Homosexuals, but its what they do that I dislike."

"If a student is a 'defect,' he must not speak his feelings.
The handbook gives guidelines on how gay students should come out or announce
their homosexuality to their parents.  Another part of the handbook makes
suggestions for classroom debates on Homosexuality, however the conclusion to
be drawn from each discussion is pre-determined.  A genuine, unregulated,
exchange of opinions are discouraged.  The intent to indoctrinate, and to
inhibit free thinking is no where more evident than in these pages.

"Chad Henry, a student of Parents and Students United talks about the FEAR of
students to speak out against Homosexuality in fear of being rejected by peers,
discrimination or punishment from the teachers.  They are intimidating.

"The Joy of Gay Sex--a coming out guide for young gays in the public schools. 
In the book, many practices are casually described as though they are normal,
healthy sexual experiences.
Some terms and practices include:
a) Sadomasochism---sexual variation that celebrates virility, ritual, and pain.
b) J.O. Clubs---dimly lit passage ways where gays meet to masturbate or engage
in intercourse, continually moving from one cluster of activity to another.
c) fetishes---boot licking, wearing women's underwear are presented as normal
aspects of love making.
d) Water Sports/Golden Showers---refers to urinating on one's sexual partner as
a means of sexual gratification.  Drinking urine is described as being "not
harmful."
e) orgies
f) Daddy-son fantasies--You be the judge.
This material is being promoted in public schools across America and is
spreading.

What did former Surgeon General Coop say about this type of behavior:
"Anal intercourse is so dangerous that no one should engage in it even with a
condom."
"That warning is born out of the infection statistics that are gathered by the
Centers for Disease Control in the U.S. Department of U.S. Health and Human
Services that NY Times did a survey in February 1989 and reported based on
three studies that over 1/2 the homosexuals in NYC and other large cities in
the U.S. were HIV infected.  In a medical journal called "Sexually Transmitted
Diseases," it showed that in NY, homosexuals who visited clinics and were
tested for HIV infection had a 52% infection rate.  In Dallas, it was 60%.
                             
"The APA no longer considers Homosexuality as a mental or sexual disorder, and
counseling should be done to encourage the gay or the lesbian to pursue their
sexual orientation.  In 1973, however, the APA's decision was not based only on
objective study or on the review of data, and on mutually normal discussion. 
It was as a result of cohersive, shock tactics combined with intimidation and
destructive behavior that broke up meetings of the members of the APA and a
conserted, politicized campaign to revamp the diagnostic status of
homosexuality.

"Joe Dallas states, 'In '73, the general meeting of the APA was swarmed with gay
activists, who threatened to disrupt the proceedings, and who were abetted by
progay psychologists and who joined forces to assentially FORCE a decision on
the APA's part to reconsider the diagnostic status of Homosexuality.  The
voting board of the APA did decide at that time to remove Homosexuality from
the list of diagnoses.  This was by no means a universally accepted decision. 
Some 6 years later, a polling was done of psychologists, asking them if they
felt homosexuality was normal or whether or not it represented a pathological
adeptation.  Nearly 70% of the psychologists that were polled 6 years later
still felt that Homosexuality represented pathological adeptation.  And to this
day, there are hundreds of psychoanalyists, psychiatrists, medical doctors,
marriage, family, and child counselors and psychologists who continue to
believe that Homosexuality is not immutible, that it is not normal that it is
changeable, and that people coming for therapy, seeking change have good reason
to be optimistic for their chances of success.'"

Edie Gieb, President of Parents and Students United states:
"'My concern is that because they have framed the issue so that all homosexuals
are seen as victims, it just naturally brings out the kind of protection with
in people to want to help, and to want to feel sorry, and to create a
tremendous amount of sympathy; which is not to say that I ever would want to
see any person--heterosexual or homosexual--abused, but on the other hand, we
need to see the other aspects of the homosexual community as well and not
merely labeling them as victims.'"

Ronald Highly, counselor, exclaims:
"'If it were just a matter of accepting human diversity, that people come with
all shapes and sizes and convictions and beliefs, we'd say 'Fine,' but when
they slip in with it at the same time which is exactly what is in the material,
that not only are homosexuals OK, socially speaking, meaning they should be
treated with respect, but homosexuality is ok and just another way of relating
to another person.  We say, 'Wait a minute.  Now you've gone from one subject
entirely to another one.  You've asked us to accept every thing about a person
while we're accepting the person.'"

Joe Dallas, Genesis counseling, states:
"'The nature of these counseling programs is to sort of white wash homosexuality
and forbid any discussion of some of the common, negative aspects of the
homosexual lifestyle and some of the emotional issues that can come up in it. 
And you may notice, today, it is not polite to mention any of these subjects,
even though they are on the consciousness of people who know anything about
homosexuality.  We seem to be on a massive, cultural guilt trip in talking
about homosexuals, and that we are afraid of to point out some of the health
hazards that may be inherent in the gay lifestyle, and some of the emotional
issues that may come up among homosexuals.  It's almost as though it is bigotry
to mention things that are verifiable and simple, objective truth.'"

"These programs forbid any discussion of the inherent dangers of experimenting
with gay sex.  While AIDS cases among heterosexuals is on the increase, the
overwhelming majority of cases in the United States are still among
homosexuals.  Yet, establishments catering to gays, seeking anonymous sex, are
doing vigorous business with special emphasis on attracting young men just
entering the lifestyle.  Gays complain that people who view homosexuality
negatively do so because of ignorance and inexperience.  However, a visit to
any of these establishments would provide an education likely to shock those
with even the most vivid imagination.  Cruising among gays occurs at every time
of the day and in the most unlikely places, in parks, in shopping malls, in
public restrooms.  Simple eye contact can lead to an anonymous sexual
encounter."

Dolores Ayling, President of Concerned Parents for Educational Accountibility
states:
"'Our question to the city of New York and to the government is 'Our we turning
our schools into sex education factories or are we going to get back to the
academics of what schools should be teaching so we can turn out productive
citizens.'"

Howard L. Hurwitz, PHD, former highschool principle, states:
"'Until the last thirty or forty years, there was a degree of objectivity in our
public schools, so that children were taught basic skills and they were
encouraged to think for themselves and special provision was made for slow
learners and rapid learners.  This sensible approach to education has been
scuttled by special interest groups who have destroyed our once great public
school system.'"

"June has been declared Gay and Lesbian Pride Month in which children are
instructed to celebrate the cultural and historical diversity and contributions
of the homosexual community.  This happened after Jeff Horton was elected to
the school board."

"In L.A., an official resolution stated, 'Where as LA/USD policy as contained in
educating for diversity is to develop students who appreciate and respect
diversity and understand the roles and contributions of people of diverse
groups, and where as the Stonewall Rebellion is widely viewed as the modern
gay/lesbian movement and is the reason the month of June has become a time to
celebrate the accomplishments of gay and lesbian people through parades,
marches, commemorations, cultural programs, and other means; therefore be it
resolved that the LA board of Education recognizes June of each year as Gay
and Lesbian Pride Month.'"

Dallas states, "Another objection I have with these programs is that they seem
to trample on the convictions of the significant number of parents and kids.  A
lot of parents are not accepting the progay propoganda that teaches
Homosexuality as a normal variation of the sexual experience.  Many parents are
raising their kids to believe that Heterosexuality is the norm.  If these kids
are going into counseling programs that are directly contradicting what they're
being taught at home, then we have yet another example of the schools being
used for social engineering at the expense of parental authority."

Gieb, "Another component of the harmfulness of Project 10 is that there is no
one that is an advocate for Project 10 that is not themselves gay-identified;
and as a result, they really don't have the judgment or the balance in terms of
providing another point of view relative to Homosexuality.  As a result, I
think that many times children are wrongfully labled gay and that's extremely
harmful to children if in fact they are merely experiencing confusion about who
they are."

There is a guy by the name of Robert who lived the gay lifestyle for years and
who now is discouraging kids to have gay sex states by experience of how he was
recruited into the lifestyle and how people are snagged in.

Joe Dallas states, "Now think for a minute about an adolescence, seated in a
one-on-one counseling environment.  Where this adolescent is coming in with
vulnerability, insecurity and fear about a variety of sexual feelings that
he/she is trying to cope with and understand; and the counselor, representing
the progay view point, is in a position of extreme authority, in the position
where he is holding quite a bit of clout and beginning to reassure this
adolescent that THOSE confusing feelings are pretty normal and acceptible and
actually a very healthy variation of human sexuality.  This adolescent is going
to, of course, internalize that as being objective truth, is going to feel as
though this adult counselor must know best in this situation, and even if what
the counselor is telling him conflicts with his own belief system, he is going
to be very inclined to accept what the counselor is saying, not only as a form
of reassurance, but as a life-long diagnosis."

"The explanation the wild fire spread of AIDS among the gay population is
strategically hidden from students.  Two factors are most prominent: the
staggering degree of anonymous promiscuity among male homosexuals, and the
relative ease with which the HIV virus enters the body during anal intercourse. 
The determination of gays to deflect criticism for their contributory behavior
has taken presidence over seriously attacking the spread of the disease by
discouraging youths from experimenting with dangerous practices."

John Smid, director of Love in Action, states:
"'I'm concerned with gay organizations coming into schools and encouraging young
people to express themselves sexually.  I know of organizations right here in
our own county that provoke people who have homosexual thoughts to go discover
masturbation, to discover homosexual relationships sexually in junior
high/highschool years, go find out if this is where you really are, if this is
what you really want.  I am so shocked that people today are so uneducated to
these things that are going on.'"

John D. Hartington, 
"'The best way for parents to protect their children against education of the
sort that children have been subjected to here in NYC, is to get involved with
their schools, know the people on your board of education, find out what they
stand for, and if the things they stand for are at odds with your belief, then
get better people on the board of education.'"

Howard L. Hurwitz, Phd.
"'Parents, citizens have got to attend local board of education meetings and
remember that there are 16,600 school boards in the United States, and with the
exception of New York City and maybe one other, they are all elective boards. 
Parents have got to be in there to know what the board of education is doing. 
They have got to make clear to the board of education members and to the
superintendent and to anyone who is listening that they want their children to
learn basic skills, to learn something about subject matter to emerge from the
schools with an ability to read and write, and to extend to their own abilities
to think critically.'"

Dolores Ayling,
"'How was your local school board going to vote if you didn't speak up on a
corriculum, and remember that when voting time comes for a new school board. 
How were these people going to vote, if you had to rise up to change their
minds and where was their mind, and what were they thinking to begin with;
therefore, you have to get rid of them.  It's plain and it's very simple. 
Parents and citizens have voting power.  You need to get rid of people who are
trying to change the traditional values that the majority of people in this
country hold very very dear.'"

Edie Gieb,
"It is the responsibility of parents to begin to hand off the batton of the
value system that their family believes in, and to make those children
understand that there will be MANY who will be soliciting other points of view,
but that they do not have the best interests of that child in mind when they
begin to promote these other lifestyles.  This is an issue that is so important
that we are talking LIFE AND DEATH."

*END OF Documentary video*
Observations:
Do we indoctrinate and desensitize kids by infiltrating basic American
institutions.  It is one thing to form your organization, it is quite another
to get into others and change their structure.  Let's go back:

>Funds to Scouts Halted Because of Ban on Gays:
>Source: The Washington Post, April 9, 1992, section A, page 10, col. 6

>"The United Way of the Bay Area said today it was halted of nearly $1 million-a
>year donations to local Boy Scouts because the youth group refused to change
>its ban on homosexual members.  The board of United Way asked the Boy Scouts of
>America in February to drop its long-standing policy about gay members and
>leaders, or at least grant its chapters in San Fransisco metropolitan area an
>exemption.  The national Boy Scouts refused, and a spokesman for the
>organization, ased in Irving, Texas, today repeated the groups position that it
>would not negotiate on the issue."
Here we have an institution, like the public school, that has traditionally
taken a stance against homosexuality and homosexuals being in their group.  Why
intrude upon their civil right to have their own structure and belief system? 
Why not form the Gay Boy Scouts of America?  BECAUSE it wouldn't get the
funding or the support, so the only way to be funded is to ride on the coat
tail of the Boy Scouts regardless of their moral, structural belief system. 
Whether it is based on a religious group or not, homosexual activists are
trying to change society as we know it---Institutions, the family, children,
societal structures, all on the back of Civil Rights.  More to come on this...
                                                 
********************************************************************************
The Gay Packet Part II will be posted Friday at 3:00-4:30 cst
The Gay Packet Part III will be posted Monday at 3:00-4:00 cst

I hope 1500 lines doenst mess up anyone's mail server.  My apologies if this is
so.