Saving Society From Demographic Suicide







  • to not trouble society;
  • to produce more than we consume; and
  • to get married and have children.

The Risk Of Demographic Suicide





Figure 1







A Practical Solution



A Practical Proposal to Strengthen Marriage and Family

Policy Goal
Policy Initiatives—

Three A’s and a B A Sex and Drug Education Module

Objective: To inform and convince students that personally avoiding certain kinds of choices and avoiding those peers who make those choices will further their interests. Further, to instruct them that society wants them to avoid certain choices and be chaste until marriage.

Methods: Lecture, discussion of the lecture, peer “skits” or role-playing (optional), and class discussions.

Specific Principles:

First, that most people who do “bad” or “unwise” things are like just about all of us, “nice guys” most of the time;

Secondly, irrespective of how “nice” they are, or how much fun they are to be with, or how enticing or interesting their activities, it is wise to avoid them and their chosen activities because we all are influenced by our associates. If we “hang around” people who engage in these activities – even when they are not specifically engaging in disapproved activities – we will be influenced to accept what they do and influenced to eventually try what they do as well.

The three “As and a B are:

Avoid drugs and those who use drugs,

Avoid homosexuality and those who engage in homosexuality,

Avoid prostitution and those who engage in prostitution, and

Be chaste.

Time Frame: It is expected that the total program will take around 12 class hours. Since each of the disapproved activities (the As) has proven interesting to or rewarding to a considerable number of people, there is always the danger that too much pupil exposure to any one of these disapproved activities might stimulate interest on the part of students who “hadn’t thought much about it before” or who might wonder whether “adults are just trying to keep us from experiencing the same fun that they have.” Likewise, since chastity for the unmarried (the B) consists of declining involvement in coitus, the emphasis must be placed not on the joys of sexual bliss (which students are being encouraged to avoid), but the short-term and long-term benefits of delaying that bliss until marriage. It is assumed that the “plumbing” and “mechanics” of coitus are well known to pupils and do not need to be addressed.

Overview of the Lessons

Lesson One focuses on how we get used to certain things. Being raised in our family “gets us used to” particular foods, customs, attitudes, and values – often the foods, customs, attitudes, and values of one family are quite different from those of other families, even those living on the same block. Likewise, when we are around others – particularly those we choose to be with such as friends and acquaintances, we “get used to” many of their tastes, customs, attitudes, and values. When we choose to be around those who are enthusiastic about an activity that is not socially approved, those we are with seek to justify what they are doing by attempting to get their friends and acquaintances to, at the very least, express approval of their activities, or even better to “just give it a try and let me know what you think.” If they can gain approval they feel better about their activity, and they feel even better if they can make a “convert” to their activity (just about everybody, not just misery, “loves company” in what they do). Under social pressure from associates who do socially disapproved things, we are prone to “try it” and thus run the risk of acquiring the same interests, tastes, or proclivities as they have. The major point of lesson one is to try to get students to be careful about whom they befriend or “hang out with.” Students are to learn that their choice of friends and acquaintances will probably have a profound influence on them, and that the time to consider whom they will befriend or “hang out with” is before they “commit” to the relationship. The power of “try it, you might like it” and “don’t knock it until you try it” will pressure them if they continue to associate with the disruptive or rebellious. Lesson one will probably take two class periods.

Lesson Two focuses on drugs and drug users. The harmful and frequently addictive power of tobacco, alcohol, and illegal drugs is addressed. Tobacco and alcohol (the legal substances) and marijuana, cocaine, and heroin (the illegal substances) will each be considered. Some people consider the “high” or “relaxed” state that they reach when taking these substances worth the health and legal risks involved. The dangers associated with each (and the small possible benefits associated with tobacco and alcohol) and the illegality of each of these substances for those under age in the case of tobacco or alcohol, or for anyone in the case of marijuana, cocaine, and heroin, will be addressed. At least in the case of the “hard drugs” – cocaine and heroin – there is evidence that those who use them, particularly intravenously, live considerably shortened lives. The principles learned in Lesson One will be reiterated, namely, about “getting used to” things that people do with whom we associate possibly leading to experimenting with and possibly acquiring a taste for drugs if one associates with those who take drugs . Courtesy toward, but avoidance of, drug users will be emphasized. “Scripts” for how to courteously avoid the company of drug users will be learned. Lesson two will probably take two class periods.

Lesson Three focuses on homosexuality and those who engage in homosexuality. The harmful and sometimes addictive aspects of homosexual relations are addressed. Students will learn that both men and women who engage in homosexuality get more Sexually Transmitted Diseases and experience high levels of various forms of violence. Further, that men who engage in homosexuality disproportionately experience organ failures. These and other harms contribute to a decided shortening of the life spans of those who engage in homosexual practices. Students will learn that homosexual relations are illegal in almost half the states, and that teenagers who engage in homosexuality report higher levels of drug-abuse. Courtesy toward, but avoidance of, those who engage in homosexuality will be emphasized. “Scripts” for how to courteously avoid the company of those who engage in homosexuality will be learned. Lesson three will probably take two class periods.

Lesson Four focuses on prostitution and those who engage in prostitution. The dangerous aspects of either engaging in prostitution or employing a prostitute will be emphasized. Students will learn that prostitutes suffer high levels of infection with various Sexually Transmitted Diseases and experience high levels of violence including beatings, murder, and suicide. As well, prostitutes frequently engage in multiple forms of substance abuse. Those who hire prostitutes often catch Sexually Transmitted Diseases and not infrequently find themselves subject to violence and robbery. Students will learn that prostitution is illegal in almost all states (the current exception is Nevada), and many foreign countries. Courtesy toward, but avoidance of, those who engage in prostitution or visit prostitutes will be emphasized. “Scripts” for how to courteously avoid the company of those who employ prostitutes or those who engage in prostitution will be learned. Lesson four will probably take one class period.

Lesson Five focuses on chastity. The psychological, physical, and social benefits of chastity will be promoted. The following values will be emphasized: 1) the psychological value of “saving oneself” for a committed marital relationship and “greater value” to a prospective spouse; 2) the avoidance of any physical problems (e.g., pregnancy, infections, an awkward pregnancy and birth or a possible abortion); and 3) the avoidance of a bad reputation (e.g., boys “only interested in one thing” or girls “who are willing”) and being shamed in the family. The long-term statistical relationship between waiting for sexual intercourse and scholastic and marital success will be taught and emphasized. Lesson five will probably take two or possibly three class periods.

Lesson Six will review what has been learned. Students will be asked to compare and contrast the three “avoids,” and to explain the advantages of chastity. Questions they should address and discuss include:

    1. How are the three As similar?
    2. Some people talk about getting “addicted” to drugs or homosexual activity; can people get addicted to prostitution or going to prostitutes?
    3. Why do you think that most societies made drug use, homosexuality, and prostitution illegal?
    4. Why has no society made chastity illegal?
    5. What are the advantages of chastity?
    6. Why do most parents warn their children to “watch out who you hang around with?”
    7. Some societies have been very harsh with those caught in homosexuality, prostitution, or illegal drug use, sometimes executing those convicted. Why do you think they would consider these activities so wrong?
    8. What are the unusual hazards of or dangers associated with each of the three As?
    9. Are we all influenced by “try it, you might like it?”
    10. Why do most people prefer someone who has not “gone all the way” as a potential spouse?

It is anticipated that Lesson six will take one or two class periods.

Lesson Outlines

Lesson One focuses on how we get used to certain things.

A. Being raised in our family “gets us used” to particular foods, customs, attitudes, and values – often the foods, customs, attitudes, and values of one family are quite different from those of other families. Have you ever noticed how different families are? Some families eat foods that are considered very unusual or even “disgusting” by other families who might live right next door.

Exercise: Have students relate some of the different customs and eating habits they have noticed among other families, either in a short paper or class discussion. Have students discuss how others could “eat that stuff” or “act that way” – and then ask themselves that very question about their family habits. Consider, how “neat” is your house or yard as compared to others? Do you change clothes once a day or not? How often do you bathe (it was around the 1920s before most people bathed more than once a week in the U.S. And in Colonial times, people often bathed once or twice a year). How often do you wash dishes (e.g., after every meal, at the end of the day, when all the dishes are dirty)?


Exercise: Have students discuss in class how they have tried things (e.g., food, games, amusements) with which they were not familiar because they were with some other people (even adults or another family).

C. When we choose to be around those who are enthusiastic about an activity that is not socially approved, those we are with seek to justify what they are doing by attempting to get their friends and acquaintances to validate it or “just give it a try and let me know what you think.” Not everybody runs into this kind of situation, but most people will eventually run into it. If they can make a “convert” they feel better about what they are doing (just about everybody, not just misery, “loves company”).

Exercise: Have students discuss experiences that they might have had where this principle was evident (many students will have had at least one such experience). This might be a good time to have students divide into two or three groups, with the task of each to illustrate the different things we can get used to. It might be pointed out to one group that in the U.S. up through the 1800s, all teenagers who committed crimes were treated as adults. If they were convicted of murder they were hung, if they were convicted of robbery they got the same kind and length of imprisonment as any adult – only children aged 7 or less were exempted from the full thrust of the law. Students should discuss how this fact might have influenced associational choices and how being regarded as “ignorant adolescents” today might encourage kids to “hang around” those engaging in socially disapproved activities.

D. Under social pressure from associates who do socially disapproved things, we are prone to “try it” and thus run the risk of acquiring the same interests, tastes, or proclivities as they have. People almost always “relent” and try something if they permit themselves to be badgered about it. Since everyone knows this, if you continue to “hang around” someone who is “into” something, it kind of becomes a matter of “when,” not “if” you will “give it a try”). Girls know that if a boy just wants “one thing” and they continue to be around him, eventually they will succumb.

Exercise: Have the class answer the question “why do people try things that other people are doing, and why are we especially apt to try things if the other person ‘begs’ us or ‘dares’ us?” Class members might be chosen to “be” other families who eat different foods, have different customs, etc. [the teacher might look up family customs in other lands or have the students look up family customs in other lands to “play the part” of some of those other families].

The major point of lesson one, is to try to get students to be careful about whom they befriend or “hang out with.” Students are to learn that their choice of friends and acquaintances will probably have a profound influence on them – for both good and ill. All of us “go along with” those with whom we associate. This is not a bad thing, but rather a characteristic of humans. But the best time to consider whom you will befriend or “hang out with” is before you “commit” to a relationship or begin “hanging out” with those who are doing disapproved, wrongful, or harmful activities. “Hanging out” at church is almost always more apt to be beneficial than “hanging out” at a bar – have students discuss why.

Lesson Two focuses on drugs and drug users.

A. Facts for lecture or lecture-discussion. Tobacco, alcohol, and illegal drugs are often addictive. Tobacco and alcohol are legal substances. For both tobacco and alcohol, as well as illegal drugs, some people can “take it or leave it.” People who use one of these substances are much more apt to use two or more of them – that is, smokers are more apt to use marijuana or heroin than nonsmokers.

1. It looks like a majority of people who use tobacco are not “addicted.” That is, most people who smoke can, with what ranges from either a little to a great deal of effort, stop smoking for days, weeks, or even permanently if they really want to. Such smokers are almost always not the “pack a day” smokers. Those who smoke two packs or more of cigarettes per day are almost always “addicted.” That is, the vast majority of these smokers have a “real habit,” and as such, have come to depend on or crave the feelings associated with nicotine and the other chemicals found in tobacco. Further, they smoke so much that they find that smoking “gives them something to do, ” particularly “something to do with their hands.” Most of those addicted to tobacco report that smoking makes them “feel sharper” or “relaxes” them. When asked, almost all of those who are addicted say that they “want to quit,” but find it very difficult to do so. A large minority of people who join a group or take drugs to help them stop smoking end up quitting. But most smokers must make two or three serious attempts before they finally succeed.

Tobacco use is associated with a reduction of life span of between one and 8 years, depending on the study. It appears almost certain that smoking causes lung cancer – in fact, about 7% of those who smoke will develop lung cancer (v. about a third of one percent of those who don’t smoke). It is likewise almost certain that smoking causes emphysema, various forms of cancer other than lung cancer, and various forms of heart or circulatory ailments. The only medical “up sides” are that it appears possible that smoking tobacco reduces one’s chances of Parkinson’s disease and certain other neurological problems (e.g., eggplant has a considerable amount of nicotine – a naturally occurring and often beneficial substance).

Socially, tobacco use is associated with an odor on the body and clothes that about half of teenagers find offensive or unpleasant. Additionally, “tobacco breath” is judged unpleasant or offensive by about two-thirds of teenagers. Even most kids who smoke consider it unpleasant, that’s why mouthwash or breath mints are big with smokers. Tobacco use stains the teeth yellowish and little bits of ash make tiny holes in clothing and furniture. Smoking often “smokes” the skin, making it leathery and wrinkled before its time. As such, the choice to smoke reduces the number of potential dates, friends, and people who want to be around you (especially close to you). There are no “up sides” to the smells, wrinkles, holes and stains.

2. Most people who use alcohol are not “addicted.” In fact, most can “take it or leave it,” although most enjoy the “buzz” associated with drinking. About a fifth of those who drink have some difficulty controlling their drinking and perhaps 10% of those who drink become “alcoholics” – that is, they behave as though they were addicted. While most people can drive a car safely after having had a single drink (a beer, a glass of wine, a shot), almost everyone experiences some slowdown in reaction time and cloudy judgment after two drinks, and their performance continues to deteriorate with every additional drink. Drinking reduces inhibitions, so it has effects upon judgments having to do with sexuality, business, school, or socializing. Most people who drink feel that it “relaxes” them, and drinking is associated with conviviality and socialization for most.

Overall, the life span of those who drink is about the same as the life span of those who do not. However, the life span of “alcoholics” is significantly reduced (by about three to five years). Alcoholism is associated with cirrhosis of the liver and thinking irregularities. There is evidence in some studies that moderate alcohol use is good for the heart and circulatory system (in other words, there may be some “up sides” to moderate drinking). However, benefits from alcohol to the overall life span have not turned up in some well-done studies, so the “jury is still out” on the possible health benefits from moderate drinking.

Further, there is no doubt that even moderate drinking has short-term negative effects on coordination and one’s ability to control impulses. There does not appear to be a way to predict who will abuse alcohol to such an extent that they become alcoholics or have problems with drinking. However, those who have an “alcoholic” or “heavy drinker” in their family or in a near relative are much more apt to become alcoholics or heavy drinkers as well. Many Asians and American Indians appear particularly susceptible to becoming heavy drinkers, so individuals with this genetic background ought to be especially careful about alcohol. Alcohol use is illegal except in certain family situations for those under the age of 18 throughout the U.S.

On a social level, numerous unplanned pregnancies, decisions to do stupid things, auto and industrial accidents, and around a third of physical fights and murders are associated with alcohol consumption. Once a person becomes addicted, cure is very difficult.

3. Most people who use marijuana are not “addicted.” Most people who use it can “take it or leave it.” Possession of even small amounts of marijuana is illegal in almost all the states, and possession of a few ounces “to have some fun” is generally illegal in every state, although one is seldom sentenced to prison for a first offense involving “personal use” quantities. The “buzz” associated with marijuana is similar to the buzz associate with drinking alcohol. It is likely that the negative effect of marijuana on the lungs is similar to the effect of tobacco, although marijuana is typically used less frequently.

The scientific evidence about the harmful effects of marijuana tends to suggest that the body can probably overcome the negative effects of small doses, but that regular use is associated with mental impairment and a kind of “addiction.” Marijuana is a “gateway” drug. That is, if you are willing to break the law and use a socially disapproved substance that can lead to addiction, and that has an effect upon coordination and judgment similar to the effect of a number of drinks of alcohol, it is much more likely that you will try “harder drugs” such as cocaine and heroin. The long-term effects of marijuana use are largely unknown, but it is unlikely that they are other than harmful. For certain medical conditions (such as glaucoma), marijuana may be beneficial; however, it is likely that the same benefits can be obtained with legal substances.

Socially, the effects of marijuana use are similar to the effects of alcohol. Marijuana use may not have as dramatic an effect upon coordination as alcohol, but seems to have more pernicious effects upon judgment. Thus, marijuana use is associated with the same list of “horribles” as alcohol – e.g., fights, pregnancies, etc. Heavy users tend to develop an “odor” that most people find objectionable, and of course, there are holes in the clothing and furniture, and skin wrinkling with heavy use.

4. Most people who use cocaine and large numbers of those who use heroin are not addicted. It is illegal to possess either of these substances or other “controlled substances” such as LSD, angel dust, etc. in any amount in the U.S. Even first convictions for small amounts of these substances often result in prison time, since these are considered much more serious drugs. While cocaine is not physically addictive, many people become psychologically addicted to it. Heroin can be and often is physically and psychologically addictive. There is evidence that those who regularly use either substance, particularly intravenously, live considerably shortened lives. Indeed, regular “shooting” of any drug or controlled substance is associated with about a 30-to-35-year reduction in life span. Both cocaine and heroin use are associated with dramatic impairment of mental functioning (possibly due to changes in the brain) and probably coordination as well.

Socially, because the use of these drugs almost eliminates inhibitions, the violence associated with their use is considerable. In addition, because of their illegality and high cost, many killings, robberies, and assaults are also encountered by regular or even casual users – who are more apt to be caught in the “cross fire” of competing sellers and situations they had not anticipated. Both of these drugs readily lead to a quest for “the feeling” associated with their use to the exclusion of almost any other social concern (e.g., “he loved coke more than he loved anyone else”).

Frequently, those addicted are unable to perform well on the job or in school for any extended period of time. Many users are more interested in getting “a fix” than socializing, raising children, holding down a job, talking, making love, etc. Many people who become regular users of these substances become “drug people,” keeping to their own kind, and flitting from “fix to fix.” Most of these end up being “drags” on society, using up social resources but contributing little in return. At this time it does not appear possible to predict who will and will not become an “addict.” It appears that at least a quarter of regular users become “addicts” and that, once addicted, “cure” is extraordinarily difficult. No known medical “up side” to the use of these substances has appeared.

B. Those principles learned in Lesson One about “getting used to” things that people do with whom we associate, and how this can possibly lead to experimenting with and possibly acquiring a taste for drugs by associating with those who take drugs should be reiterated. People who smoke, drink alcohol, or use drugs typically try to recruit others to their habit. Sometimes their attempts at recruiting are subtle, but often at some point they directly confront their friends and acquaintances with “try it, you’ll like it” or “don’t knock it until you’ve tried it.” When this point is reached in a relationship, the teenager who has been invited is at a choice-point. If he “brushes the question off” but continues to associate with the user, he has indicated that he “might” go along, and only needs more pressuring – and the odds are he will go along. So, at this point whether he “brushes the question aside” or confrontationally refuses, he must stop “going with” or “being around” the person who did the inviting.

Courtesy toward, but avoidance of drug users is the best rule. “Scripts” for how to courteously avoid the company of drug users should be “dreamed up” by the class as a whole. Non-confrontational ways include “ignoring the question” or “I’ve got to think about it,” or “not now” and then avoiding the questioner so that the question cannot be put again. Confrontational ways include “no, I think its dumb (stupid, foolish)” or “no, I don’t want to get involved,” or “no, I promised my parents (girlfriend/boyfriend/God) I wouldn’t,” and then avoiding the questioner so that the question cannot be put again. People almost always “relent” and try something if they permit themselves to be badgered about it. Since everybody knows this, if you continue to “hang around” someone who is “into” drugs or alcohol, it kind of becomes a matter of “when,” not “if” you will “give it a try”). An optional exercise is to have three or four members of the class devise a “skit” that illustrates how pressure is applied and how it can be deflected.

Lesson Three focuses on homosexuality and those who engage in homosexuality.

A. Homosexual activities are often medically and physically harmful. Both men and women who engage in homosexuality get more Sexually Transmitted Diseases [STDs] (e.g., syphilis, gonorrhea), including AIDS than those who only have sex with the opposite sex. Men who engage in homosexuality much more frequently get STDs, particularly AIDS and the various forms of hepatitis (viral diseases of the liver). Gays get AIDS about 500 times more frequently than straights. High levels of various forms of violence, including sadomasochism, beatings, overdosing, murder, and suicide are associated with homosexuality in both men and women. Men who engage in homosexuality experience disproportionate organ failures (e.g., the anal sphincter and liver) and heart conditions. High levels of various forms of cancer, especially those associated with the reproductive system (e.g., breast, uterine) are associated with homosexuality among women. These and other harms contribute to a decided shortening of the life spans of those who engage in homosexual practices. It appears that those who engage in homosexuality reduce their life spans by between 20 to 30 years – almost as much as those who shoot drugs intravenously.

Socially, those who engage in homosexuality tend to associate with others who engage in homosexuality. If they become part of the “gay movement” their associations tend toward almost exclusive social contact with other homosexuals. Homosexual practitioners, particularly those who consider themselves “gay,” tend to be very evangelical. They will tend to advertise their involvement in homosexuality to just about everybody in their social space. Sometimes they will wear clothing or adopt an interpersonal style that advertises their homosexuality. They will frequently attempt to get others to “try” homosexuality.

Sometimes subtly and at other times more directly, they will invite those in their social space to participate with them or with other homosexuals in their sexual activities or at the very least, to “endorse” what they do. Although those who engage in homosexuality probably occur in every profession, certain professions (e.g., hairdressing, florists, interior design, acting, women’s sports and women’s military) have higher concentrations. There is a substantial “divide” between the social worlds of those who do and those who do not participate in homosexuality. It is unclear whether the “divide” between homosexuals and heterosexuals is as wide as or wider than the social “divide” between Blacks and whites, or between smokers and nonsmokers.

Outside of employment, Blacks tend to disproportionately voluntarily associate with Blacks and whites with whites. Likewise, smokers tend to associate with other smokers and nonsmokers with nonsmokers. But both Blacks and whites generally condemn or deprecate homosexual activity by those within their own race and generally do not associate with members of their race who engage in homosexuality. The same phenomenon of people liking to “be around their own kind” is evident in dividing smokers from nonsmokers, and divides regular drug-users from nonusers. Around 2%-3% of adults engage in homosexuality.

Homosexual involvements tend toward being addictive but do not appear to be ingrained or genetically inherited. Very few adults who claim to “be homosexual” have not had successful sexual relations with the opposite sex. In a number of studies it has been found that only about 5% of gays and lesbians are heterosexual virgins. Further, most men and most women who report having engaged in homosexuality in the past year also report having engaged in heterosexuality in the past 5 years. That is, there are very few exclusive “homosexuals.” This is one of the reasons that most scientists for most of this century have regarded homosexuality as a “preference” (obviously, if people can “go either way,” and prefer homosexuality at this particular time, it makes little sense to consider them to have been “born that way” – what way were they “born” when they switch again?).

While heterosexual sexuality requires that people get to know each other, date, socialize, and have at least some interests in common, homosexual relations tend to be very “sexually” oriented, and complete strangers can and do “have homosexual sex” with each other. Boys wonder about “what makes girls tick” and girls wonder what “makes boys tick,” and both sexes have to accommodate each other before any sort of dating or marriage might occur. Homosexuality short circuits this requirement. Boys know about boys and girls know about girls. It is therefore “easy” to get on and “get to the sexual point of the relationship” if the relationship is homosexual.

Many people “get a thrill” out of doing the verboten and being in the “out crowd.” Some of the charm of homosexuality (as with drug use) undoubtedly stems from the “out” status that comes from being “in” with a fairly secret society. A great deal of the charm of homosexuality comes from knowing “where to go” and “how to act” to meet other homosexuals and engage in sexual relations. These are “secrets” not shared by most non-homosexuals. Engaging in homosexuality puts you into an “elite in crowd” that offers a great deal of sexuality for little interpersonal investment. In contrast, heterosexuality offers a modest degree of sexuality for a great deal of interpersonal involvement. Although the studies upon which the findings are based are not rock-solid, teenagers who engage in homosexuality report higher levels of drug-abuse, criminality, and exposure to violence than teenagers who do not. Homosexual relations were illegal in every state until 1962 and are illegal in almost half the states today.

Courtesy toward, but avoidance of, those who engage in homosexuality is the best rule. Socially, those who associate with “openly homosexual” teens will find themselves suspected of dabbling in it themselves. “Scripts” for how to courteously avoid the company of those who engage in homosexuality should be “dreamed up” by the class as a whole (they will build on their ideas of the previous lesson concerning drug users). Non-confrontational ways to react to invitations to participate in homosexuality include “ignoring the question” or “I’ve got to think about it,” or “not now” and then avoiding the questioner so that the question cannot be put again. Confrontational ways include “no, I think its dumb (stupid, foolish, wrong)” or “no, I don’t want to get involved,” or “no, I promised my parents (girlfriend/boyfriend/God) I wouldn’t,” and then avoiding the questioner so that the question cannot be put again. People almost always “relent” and try something if they allow themselves to be badgered about it. Since everybody knows this, so if you continue to “hang around” someone who is “into” homosexuality, it kind of becomes a matter of “when,” not “if.”

Lesson four focuses on prostitution or those who go to or use prostitutes. The dangerous aspects of either engaging in prostitution or employing a prostitute are considerable. About the same proportion of the adult population gets involved in prostituting themselves as is involved in homosexuality. Perhaps 2% to 3% of adults have prostituted themselves, and perhaps a fifth of men and a much smaller proportion of women at some time have employed prostitutes. A much larger proportion of the general population uses legal or illegal substances. Prostitutes suffer high levels of infection with various Sexually Transmitted Diseases, including AIDS. The clients of prostitutes are therefore often exposed to all kinds of STDs. Further, there is evidence that prostitutes, similar to drug-users and those who engage in homosexuality, are more apt to try to infect those with whom they have sexual relations.

Because of the nature of the intimate contact with large numbers of different people, prostitutes get and give more than their “fair share” of diseases other than STDs. Prostitutes experience high levels of violence, including beatings, murder, and suicide. Prostitution is illegal almost everywhere (certain parts of Nevada excepted), and while prostitutes are usually the ones arrested, their clients are also sometimes arrested. Most prostitutes operate with a pimp who protects but also typically exploits the situation for his own benefit. While customers of prostitutes are seldom robbed, beaten, or killed, all of these things happen much more frequently to their customers than to those who avoid prostitutes.

Prostitutes frequently engage in multiple forms of substance abuse. It is probable that they live shortened life spans. Though they may make “good money” while they are young and attractive, most find themselves disinclined to “go to a job” after their prostitution days are over – the habits built up during a prostitute’s career emphasize sleeping late, staying up long hours, not doing much in the way of work, and generally “being lazy” and often “high” on some sort of drug to “get through the night.” Further, habits of thrift and carefulness are seldom cultivated.

While Hollywood glamorizes prostitutes, their life is almost always fairly degrading and depressing. There is generally plenty of excitement (e.g., “will this John be a beater or a killer?”), but most of the “action” takes place in seedy surroundings, often cheap rooms, fields, parking lots, bars or cars. Many, perhaps most, prostitutes are homosexual or bisexual. It appears likely that about one out of every two or three prostitutes is employed for homosexual activity. Perhaps a third to a half of prostitutes are men, and a considerable number of prostitutes who service men are actually gays disguised as women or transsexuals of one sort or another. There is a great deal of overlap between heavy drug users, those who engage in homosexuality, and those who engage in prostitution. Similarly, those who use prostitutes are disproportionately apt to be heavy consumers of drugs or alcohol. Drug users, homosexuals, and prostitutes include more than their fair share of people who feel betrayed by parents or society, and are vengeful and dishonest. It is likely that their practices either create or exacerbate these undesirable traits.

Courtesy toward, but avoidance of, those who engage in prostitution or those who visit prostitutes is wise. “Scripts” for how to courteously avoid the company of those who employ prostitutes or those who engage in prostitution should be created by the class, which will by this time have dealt with the same issue regarding substance abuse and homosexuality.

Lesson Five focuses on chastity. Chastity has psychological, physical, and social benefits.

A. From a social-psychological standpoint, it is wise for teenagers to focus on schooling and to ignore or minimize sexuality until their schooling is completed. Sexuality, like schooling or work, takes time. Sexuality is exciting and indulging in some sexual activity often results in attempts to expand one’s experiences. Frequently, the time expended on sexuality comes at the expense of school-time or work-time. Asian students in the U.S., in particular, are known for their willingness to delay sexuality until their schooling is over or almost over. This is undoubtedly part of the reason Asian students, as a class, do so well in school and are much more apt to get college degrees, join professions, and make good money than white students.

Blacks in the U.S. much more frequently “jump start” their sexuality in the early teens. This is undoubtedly part of the reason that Black students, as a class, do less well in school, are much less apt to achieve a college degree, are less apt to be professionals, and tend not to make as much money as white students. One’s exploration of sexuality is never “risk free,” but if bad things happen while exploring sexuality in the teen years (e.g., pregnancy, STDs), their long-term consequences are much more severe than if bad things happen to someone in their 20s who has finished schooling. So from either a goal-setting perspective or from the standpoint of risk, delaying your sexual debut conserves psychic and time resources for school while at the same time delaying the risks associated with sexual indulgence.

Fifty years ago, the average age of loss of virginity was about 17 yr. old for boys and 18 to 19 years of age for girls. By the 1980s this figure declined to about 16 yr. for boys and 17 yr. for girls. In the 1990s, the average age of loss of virginity is rising again because more kids are practicing chastity. While many other factors are involved, those students – both boys and girls – who delay their sexual debut, are considerably more apt to achieve scholastically, monetarily, and socially. In the longer run, getting a degree is accompanied by many more rewards than early sexual experience. Delaying the gratification of exploring sexuality in favor of getting one’s schooling completed and then exploring sexuality translates into many times the amount of income over a lifetime as compared to those who don’t complete a degree. At a base level, the choice is generally “have fun now and pay for it later,” or “be chaste today and have the same or greater fun later – but with much more money.”

Sexual activity is not only interesting and powerful, it is also quasi-addictive. Once started, it is quite difficult to stop. Many of those who “play the field” in their teen years discover that they have cultivated a taste for sexual “variety.” As such, they find it difficult to “settle down” to just one partner. This may be related to evidence that early sexual debut is associated with higher chances of divorce later in life. For instance, in one nationwide study, it was found that both men and women who had gotten a divorce on-average had lost their virginity two years younger than those who never got a divorce. While those who “save” their first experience for their marital partner are in the minority, what evidence we have suggests that the sex lives of such individuals are more satisfying and their marriages more durable.

B. Physically, pregnancies have their best prospects for success if the woman is between about 19 through 29 years of age. There is good evidence that various forms of cancer of the reproductive organs accompany exposure to sperm from different men (that is, it is safer for the woman if she has sex with only one man). There is also some evidence that abortion creates scar tissue that can lead to infertility, and that these complications of abortion are more frequent among teenagers. Earlier sexual debut is associated with higher probabilities of acquiring STDs in both men and women. However, most of the physical problems associated with early sexual debut fall upon the woman.

C. Psychologically, the intensity of feelings accompanying sex does not appear to vary by age, but commitment to the partner is considerably less among teenagers. For most people, the “first time” is a memorable and special occasion. Some girls become psychically disturbed when their “first partner” leaves them – a phenomenon much more likely if the partner is a teenager. Girls, especially, suffer from feelings of having been “used” rather than “loved.” Likewise, some girls become deeply disturbed if they have an abortion, experiencing “anniversary reactions” and deep regrets over the child they might have had, particularly if it turns out to have been the only child she could ever have had. Obviously, abortion is a much more likely outcome of teenage sex than sex between those in their 20s or of those who are married.

D. Socially, a large minority of girls and close to a majority of boys express a desire that their marital partner not be “sexually experienced.” Many boys are concerned about their “ranking” with other boys a girl may have had (“was I as good?”), and boys are also often concerned that they are somehow getting “damaged goods.” Girls’ concerns about their partner not being sexually experienced may be related to her “ranking” relative to other girls a guy may have had, but more frequently their concerns revolve around the degree of commitment the fellow presumably had before and whether he can be “trusted” to be faithful now. There appears to be no “down side” to having been chaste before marriage, and for a significant minority, not having been chaste is a strong mark against such a person as a potential marital partner. Religiously, all the major faiths celebrate chastity and condemn fornication.

Males have a tendency to focus in on sexual conquest to the exclusion of much in the way of communication and commitment, females tend toward being more interested in communication and commitment than sex (e.g., “boys trade love for sex, girls trade sex for love”). Both sexes establish psychological patterns in their teen years that influence them for the rest of their lives. Since sexual expression is such an important aspect of adulthood, it is wise to be guarded in the sexual habits one acquires.

Lesson Six reviews what has been learned. The main task for students is to compare and contrast the three “avoids,” and to address the advantages of chastity. Questions they should discuss include:

  1. How are the three As similar?
  4. Why have some Muslim countries made adultery a capital offense?
  5. Why has no society made chastity illegal?
  6. What are the advantages of chastity?
  8. Some societies have been very harsh with those caught in homosexuality, prostitution, or illegal drug use. Why do you think they would consider these activities so terribly wrong?
  9. At one time, 11 states outlawed the use of tobacco. Are we heading that way again?
  11. Are we all influenced by “try it, you might like it?”
  12. Why do most people prefer someone who has not “gone all the way” as a potential marital partner?
  13. In which kind of situation – marriage, cohabiting, singlehood – are children better off?
  14. Why do you suppose that people who engage in one of the three As are more apt to engage in two of the As?
  15. Have any American presidents engaged in one of the three As?
  16. Why does Hollywood glamorize the three As so frequently?

Class discussions and role-playing skits would be highly appropriate for stimulating class discussions. A history assignment about expected standards of sexual comportment in the early U.S. and Victorian England would be useful. Assignments concerning the ideals regarding sexuality as taught by Christianity, Judaism, and the Muslim faith would be appropriate.

Reciprocal Beneficiaries

Some conservative and pro-family organizations have touted reciprocal beneficiary agreements as a way to sidestep and perhaps prevent the adoption of gay marriage, domestic partnerships, or civil unions for homosexuals. The truth is just the opposite. Reciprocal beneficiary agreements are merely a lesser step in the same direction. Indeed, they amount to a form of ‘marriage lite’ for homosexuals. Explore the links on the left to find out more.

Can Anything Be Done to Stop Gay Rights?


The West has produced the richest and most vital civilization ever to grace the planet, but our civilization is dying by slow degrees. Western nations are producing too few children to maintain their population. Most of our demographic decline is due to a mix of a self-centered reluctance to have children, birth control, wholesale abortion, and women in the workplace. The rise of militant homosexuality has also been a significant factor. It is both a symptom and a cause of our decline.

On one hand, the growing acceptance of homosexuality is symptomatic of a larger trend in Western society — the growing view of sexuality as “mere recreation,” a casual activity divorced from procreation and family. Gay rights is also a cause of civilization’s decline. Homosexuality is a unique manifestation of hedonism. Instead of producing children, it preys on them. Instead of keeping to itself, it proselytizes. Instead of promoting health and stability (as does marriage), it thrives on aggression, spreads disease, and destroys its practitioners, emotionally and physically.

Along with the promotion of birth control and abortion, the present bland acceptance of homosexuality signals the end of the religious and moral vision that made Western civilization coherent and functional. We had a forewarning of this social collapse in Germany following that nation’s defeat in World War I. During the Weimar Republic, homosexuality was acceptable and consequently rampant. The popular culture celebrated perversity. Kurt Weill’s songs portrayed pleasure-seeking men moving from one homosexual encounter to another. The first gay rights film, “Different From The Others,” appeared in Germany in 1919. This period of moral chaos spawned National Socialism and the rise to power of its sexually twisted leader, Adolph Hitler.

The United States is not the Germany of the Weimar Republic, but we are now telling our children in junior high school and even elementary school that homosexuality is an acceptable alternative to traditional marriage. More and more of them are encouraged to consider such behavior. High school counselors in Virginia express concern that perversion has become so chic that young heterosexuals are pretending to be bisexual and even homosexual. The so-called gay rights movement is making certain that the next generation of Americans will be more and more tolerant of this self-indulgent and dangerous behavior, and even more likely to become addicted.

One thing seems clear: If the acceptance and practice of homosexuality continues at its current rate, Western civilization will not survive.

So we ask again: Can anything be done to stop gay rights?

Good News, Bad News

At first glance, the answer would appear to be ‘yes.’ Eleven states in the November 2004 election passed referenda banning gay ‘marriage’ in one form or another. Another nine states since then have made similar changes to their laws or constitutions. Pro-family conservatives have been credited with helping to get out the vote on this and other moral issues, aiding President Bush’s re-election and keeping gay-sympathetic Democrats both 1) out of office and 2) incapable of tilting the make-up of the Supreme Court further leftward. Liberals were unable to stop the confirmations of new, conservative Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Altogether, 45 states have passed either Defense of Marriage legislation or marriage amendments to their constitutions. And President Bush supports a Marriage Protection Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, with the purpose of enshrining the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

On the other hand, a penetrating look provides reason for pessimism. Within the past ten years, the current Supreme Court has 1) overturned Amendment 2 in Colorado, a majority-passed referendum designed to limit the spread of gay rights by administrative or judicial fiat; and 2) overturned all laws against sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas, establishing a presumptive ‘right’ to sodomy across America. The State of Vermont enacted the first gay civil unions, followed by Connecticut and New Jersey, the State of Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, California established homosexual domestic partnerships only a year after its citizens, by referendum, reserved the name of ‘marriage’ for unions of one man-one-woman, and citizens in Maine and Washington failed to overturn new state-wide gay rights laws.

In an ominous parallel to its official decision to de-list homosexuality as a mental disorder back in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association, in 2005, officially endorsed gay marriage as a healthier alternative to gay ‘bachelorhood.’

On the political front, President Bush and many Republican leaders have clearly stated their support for homosexual civil unions, if states so desire them. The Bush administration also ignored the opportunity to defend anti-sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas. And international pressure is growing. In addition to the European countries that have now legalized either gay marriage or a close equivalent, and the fact that the proposed constitution of the European Union codifies sexual orientation as a protected status, the Canadian Supreme Court has overturned laws against gay marriage (with the Canadian government acquiescing to the decision and legalizing gay marriage in Parliament) and ruled that almost any criticism of homosexuality is a form of ‘hate speech.’ Strongly Catholic Ireland banned sodomy until 1993, but now has apparently decided that some form of gay civil unions must be adopted in the near future. And so it goes.

In the U.S., traditional Christian thought has been so pushed out of the public square that Christian condemnation of homosexuality is either ignored or explicitly pilloried. Meanwhile, support for gays continues to grow among the elite. The editorial page commentary of the Wall Street Journal about former New Jersey Governor James McGreevey’s revelation of his homosexual preference illustrates the depth of this support:

“the real scandal consuming New Jersey isn’t governor James McGreevey’s sexual preference. It’s how Mr. McGreevy and fellow state Democrats are timing his resignation to cheat voters out of picking a replacement as soon as possible.

“Obviously, being gay today isn’t something that a politician need apologize for or be ashamed of. What’s shameful is the way Mr. McGreevey is manipulating the political calendar.” (August 16, 2004, A12)

As the editors of the most influential newspaper in the world see it, that the governor of New Jersey engaged in sodomy, cheated on his wife and child, hired an unqualified lover, engaged in misappropriation of funds, lied to the electorate, etc. — in short, acted in ways consonant with a Christian analysis of what sodomites do — is irrelevant. McGreevey’s sin is political, period. Today, even conservative commentators (such as Bill O’Riley or Michael Medved) usually opine that condemnation of homosexuality is ‘backward’ or ‘bigoted.’

How We Got Here

Though this transformation to a gay-friendly world may seem to have happened almost overnight, history shows otherwise. As former Harvard sociologist and chairman Pitirim Sorokin documented in the 1950s, the sexual revolution was brewing for at least the prior 100 years. Over that time, birth rates and average family sizes steadily dropped, divorce rates and out-of-wedlock births steadily rose, and taboos and strictures against cohabitation, promiscuity, and homosexuality began to fall by the wayside. These trends have continued and generally accelerated since Sorokin’s analysis.

An excellent — but by no means isolated — example of the long-term decline is provided by the District of Columbia. When the District was established in 1790, sodomy was a capital crime. Today, homosexuals have more legal rights in D.C. than non-homosexuals. Socially, gays wield significant power, so much so that serious negotiations were needed to site a new baseball stadium at a location occupied by a popular gay bar.

Despite some recent political setbacks on the issue of marriage, homosexual activists have had much to celebrate of late. Homosexual activity is on the verge of surpassing its place in the Greco-Roman world. Sodomy has been accorded the status of a civil right, the courts and most lawyers are highly sympathetic to the gay movement, and our educational institutions are doing much to change the mindset of our young to a more accepting posture. In addition, these activists know that political fancies can easily change. Large majorities are today opposed to gay marriage. But it wasn’t very many years ago that similar majorities were opposed to gay teachers, homosexual politicians, and anti-discrimination clauses based on sexual orientation. All those majorities have shrunk if not disappeared over the past 20 to 30 years. Who is to say that marriage will not follow suit?

A Strategic Plan That Worked

In the late 1950s, though comprising only 2% of the adult population, homosexual activists strategized to cancel the influence of Christianity. At that time, the Christian Church in the U.S. claimed the allegiance of about two-thirds of the population, and was strongly supported by at least 20% of adults. The financial resources of gay activists were modest — they probably had no more than $100,000 to expend. The Church had billions of dollars and dozens of institutions of higher education. What strategy could they employ?

Those early homosexuals targeted ‘science.’ They correctly figured it would be tough sledding if they tried to change Christianity from within. But by capturing the professions and thereby science, the gay movement could trump Christianity. They knew that religious professionals — intimidated by the complexity of science and awed by its influence and accomplishments -— would eventually go along with them.

The same strategy had garnered considerable success in Germany, until Hitler turned against the homosexuals. By doing ‘scientific work’ at the world’s first ‘sexuality institute,’ homosexual activists had gotten a number of scientists to sign on to their cause — even Albert Einstein. Gay leaders started publishing their own scientific journal, the Journal of Homosexuality. They also won influence by publishing in academic journals and getting seats on the boards of major social service and social science professional associations.

Capturing ‘science’ was the key to this plan. Christianity, along with the Bible and tradition, would be trumped — so they believed — if science favored the homosexuals. However, there was also a risk. If the Church, with its considerably larger resources, fought back to control and influence science, the gay movement would be in trouble. Unfortunately, the Church did not wage battle on the scientific turf; in fact, it generally dismissed science as inferior to
theology — ‘the queen of sciences.’

That lost opportunity now ‘sticks in the Christian craw.’ The Church today finds itself on the down side of having relinquished science about homosexuality to the homosexuals. Many denominations have substituted the authority of that science for their traditions and the Bible — witness the Episcopalians, the Congregationalists, and the Church of Christ. Others are barely staving off capitulation, including the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Methodists, and the Presbyterians.

Rightly concerned about these changes, many in the Evangelical wing of Christianity have chosen to either 1) snipe at pro-homosexual scientific findings, 2) support political action against the gay movement, and/or 3) adopt the neo-Freudian notion that homosexuals can be ‘cured’ with certain kinds of therapy, as evident in the ‘ex-gay’ movement.

Unfortunately, quibbling about various studies without advancing solid, systematic counter-evidence does little to discredit them (very little in the gay rights debate has changed despite the Evangelical uproar over Alfred Kinsey, for instance). In the long run, trust and investment in the scientific enterprise run so deep that few politicians are going to disregard ‘science’ to please Christians. And even if the ex-gay movement can claim some success, its converts are but a drop in the homosexual bucket.

In a word, if we keep doing what we have been doing, the Church will likely lose its tax-exempt status, its freedom of speech regarding homosexuality will be curbed, and Christians will be criticized from every quarter. Most homosexuals are fixated, addicted to their sexual desires, and compulsive. Gay activists are not content to let the Christians continue to preach against homosexuality. They want to smash the Church and its influence to smithereens, or else transform it into something that no longer resembles historic Christianity.

So the question remains: can anything be done to reverse the tide of gay rights? We believe there is, but it won’t be easy. And it won’t get done using the strategies championed currently by most pro-family conservatives. In fact, it will require a significant change in thinking and attack — what we would call a paradigm shift.

Paradigm Shifts

When Christianity came on the scene, homosexual activity was present and quasi-accepted in the Greco-Roman world. Though the daily activities of those who engaged in homosexuality are poorly known, it appears that there were homosexual prostitutes at various temples, some teachers engaged in homosexual relations with their pupils, and a certain amount of homosexual activity occurred throughout society, often in the larger cities.

Christianity advanced a new paradigm against homosexual behavior: the word of God. Homosexuality was not part of appropriate religious celebrations nor in any way a good, because God despised it. Indeed, God had destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of it, and might well destroy the Roman Empire if it did not eliminate it. In light of this sacred truth, and as a chosen sin, homosexuality deserved punishment.

It took 300 years for the Christian paradigm to triumph and express itself in social policy. A law punishing homosexual activity with death appeared in A.D. 342. About 50 years later, the emperors Valentinian II, Theodosious, and Arcadius decreed that “All persons who have the shameful custom of condemning a man’s body, acting the part of a woman’s… shall expiate this sort of crime in avenging flames.” Under Emperor Justinian (c. 527-565), the Christian paradigm was explicitly stated: “We admonish men to abstain from the aforesaid unlawful acts, that they may not lose their souls… so that the city and the state may not come to harm by reason of such wicked deeds.”

Following in the steps of Roman Law several centuries later, England punished homosexual activity severely, as did the American colonies, as did the states. But over time, the Christian truths about God’s hatred of homosexual activity, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc., diminished in the law. As well, punishments for same-sex activity declined in severity — from death to imprisonment to fines. Yet the Christian belief that ‘homosexual activity is a sinful choice’ remained firmly entrenched through the 1800s.

Toward the end of the 19th and beginnings of the 20th century, the nascent field of psychiatry championed a new paradigm. According to its worldview, those who engaged in homosexuality had a ‘condition’ that made them ‘ill,’ and should be ‘treated’ rather than punished. The condition of ‘being a homosexual’ was not their choice, but stemmed from childhood circumstances, biology, or some combination of the two.

Psychiatry advertised itself as ‘enlightened’ and ‘scientific,’ and over time it garnered a great deal of attention and respect. Some of this was due to self-promotion, but it also resulted from science becoming accepted as more ‘real’ or ‘substantial’ than claims of faith. Psychiatrists dealt with odd people and produced testimonies from those whom they ‘treated.’ Psychiatrists also began to search for biologic or specific environmental causes of homosexuality, further anchoring such behavior in the realm of science rather than faith or morality.

In addition, some found psychiatry’s theory about the ‘condition’ of homosexuality exceptionally satisfying. This theory, after all, had a very important ramification: it’s not your fault… your parents or your hormones or your genes, etc., drove you to do this… this is part of your ‘condition.’ Psychiatric ‘science’ had proven that ‘homosexuals’ had to ‘sin’ — and no just God (or society) could condemn activity that was ‘natural’ or so ingrained from childhood.

By the 1930s, the psychiatric paradigm began competing with and replacing the Christian paradigm — particularly in Europe. Many within the Church aspired to be ‘enlightened’ when it came to homosexuality, and either melded the Christian and the psychiatric viewpoints or simply adopted the psychiatric, instead of the Christian, worldview. Later psychologists and researchers such as Alfred Kinsey continued to cement discussion of homosexuality within a scientific context, purportedly showing that many people engaged in homosexual behavior with little if any ill effect, or that comparisons between homosexuals and non-homosexuals showed few if any differences in personality or social functioning. While those pushing the psychiatric perspective espoused conflicting theories about the root causes of this behavior, the general thrust was to describe homosexuals as ‘distinct’ or ‘different’ because of their condition, but not in any sense inferior to ‘normal’ people.

In 1962, following psychiatric thinking, Illinois legalized homosexual activity, and other states followed. In the 1970s, psychiatry officially decided that homosexuality was just another variant of ‘normal,’ and those portions of the Church that had adopted the psychiatric viewpoint shifted in agreement. Almost no one now questioned the psychiatric prognosis that homosexuals were a ‘different kind of animal;’ even among Evangelical Christians, homosexuals were just so ‘strange’ and ‘different’ that they must be ‘ill’ or in need of ‘treatment.’ Surely, they would not simply ‘choose’ to do these odd things. Even Kinsey’s explicit attempts to show that homosexuality was not linked to one’s biology and that everyone was capable of homosexual behavior had fallen by the wayside.

The Last Stand

The last major legal decision affirming the historic Christian paradigm that homosexual behavior is a ‘choice’ occurred in 1984, when the 5th Circuit overturned en banc Federal Judge Buchmeyer’s earlier decision that the Texas sodomy law violated the U.S. Constitution (Baker v. Wade, 1984). Judge Thomas Reavley, writing for the majority in the overturn of Buchmeyer, held that the right to privacy did not include a right to engage in sodomy and that homosexuals could not claim the need for ‘equal protection’ because homosexuality had never been held to be a suspect classification. Reavley said the court rejected the equal protection argument because the law was “directed at certain conduct, not at a class of people. Though the conduct be the desire of the bisexually or homosexually inclined, there is no necessity that they engage in it. The statute affects only those who choose to act in the manner prescribed.”

Because there was “no necessity that they [homosexuals] engage in it,” the 5th Circuit explicitly affirmed what Christians had traditionally claimed by faith: homosexual activity, like other sexual activities, was voluntary. But nineteen years later, in 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Texas sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas, namely because “homosexuals” had to engage in sodomy, it was part of their “nature.” The psychiatric worldview had now thus triumphed over the historic Christian worldview in every area, including American jurisprudence — it apparently was necessary that homosexuals have sex with each other.

Today, academia, the media, and much of the mainline Church have adopted the psychiatric worldview. Much of the rest — including significant elements of the Evangelical wing — is either verging on it, or is melding psychiatric and Christian concepts together. Many evangelical leaders will assert, for instance, that homosexuality is not a choice per se, but something ingrained or developed at an early age. It may be ‘treatable,’ but is not entirely voluntary. Similarly, Roman Catholicism explicitly recognizes the ‘condition’ of ‘being’ a homosexual.

So while many Christians today may claim that the Bible is their guide when it comes to homosexuality, the reality is somewhat different. A religious paradigm based on sacred faith and the revealed word of God dominated for 1500 years. While vestiges of it clearly remain, after an 100 year campaign, the psychiatric paradigm is currently ‘in charge,’ especially after the ‘blitzkrieg’ and capture by gay activists of the science of homosexuality over the last 50-plus years. This is the dilemma conservatives and Christians alike now face.

What is Needed Now

What is needed is a new paradigm. The religious paradigm focused on man’s obedience to God and the danger to society if His will was disregarded. It was based on a faith in an omnipotent and all-knowing God who actively moved in human society. The psychiatric paradigm focused instead on the psychological ‘needs’ or ‘conditions’ of the individual. It was grounded, supposedly, on science and what scientists could observe about the nature of human behavior. Certainly a general faith in science (of all types, not just behavioral science) is clearly predominant today, especially with the obvious advances that science and technology have wrought over the last century.

To displace it, the new paradigm must also be grounded in science. But instead of the needs of the individual or their suffering as ‘victims of society’ (as gays dying of AIDS have been characterized), it would emphasize the needs of society and the recreational (choice-driven) nature of personal sexual desires. Center stage under the new paradigm would be the wealth of scientific facts that are currently neglected or suppressed: facts such as the high cost of AIDS to society or the more frequent molestation of children by homosexual practitioners, to mention only two.

The bottom line is that the Christian assault on homosexuality is waning. In the face of purportedly ‘unassailable’ science, and with parishioners adopting more and more elements of the psychiatric, individual-focused mindset, the Church is being pressured to abandon its historic stance against homosexual activity and to accept ‘homosexuals’ into its ranks. In America, the Church is on track to lose its tax-exempt status if it fails to do so. Current efforts are not working and cannot hope for anything but temporary future success.

Fortunately, as the history of homosexuality shows, no state of affairs is immune to change. However, much like Christianity’s success against Greco-Roman acceptance of homosexuality, and the success of psychiatry against Christianity, a new paradigm is indeed crucial — a paradigm backed by empirical facts. The evidence supporting the new paradigm will have to be used to batter down the now-dominant psychiatric paradigm. It will have to incorporate the key elements of the old Christian worldview, but support those elements with scientific buttressing. And, because the threat to the Church and society is so great, time is of the essence.

This new paradigm demands a change in mindset, one of the most difficult of human endeavors. Similar to the launch of conservative advocacy foundations such as the John M. Olin Foundation, it will take significant organization and the application of new monies. The example of the way many conservative organizations were created is instructive. Irving Kristol and William Simon argued in the 1970s that liberals were advancing economically because they dominated the nation’s intellectual discourse.

As James Piereson, executive director of the John M. Olin Foundation, recalled in the Wall Street Journal (July 21, 2004):

“Conservative philanthropists should underwrite their own ‘counter intelligentsia’ that would support scholars who were oriented in favor of liberty rather than against it.… [they] understood that a defense of capitalism required also a defense of the deeper cultural assumptions that gave meaning and order to a commercial civilization. Free markets could not be defended without reference to the rule of law, religion, the family and the evolution of our political institutions. This task required a full-blown engagement with the world of ideas — a world traditionally dominated by the left. They understood also that they were swimming against the intellectual tide in the 1970s, when the future seemed to point in the direction of an ever-expanding welfare state.

“Liberal foundations (e.g., Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie) had dominated funding of advocacy groups — all of which were liberal. Responding to the Kristol-Simon call, new conservative foundations were created. Over time, they got enough of a toehold to influence political events and began to sway the intellectual discourse on capitalism.”

This same kind of effort is needed today with gay rights. One or more new foundations must be established to fund discourse and scientific research in that area where most Christians and pro-family advocates have had little to offer other than the convictions of their faith. The new paradigm must be advanced and supported in an organized, systematic way. Science must be used to buttress the Christian worldview and to counter the faulty, misguided ‘science’ of psychiatry and gay-sympathetic academicians.

We can no longer rely — as almost all pro-family organizations do today — on gleaning scientific ‘bits’ from those in liberal academia who already operate under the psychiatric worldview umbrella, and who often secretly question Christianity, if they are not overtly hostile. We must fund primary, basic research by those scientists committed to the historic Christian mindset, then publicize and showcase that research, and finally use it to influence and change legislative and public policy. In short, we must subvert the academy by doing original, honest research ourselves and use this to advance the historic Christian faith in a brand new way.

Key Propositions of the New Paradigm

Any new paradigm requires a new way of thinking. Our culture has become so steeped in an individualistic, psychiatric view of sex that a change of viewpoint will not be easy. Historic Christianity viewed sex as a gift from God to man, but it was proscribed in ways that attempted to ensure that sex was used for the good of society, first and foremost. Such a practice has well-served Christendom through history. Even more important today, the traditional Christian handling of sex is supported by an array of scientific and empirical facts. We should therefore boldly proclaim and highlight the following propositions, knowing that God’s truth is evident whenever honest science is conducted.

1) Reproductive Sex Is Necessary, But Personal Sexual Experience Is Not

Only a modest amount of sex between men and women is necessary for social functioning. Some is needed to produce children and, beyond that, to 1) keep married parents together for the rearing of their brood, and 2) build loyalties assuring that society will not have to care for the parents while at least one spouse is able to do so.

From society’s perspective, non-marital sexual activities are either non-productive or harmful. Except for ‘producers’ and ‘nurturers’ of children, other sex is recreational. Indeed, since non-marital sex often results in problematic pregnancies or contributes to the spreading of disease, it is best repressed. Homosexual activity is an exceptionally costly and dangerous sexual entertainment, even as private masturbation is non-productive.

Unlike our needs for food, clothing, and shelter, no one has to have sex. While you may prefer it, no one dies without it. Not everybody enjoys sex, but for the vast majority who do, sex with other(s) is not a necessity but an important recreation.

Part of the reason the Christian paradigm fell before that of psychiatry is that Christianity’s contentions were based on faith — in God, the reality of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Church’s interpretations of Scripture. To counter this, psychiatrists could produce real people who told ‘tales of suffering’ alleviated by the new-fangled ‘counseling’ they received. Psychiatry, particularly Freudianism, also made sexuality central to personal and social development. And it gained important cachet by describing its theories in scientific-sounding language.

In part, the psychiatric trumped the religious paradigm because it could display scientific ‘facts’ about how sexuality ‘worked’ in humans, while religion made no such showing. Additionally, psychiatry elevated sexuality to that of a ‘need’ and sexual experiences as central to a host of personal attributes and goals. But it need not be so.

2) The Psychiatric Paradigm About Homosexuality Has Been Oversold and the Costs Have Largely Been Ignored

While some individuals undoubtedly ‘suffered’ because society actively repressed non-marital sex — and homosexual sex in particular — our collective life is not ‘better’ because those with homosexual desires have been permitted to ‘do their thing.’ Indeed, about 1% of the U.S. gross domestic product [GDP] is being spent to contain and treat HIV — a disease, as Cuba demonstrated, that could have been largely ‘halted in its tracks’ if the ‘gay community’ had not been coddled by U.S. public health officials.

The future for our children is increasingly uncertain. As first documented by Professor Sorokin, Europe is well on the way toward a demographic decline, and the U.S. is not far behind. Instead of making our collective life better, ‘freeing up sexuality’ has resulted in fewer children overall and an ever-smaller proportion of children born to married

3) The Psychiatric Claim That Homosexuality Is ‘Just As Normal’ As Heterosexuality Rests On Many Lies, Distortions, and Exaggerations

Although psychiatrists and mental health experts claim that science informs their positions, a great deal of that science can be proven faulty, overstated, misrepresented, or sometimes fraudulent. Clearly, one key to grounding the new paradigm in scientific fact is to demonstrate by honest science when the ‘facts’ and ‘empirical claims’ of the psychiatric paradigm are either not true or have been misrepresented.

In sharp contrast to what psychiatry has claimed — just to list a few examples — children do not do as well when reared by homosexuals, unions of homosexuals are not the same as the commitment of man-woman marriage, homosexuals are more apt to molest children, homosexual sex is more biologically dangerous than heterosexual sex, the proportion of those with homosexual desires is not constant, HIV does not endanger everyone, quarantine works, and people can and do change their sexual preferences.

While the psychiatric paradigm made strides by elevating science over religious faith, the new paradigm should gain from telling the empirical truth about the psychiatric paradigm’s lies, distortions, and exaggerations, but without engaging in lies, distortions, or exaggerations of its own. Importantly, good and careful scientific critique will require the services of true, highly-trained scientists. Science should also be used to promote, on the tip of every spear, an historic Christian view of ‘public health’ and ‘good social order.’ And it should document the empirical danger and absurdity of building a civilization around the sexual recreations of its members.

4) The Psychiatric Paradigm Is Too Narrow

Adapting society to the interests of individuals who want to have same-sex sex will ultimately choke our social engine. Forcing the majority to accommodate the desires of the few is fundamentally unjust and unworkable. Any number of people want all kinds of sexual things, whether it be sex with the underage, surgically changing their gender, wanting to marry their siblings, desiring multiple spouses, etc. Ceding the right to ‘homosexuals’ to ‘do their thing’ but not to other ‘sexual minorities’ is inherently ‘unfair,’ and bound to open Pandora’s box.

Furthermore, social functioning, rather than accommodating individual sexual tastes, needs to be the centerpiece. A lot of sexual activity is capricious — people, including ‘homosexuals,’ change their sexual (and other) tastes all the time. What begins as recreation or entertainment can often ‘get the best of us’ — consider addictions to drugs, gambling, and all sorts of sexual fixations. The whimsical nature of sex leads people to acquire odd sexual tastes and interests; the compulsive nature of sex often cements them to those tastes and interests. The important concern is how those desires affect society.

Longitudinal studies suggest that children who participate in homosexuality also wind up as more rebellious, more apt to abuse substances, and more apt to engage in criminality. In studies of adults, those who engage in homosexuality are more criminal, more rebellious, more likely to be drug-users, more apt to molest children, and so on. In short, homosexual activity is a risk both to participants and non-participants alike — it impacts greater society in deleterious ways.

5) The Psychiatric Paradigm Does Not ‘Fit’ With Christianity

The core concepts of psychiatry and Christianity clash. Psychiatry stresses ‘self esteem’ and ‘self actualization’ or that people ‘act out of compulsion,’ while Christianity counsels that we are to ‘deny self’ and that each is ‘led astray by his own desires.’ Psychiatric professionals (clinicians, psychotherapists, psychologists) compete with religious professionals (priests, preachers) as to who will give advice about how we ought to live. The new paradigm would not compete with Christianity since it aims to scientifically buttress the historic Christian worldview. It would stress instead ‘what is good for all,’ ‘you can live without sex,’ and that ‘sex should be reserved for marriage.’ Scientists promoting the new paradigm would not compete with priests and preachers, but would instead be a complement to them, providing the ‘new apologetics’ for what the Church taught historically.

Implementing the New Paradigm

A natural ‘life-cycle’ is part and parcel of successfully implementing any new, major paradigm shift. This life-cycle includes three basic components: 1) research and basic science, 2) publicity and dissemination, and 3) public policy and law.

All three of these components are crucial to effecting long-term cultural change. Think, for instance, about cell phones. If cell phones caused brain cancer when used regularly over a period of several years, what would be needed to alter cell phone usage? First, there would have to be credible research demonstrating the harmful effects of cell phone use, and further research to delineate whether those effects extended to all cell phones, just some, or only after a certain level of usage.

Second, those scientists discovering the cell phone side-effects would have to publicize their findings at scientific meetings and in scientific journals. Moreover, due to the seriousness of the potential threat to public health and the large number of users who both enjoy and have come to depend on their cell phones, other ‘watchdog’ organizations would have to make a serious effort to communicate the findings to the public and to issue warnings to cell phone users. They would also need to alert the general media and lobby for widespread and repeated broadcast of health warnings.

Third, given the vast financial investment in the cell phone market and the stakes involved, substantial political efforts might be needed to influence state and federal governments to restrict, re-structure, or legislate against cell phone usage. Various laws and/or administrative decisions might be necessary to maximize the public health, including perhaps limits on the types of cell phones that could be used, or for how long. Legislative bodies might need to fund/seed research initiatives to find better cell phone technology that would not cause cancer.


As this quasi-hypothetical example illustrates, each ‘life-cycle’ component entails significant effort, organization, and money. Unfortunately, very little money or effort is being spent right now to promote the new paradigm. In terms of basic research, only one organization is currently engaged in primary research on homosexuality: Family Research Institute [FRI]. While its two primary scientists are both listed among the top 15 published researchers worldwide on this topic, and one of them is a reviewer for the British Medical Journal, their scientific output is far exceeded by the combined efforts of pro-homosexual academics across the globe.

No other pro-family organization or Christian college or university does primary research in this area. Further, sexuality in general — and homosexuality in particular — is an emotion-laden topic and generally the subject of social, not ‘hard,’ science. As the conservative uproar over Alfred Kinsey and the 2004 biographical film about Kinsey demonstrate, many potential donors are skittish about funding any ‘science’ related to sexuality; some go so far as to claim that the study of sex is not science at all.

Compared to technology, of course, it is much harder to measure the effects of particular sexual behaviors or the impacts of sexual social policy. And the psychiatric paradigm is so entrenched in academia that even when such scientific studies are done, it is often difficult to get permission to present counter-evidence or contrary findings at scientific meetings, or to publish facts counter to the current paradigm in scientific journals. This has had a chilling effect on those conservatives in academia who might otherwise be willing to support and defend the new paradigm.

In addition, there seems to be little understanding among pro-family conservatives as to why such primary research is even needed. As opposed to those conservative journalists and broadcasters who developed and exploited alternative media outlets when they couldn’t get a fair hearing on the major networks, there has been almost no funding or support of alternative scientific outlets by which the new paradigm might be buttressed and disseminated.

Yet the scientific enterprise is truly key to a winning strategy. Because science is both elitist and highly competitive, it has garnered the admiration — and even awe — of non-scientists, while at the same time often befuddling them in its complexity. What many conservatives do not realize is how very difficult it is to be a top-notch scientist. While there are hundreds of thousands of professionals across the world engaged in science of one form or another, the ‘cream of the scientific crop’ rises to the top through the process of publishing in the scientific literature. Consider these facts: only 1% of Ph.D.s and M.D.s ever publish in a scientific journal; only 2% of those who publish ever place articles in one of the top handful of premier science journals; and only 10% of this last group is ever chosen to serve as ‘peer reviewers’ for those top journals, with the task of judging the quality of other scientists’ work. Nevertheless, one of the scientists at the Family Research Institute has been selected to do just that: be a peer-reviewer for the British Medical Journal, one of most well-respected scientific journals in the world.

The point is that, while very difficult, it is possible to do and publish high-quality science from a conservative perpective. But it has to be a primary focus and goal of one’s work. Further, in academia, universities spend large chunks of resources supporting the research efforts of their scholars and providing a conducive environment for those activities. That kind of support for science is almost non-existent in conservative circles.

Indeed, consider Paul Weyrich, founder of the Heritage Foundation and one of the fathers of the modern conservative movement. On July 25, 2005, he issued a bittersweet, but incisive asssessment of our current state of affairs:

“At the heart of the challenge facing the conservative agenda lays one simple fact: While we focused our efforts on politics, our opponents on the left focused instead on culture.

“Each of us won. Compared to where the conservative movement was the year I came to Washington, 1967, we are today immensely stronger politically. Republicans, most of whom are at least nominally conservative, control both Houses of Congress and the White House. That is success on a grand scale.

“Regrettably, our opponents have won an equally large victory over our culture. What was called the ‘counter-culture’ in the 1960s now controls almost every cultural venue: the entertainment industry (which is now the most powerful force in our culture), the government schools, the media, and even many churches. The ideology usually known as ‘Political Correctness,’ which is really the cultural Marxism of the infamous Frankfurt School, is using every type of cultural institution in our country to achieve its purpose, which is the destruction of traditional Western culture and the Christian religion. All we have to do is look around us and compare what we see with the America of the 1950s to understand how vast their victory is. The old sins have become virtues and the old virtues have become sins.

“The nub of the problem is this: Culture is stronger than politics. Despite everything conservatives have achieved in politics, the left’s cultural victory trumps ours. That is why even when we win election after election, our country continues to deteriorate.”

Three-Pronged Effort

We would submit that an important part of the left’s cultural victory has been their domination of science, particularly that surrounding sex. That is why we propose the following three-pronged effort to bolster basic research on issues of sexuality, including homosexuality:

1. Establishment of a private foundation or endowment designed to fund primary scientific research in these areas, conducted under the framework of the historic Christian worldview.

2. Establishment of a conservative sexuality ‘think-tank’ and scientific consortium, having as its primary aim the honest generation and gathering of new empirical facts about sexuality and homosexuality, careful scientific critique of existing research, publication and dissemination of new facts in the scientific literature, and enabling the networking and partnership of like-minded scientists from around the globe.

3. Expansion and systematic funding of the Family Research Institute. As previously mentioned, we are currently the only conservative organization conducting primary research on these topics. Additional funding of FRI makes sense for the following reasons: a) we have already established a presence in the scientific literature over the last 30 years, but would like to expand our efforts and reach, b) we are currently supported by a small number of donors with a minimal budget (<$200,000/yr), c) more than one scientific organization is needed to effectively wage the gay rights battle.

To understand where things stand, FRI has the equivalent of two full-time researchers on staff. We believe this would need to be increased to at least 6 or 7 professionals. Assuming $80,000 to $100,000/year for professional salaries and $30,000 to $40,000/year per professional for ancillary staff, a commitment of between $650,000/yr and $900,000/yr would be needed to generate the volume of professional papers that would be required at scientific meetings and in scientific journals to get the scientific community to take serious notice.


As to publicity, several organizations exist within the religious conservative movement that could potentially ‘sell’ the scholarly and scientific facts supporting the new paradigm. Some of these, including Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, the American Family Association, and others, already have large followings.

However, to be effective in the secular as well religious arenas, it is likely that these groups would have to significantly lighten their current moralistic thrust, a change that may not sit well with their current leadership or support base. Furthermore, they would have to end their support of the psychiatric paradigm, a difficult change given its current ubiquity and the ways in which psychiatric and Christian concepts have been melded. In particular, they would need to sharply reduce (or preferably end) their support for the ‘ex-gay movement,’ an approach which is psychiatrically anchored and highly Freudian in viewpoint.

To those who would point to recent actions on marriage by these groups, keep in mind the narrow scope of these efforts. Many pro-family conservatives have lent public support to the same Federal Marriage Amendment favored by President Bush, one which would explicitly allow states to institute and legalize near-marriage or marriage equivalents for homosexuals. None of the major pro-family groups has any solution or alternative to Lawrence v. Texas — which legalized sodomy across the nation — other than to criticize the Supreme Court and bemoan its lurch to the left.

In addition, some of these same groups have lobbied for enactment of ‘reciprocal beneficiary’ laws, in states such as Hawaii and Colorado, whereby homosexuals are granted a state endorsement to sign up for many of the benefits of marriage without being labeled as ‘married’ or having to form an explicit civil union or domestic partnership. These reciprocal beneficiary agreements are billed by pro-family conservatives as only providing more affordable access to rights that homosexuals currently enjoy anyway, and have been proposed as a compromise to avoid the need for gay marriage. In reality, however, they are another form of ‘marriage lite,’ creating an explicit government sanctioning of homosexual couplings where none existed, and often creating new rights for homosexuals while further lessening the legal distinction of marriage.

Lobbying for reciprocal beneficiary agreements is another defensive move, designed to find something, anything, that might keep the narrow definition of marriage intact. But none of the pro-family organizations has made any concerted, systematic effort to keep homosexual teachers out of schools, bar homosexuals from adopting or fostering children, or to counter the wave of corporate and government entities that have adopted pro-gay preferences or anti-discrimination clauses in their by-laws or charters. None has proposed concrete steps for reversing Lawrence’s legalization of sodomy. Nor have there been calls to overturn Lawrence, even though a Federal Marriage amendment would do nothing to change the current legal status of sodomy, and even though many of those same conservatives regularly call for the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Instead, the current strategy has been almost exclusively about protecting man-woman marriage, period.

Our goal is to change public policy and law for the better by making homosexuality socially unacceptable and forcing gay rights back ‘into the closet.’ To do this in our current cultural climate will require a serious commitment to empiricism and honest science — this is our ace in the hole, and it must lead and reinforce. Moralism and appeals to Biblical morality are not likely to be effective in the long run except when ‘preaching to the choir.’ Over the past 25 to 30 years during which gay rights has been thrust into the American public consciousness, polls show that public acceptance of gays in the military has risen from 51% to 80%, approval of homosexuals as elementary school teachers has increased from 27% to 61%, and willingness to vote for a well-qualified homosexual presidential candidate has jumped from 26% to 59%. Current tactics — which have primarily appealed to history, tradition, and morality — have not worked and are not working.

Unfortunately, the recent political successes on marriage have likely wedded existing pro-family organizations to their current strategies. Even if this were not the case, it would still be very difficult to get already established organizations to ‘change their tune.’ Consequently, we believe that a new organization should be established that would focus exclusively on matters of sexuality and sexual morality, as seen through the lens of science and empiricism. This organization would be created to:

1. Serve as a publicity and public relations clearinghouse for the new science on sexuality and homosexuality,

2. Promote new scientific information in laymen’s terms and attempt to build a presence within the major media,

3. Host conventions, and provide training, seminars, and popularly-written materials to Christian activists and concerned individuals of all walks of life,

4. Lobby state and federal governments for specific legislation and administrative directives that will — using evidence from public health and science as the basis — promote the traditional Christian viewpoint on homosexuality.

The organization closest to what we have in mind is the Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society. It reviews the professional literature regarding family life, sponsors conventions, and publishes books with a budget of $650,000/year. While it touches upon homosexuality from time to time, its main emphasis is upon demonstrating the superiority of the married two-parent family and the importance of religion to successful family life. It does not publish original scientific papers, nor does it critique articles that appear in scientific outlets. Primarily it acts as a clearinghouse and organizer of conventions to bring like-minded individuals and organizations together.

Another possible model would be the more recently formed Council on Family Law, jointly sponsored by the Institute for American Values, the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, and the Institute for the Study of Marriage, Law, and Culture. Each of these organizations is independent, non-partisan, and seeks to foster interdisciplinary research on marriage and family law and social policy by bringing together scholars from around the world, united by a common mission. As the Institute for American Values puts it:

“In all of its work, the Institute seeks to bring fresh analyses and new research to the attention of policy makers in government, opinion makers in the media, and decision makers in the private sector.”

Public Policy

The final piece of this puzzle — public policy and law — must also emphasize and rest upon empiricism. The arguments upholding Georgia’s sodomy law in the 1986 Supreme Court decision in Bowers v. Hardwick were based on history, tradition and precedent. The high court affirmed those arguments then, but rejected similar appeals to precedent in the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case. Public morality and majority sentiment — as they have evolved over time in the Christian West — are not enough to stop gay rights. This was clear from the Supreme Court’s Romer v. Evans decision in 1994 rejecting Colorado’s majority vote on Amendment 2.

What is needed are legislative and public policy strategies that can be argued on the basis of public health, risk assessment, and scientific fact. Laws and directives should be proposed and solicited which have as their motivating basis the greater personal and social dangers/risks associated with homosexual practice. Only by incorporating such bases into legislative or administrative proposals will our courts be forced to determine the merits of such laws on the basis of the public good, rationality, and scientific support.

To this end, we would propose the following as first examples of initiatives that ought to be launched.


  • Legislation making penile-anal sex illegal. Engaging in penile-anal sex would be considered a felony, punishable by 1-5 years in prison, or a fine of $2,000 per occurrence.

Penile-anal sex and intravenous [IV] drug use have been responsible for the overwhelming majority of HIV infections and AIDS, an exceptionally costly disease. Currently, possessing the equipment and/or substances to engage in shooting IV drugs is illegal because such behavior spreads blood-borne disease through needle and works sharing. Sodomy constitutes a public health threat, a drain on the public treasury, and fosters a subculture that attempts to expand the number of users. This bill would specifically correct the oversight that penile-anal sex, though probably responsible for the majority of HIV infections in the U.S., is currently legal.

Those who get infected from shooting drugs endanger their lives, the lives of children they may carry, the health care workers who treat them, those who receive bodily tissue from them (e.g., blood products, organ transplants), and those with whom they come in contact to get and share IV drug-shooting equipment. The state has a compelling interest in suppressing this activity, since 1) the health care costs for diseases contracted by these means (e.g., HIV, hepatitis) are so substantial, and must be borne by society, and 2) those who shoot IV drugs encourage others to participate with them.

The practice of penile-anal sex is similar, in that those who engage in it endanger their lives, the lives of children they may carry, the health care workers who treat them, those who receive bodily tissue from them, and those with whom they engage in penile-anal sex. Diseases caught from penile-anal sex entail substantial health care costs, which must be borne by the state. For this reason, and the fact that those who engage in penile-anal sex encourage others to participate with them, the state has a compelling interest in suppressing this behavior.

Marriage Protection

  • Extend the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] by adding to it the provision that “any political entity giving the same set or approximately the same set of benefits to any institution other than marriage (e.g., domestic partnerships, civil unions, or the equivalent) is denied Federal funding, starting with a 1% reduction in Federal funding to that entity for the first week that the entity is in violation, a 2% reduction for a violation during the second week, and so on until either full compliance with the intent of Congress to protect the institution of marriage is met, or all Federal funding is withdrawn from that political entity.”
  • Introduce federal and state bills declaring that “because of the risks to individual and public health, and the high social costs associated with HIV infection, which currently accounts for approximately 1% of Gross Domestic Product and is still growing, as well as the many other infections (e.g., syphilis, hepatitis C) that are spreading sexually through the populace by sexual contact and commerce, any political entity that receives Federal [or state] funding and passes some form of domestic partnership or any public or private entity that does business with the Federal [or state] government and provides benefits for unmarried couples, must require blood tests of the same sort required to donate to the blood bank. These tests must be required as of the date that a partnership begins in the case of political entities granting domestic partnerships, or as of the date such benefits are conferred in the case of private entities providing benefits. Further, if a prospective member of the couple fails to pass any of the tests associated with blood donation, that partnership cannot commence until both partners are medically certified as uninfected with any of the pathogens that would disqualify blood for donation; neither can benefits be granted by the entity that confers benefits.”

Entities that did not comply with this second initiative would be denied Federal or state funding, including a progressive reduction in total Federal or state contract awards, until either compliance was met or all funding was removed. Enactment of the first bill would mean conservatives would not have to wait years for a (difficult and unlikely) Constitutional amendment on marriage. The second bill would protect individual and public health and the taxpayer purse should some form of domestic partnership be granted to those having sex outside the bonds of matrimony.

Further, Congress is given sole discretion over the public purse under Sections 8 and 9 of Article I of the Constitution. There is ample precedent for Congress to demand actions by the states or cities in order to retain Federal funding (and similarly for state legislatures to act within their domains). Federal highway funds are withheld, for instance, if a 0.08% standard for ‘drunk driving’ is not enacted by each state. Minnesota was the very last hold-out on this provision, but finally complied as of July 2005.

Protection of Children

  • Enact a Federal requirement of full disclosure of all sexual molestations of foster and adoptive children, classified by sex and marital status of each perpetrator and further cross-sorted by sex of child, for every entity receiving Federal funding.

Every state would be required to list substantiated (or reported) instances of sexual abuse, physical abuse, and neglect in such a way that the empirical risks of same-sex and opposite-sex sexual abuse in foster and adoptive parent homes could be determined and investigated. Currently, this kind of information is not mandated nor regularly reported by any state or agency. And yet there is selective evidence that the risk of same-sex sexual abuse is substantially higher than the risk of opposite-sex abuse, evidence that must be confirmed before implementing new, health-based, public policy on foster and adoptive parenting.

  • If, after full disclosure, a year’s data from the states shows the same pattern of disproportionate sexual abuse by those who engage in homosexuality, then legislation would be proposed to ban Federal [or state] funding of any entity’s programs for children if that entity permits fostering or adoption by homosexuals — that is, those who identify themselves as bisexual, homosexual, transgendered, lesbian, gay, etc. or who, as adults (aged 18 or older) have engaged in same-sex sexual relationships.


  • Enact a Federal requirement that school districts treat homosexual sex as a public health hazard. Any district that treats homosexual sex as equivalent to heterosexual sex would have its Federal funding reduced by 1% per week of non-compliance.
  • Enact a Federal requirement that at least by 7th grade, each pupil in every school must be informed of: 1) the health hazards of homosexual sex, including STDs and the shortening of the lifespan, and 2) the health benefits of marriage, including lesser risks of STDs and the lengthening of the lifespan. Any school district that fails to inform its pupils in this regard is to have its Federal funding reduced by 1% per week of non-compliance.
  • Enact a Federal requirement that school districts must not have a non-discrimination policy in regard to homosexual teachers. Any district that has a non-discrimination policy regarding homosexuals would have its Federal funding reduced by 1% per week of non-compliance.
  • Enact a federal requirement that schools and day care facilities must fully disclose attempted or actual sexual molestations of pupils to the U.S. Department of Education in a timely manner. All those convicted (or who plead no contest) to a sexual charge involving a child must be reported, by name, Social Security number, fingerprints, etc. to a register maintained by the U.S. Department of Education. Further, mandate that no teacher or worker at a school or day care facility — whether public or private — can be employed if they have been convicted of, or are currently being prosecuted for, sexual abuse of a child.
  • Enact a Federal requirement that any administrator or school board who knowingly hires a homosexual or a convicted child molester as a teacher or worker at a school or day care facility is to be fined $50,000.


It took Christianity 300 years to accomplish its transformation of society regarding homosexuality. It has taken psychiatry about 100 years to partially transform the West’s treatment. Today, it is likely that an investment of at least 20 years will be required to dent the hold that the psychiatric paradigm has on elite and popular thinking. At the current pace — unless a new paradigm is adopted and accepted — near total acquiescence to the gay rights movement is almost assured over the next 20 to 40 years. That is why this effort and fight — using a new line of attack and the very weapon psychiatry launched against Christianity — is so critical.

What You Can Do

We can no longer sit on the sidelines and hope that our culture will somehow rebound on its own. Apathy is nothing but a recipe for disaster. We can no longer afford to be ignorant of the aims, nature, and stratagems of the homosexual movement, no matter how distasteful or repugnant the subject may seem. And a defeatist attitude that it is ‘already too late’ will only guarantee certain failure.

FRI believes we can make a difference. The tide can be turned, difficult though that may sound. But we need your involvement and the help of other committed individuals. Specifically, what we are asking for is the following:

1. Financial resources. We need financial backing both to expand the mission of Family Research Institute and to seed and fund the new foundation, research consortium, and clearinghouse organizations described earlier. This will require significant investment on the part of several individuals and/or entities.

2. Administrative and legal resources. We need individuals with excellent business, management, and legal expertise to oversee the creation and development of the new sexuality organizations.

3. Name recognition. We need well-known and well-respected individuals from all walks of professional life to publicly lend their names and support to this effort and to serve as board members and advisors.

4. Scientific expertise and collaboration. We need additional researchers and academicians willing to collaborate with FRI, even at the risk of public ridicule and/or professional censure, for the sake of pursuing and researching the empirical truth about homosexuality.

5. Public relations and lobbying expertise. We need media-savvy individuals and political veterans who will help bring this fight to both Congress, state legislatures, and to our national media at all levels.

Please join with us in this undertaking. We can only make progress by uniting together under a strategic plan that makes sense. Consider carefully whether any other initiative is better worth your time, money, and involvement. Many problems in our culture exist, to be sure. But what will have the most far-reaching impacts on your children, their families, and the generations to come? Put in another way, what is it about our way of life that is most worth preserving?

May we all have the courage of our convictions to engage this battle.