Gay Sex: A Risky Business

Gay Sex: A Risky Business

Because homosexual acts are against the natural law, they carry serious health consequences. It is incumbent on us as a compassionate and responsible society to convince people who engage in homosexual behaviour (and indeed even heterosexuals who also engage in risky sex behaviour) that they should seek professional medical help to address their condition. Many Canadians have friends and family who have homosexual tendencies. It is important to treat persons with homosexual tendencies with the respect that they deserve, but sometimes showing respect includes disagreeing with them and pointing them to the risks that they face.

Men Having Sex With Men: Increase in HIV: New HIV cases in Australia surged more than 40 percent from 2000 to 2005, according to study results released Thursday, prompting fears that drug treatment advances are making people lax about practicing safe sex. The annual survey report, issued by the National Center in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research, found that new HIV infections reported in Australia rose from 656 in 2000 to 930 in 2005 — a 41 percent leap. HIV is the virus that causes AIDS. Gay men accounted for about 70 percent of the new cases. Heterosexuals made up 19 percent, while intravenous drug users and unknown transmission paths accounted for the rest. According to the report, new infections hit an all-time high of about 1,700 in 1984, then declined steadily through the late 1990s. But in 2000, the trend apparently reversed. It’s not just HIV that is on the rise in Australia. Around 41,300 new cases of the sexually transmitted disease chlamydia were reported in 2005, a fourfold increase over 1995. New gonorrhea cases have almost doubled in the past decade, the study said. (Source)

Two extensive studies in the January, 2001 issue of the American Medical Association’s Archives of General Psychiatry confirm a STRONG link between homosexual sex and suicide, and emotional and mental problems. An extensive study in the Netherlands undermines the assumption that homophobia is the cause of increased psychiatric illness among gays and lesbians. The Dutch have been more accepting of same-sex relationships than any other western country and same-sex “marriage” is legal. The high rate of psychiatric disorders associated with homosexual behaviour in the Netherlands therefore cannot be attributed to social rejection and homophobia as is commonly proposed by homosexualist propagandists. Compared to controls who had no homosexual experience in the 12 months prior to the study, males who had any homosexual contact within that time period were more likely to experience major depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia and obsessive compulsive disorder. (Theo Sandfort, Ron de Graaf, et al., Same-sex Sexual Behaviour and Psychiatric Disorders, Archives of General Psychiatry, 58(1): 85-91, p. 89 and Table 2 (January 2001))

Medical and social evidence indicates that men having sex with men leads to GREATER health risks than men having sex with women not only because of promiscuity but also because of the nature of sex among men. Anal sex, as a sexual behaviour, is associated with significant and life-threatening health problems. The fragility of the anus and rectum make anal sex a most efficient manner of transmitting HIV and other infections. The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among homosexuals as a result of anal sex is alarming (Anal cancer, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Herpes simplez virus, HIV, Human papilloma virus, Gonorrhea, viral hepatitus types B & C, Syphilis) (Anne Rompalo, “Sexually Transmitted Causes of Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Homosexual Men,” Medical Clinics of North America, 74 (6) Nov. 1990)

Reports at a national conference about sexually transmitted diseases indicate that gay men are in the highest risk group for several of the most serious diseases. . . . Scientists believe that the increased number of sexually tranmitted diseases (STD) cases is the result of an increase in risky sexual practices by a growing number of gay men who believe HIV is no longer a life-threatening illness. (Bill Roundy, STD Rates on the Rise, New York Blade News, December 15, 2000, p. 1.) [New York Blade News is a homosexual oriented publication]

Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco found that thirty-six percent of homosexuals engaging in unprotected oral, anal, or vaginal sex failed to disclose that they were HIV positive to casual sex partners. (Jon Garbo, “Gay and Bi Men Less Likely to Disclose They Have HIV,” GayHealth News (July 18, 2000). Available at: www.gayhealth.com/templates/0/news?record=136.)

A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners. (A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 9; see alsoBell, Weinberg and Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).

A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than a hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than a housand sexual partners. (“Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners,” Lambda Report, January/February 1998, p. 20.)

In Male and Female Homosexuality, M. Saghir and E. Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years. (M. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1973), p. 225; L.A. Peplau and H. Amaro, “Understanding Lesbian Relationships,” in Homosexuality: Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues, edited byJ. Weinrich and W. Paul (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982).

HPV can lead to anal cancer. At the recent Fourth International AIDS Malignancy Conference at the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Andrew Grulich announced that “most instances of anal cancer are caused by a cancer-causing strain of HPV through receptive anal intercourse. HPV infects over 90 percent of HIV-positive gay men and 65 percent of HIV-negative gay men, according to a number of recent studies.” (Richard A. Zmuda, “Rising Rates of Anal Cancer for Gay Men,” Cancer News (August 17, 2000). Available at: cancerlinksusa.com/cancernews_sm/Aug2000 /081700analcancer

Hepatitis A: The Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report published by the CDC reports: “Outbreaks of hepatitis A among men who have sex with men are a recurring problem in many large cities in the industrialized world.” (Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) September 4, 1998, p. 708.)

The incidence of throat Gonorrhea is strongly associated with homosexual behavior. The Canadian Medical Association Journal found that “gonorrhea was associated with urethral discharge . . . and homosexuality (3.7 times higher than the rate among heterosexuals).” (J. Vincelette et al., “Predicators of Chlamydial Infection and Gonorrhea among Patients Seen by Private Practitioners,” Canadian Medical Association Journal 144 (1995): 713-721.)

The Archives of Internal Medicine found that homosexuals acquired syphilis at a rate ten times that of heterosexuals. (C. M. Hutchinson et al., “Characteristics of Patients with Syphilis Attending Baltimore STD Clinics,” Archives of Internal Medicine 151 (1991): 511-516. )

Gay Bowel Syndrome (GBS): The Journal of the American Medical Association refers to GBS problems such as proctitis, proctocolitis, and enteritis as “sexually transmitted gastrointestinal syndromes.” Many of the bacterial and protozoa pathogens that cause gbs are found in feces and transmitted to the digestive system: According to the pro-homosexual text Anal Pleasure and Health, “[s]exual activities provide many opportunities for tiny amounts of contaminated feces to find their way into the mouth of a sexual partner . . . The most direct route is oral-anal contact.” (STD Treatment Guidelines: Proctitis, Proctocolitis, and Enteritis,” (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) 1993. Available at: /www.ama-assn.org/special/std /treatmnt/guide/stdg3470.htm. // Jack Morin, Anal Pleasure and Health: A Guide for Men and Women (San Francisco: Down There Press, 1998), p. 220.)

Homosexuals with HIV are at increased risk for developing other life-threatening diseases. A paper delivered at the Fourth International AIDS Malignancy Conference at the National Institutes of Health reported that homosexual men with HIV have “a 37-fold increase in anal cancer, a 4-fold increase in Hodgkin’s disease (cancer of the lymph nodes), a 2.7-fold increase in cancer of the testicles, and a 2.5 fold increase in lip cancer.” (Studies Point to Increased Risks of Anal Cancer)

At the Fourth International AIDS Malignancy Conference at the National Institutes of Health in May, 2000, Dr. Andrew Grulich announced that the incidence of anal cancer among homosexuals with HIV “was raised 37-fold compared with the general population.” (Studies Point to Increased Risks of Anal Cancer)

MSM spread HIV to women. A five-year study by the CDC of 3,492 homosexuals aged fifteen to twenty-two found that one in six also had sex with women. Of those having sex with women, one-quarter “said they recently had unprotected sex with both men and women.” Nearly 7 percent of the men in the study were HIV positive. The study confirms that young bisexual men are a ‘bridge’ for HIV transmission to women,” said the CDC. (“Bisexuals Serve as ‘Bridge’ Infecting Women with HIV,” Reuters News Service (July 30, 2000)).

Lesbians have more male sex partners than their heterosexual counterparts. A study of sexually transmitted disease among lesbians reviewed in The Washington Blade notes: “Behavioral research also demonstrates that a woman’s sexual identity is not an accurate predictor of behavior, with a large proportion of ‘lesbian’ women reporting sex with (often high risk) men.” The study found that “the median number of lifetime male sexual partners was significantly greater for WSW (women who have sex with women) than controls (twelve partners versus six). WSW were significantly more likely to report more than fifty lifetime male sexual partners.” (Katherine Fethers et al., “Sexually Transmitted Infections and Risk Behaviors in Women Who Have Sex with Women,” Sexually Transmitted Infections 76 (2000):348.)

Citing a 1999 report released by the Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, the homosexual newspaper The Washington Blade notes that “various studies on Lesbian health suggest that certain cancer risk factors occur with greater frequency in this population. These factors include higher rates of smoking, alcohol use, poor diet, and being overweight.” (Rhonda Smith, “Childbirth Linked with Smaller Breast Tumor Size,” The Washington Blade (December 17, 1999). Available at: www.washblade.com/health/000114lh.)

In a study of the medical records of 1,408 lesbians, the journal Sexually Transmitted Infections found that women who have sexual relations with women are at significantly higher risk for certain sexually transmitted diseases: “We demonstrated a higher prevalence of bv (bacterial vaginosis), hepatitis C, and HIV risk behaviors in WSW as compared with controls.” (Katherine Fethers et al., “Sexually Transmitted Infections and Risk Behaviors in Women Who Have Sex with Women,” Sexually Transmitted Infections, July 2000, p. 345. )

In their book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence,D. Island and P. Letellier report that “the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population.” (D. Island and P. Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence (New York: Haworth Press, 1991), p. 14.)

Homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households: The Bureau of Justice Statistics (U.S. Department of Justice) reports that married women in traditional families experience the lowest rate of violence compared with women in other types of relationships. (Violence Between Intimates,” Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings, November 1994, p. 2.)

A national survey of lesbians published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology found that 75 percent of the nearly 2,000 respondents had pursued psychological counseling of some kind, many for treatment of long-term depression or sadness: Among the sample as a whole, there was a distressingly high prevalence of life events and behaviors related to mental health problems. Thirty-seven percent had been physically abused and 32 percent had been raped or sexually attacked. Nineteen percent had been involved in incestuous relationships while growing up. Almost one-third used tobacco on a daily basis and about 30 percent drank alcohol more than once a week; 6 percent drank daily. One in five smoked marijuana more than once a month. Twenty-one percent of the sample had thoughts about suicide sometimes or often and 18 percent had actually tried to kill themselves. . . . More than half had felt too nervous to accomplish ordinary activities at some time during the past year and over one-third had been depressed. (J. Bradford, et al., “National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62 (1994): 239, cited in Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, p. 81.)

Another study published simultaneously in Archives of General Psychiatry followed 1,007 individuals from birth. Those classified as “gay,” lesbian, or bisexual were significantly more likely to have had mental health problems. Significantly, in his comments on the studies in the same issue of the journal, D. Bailey cautioned against various speculative explanations of the results, such as the view that “widespread prejudice against homosexual people causes them to be unhappy or worse, mentally ill.” (D. Fergusson, et al., “Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People?” Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (October 1999), p. 876-884.)

According to an article by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, published in Planned Parenthood’s Family Planning Perspectives May/June 1989, condoms have an 11.4 to 22.3 percent failure rate among teens. Studies of five brands of condoms, reported in the British Journal of Medicine July 11, 1987, showed a failure rate of 26 percent due to rupture and slippage alone. And the New England Journal of Medicine Mar. 23, 1989 showed condoms have a failure rate of 10 to 33 percent for preventing pregnancies in women 25 years and younger….Even intact condoms have naturally occurring defects (tiny holes penetrating the entire thickness) measuring five to 50 microns in diameter — 50 to 500 times the size of the HIV virus, writes C. Michael Roland, head of the Polymer Properties Section at the Naval Research laboratory in Washington, D.C. and editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology, in a published letter to the Washington Times.

________________________

Scientific reports show that the HIV virus can pass through a latex condom. There are three possible mechanisms to consider:

(a) manufacturing defects and “large” holes; and,
(b) the inherent pososity of latex films.
(c) breakage and slippage during use. Most of the people who conclude that condoms are effective against HIV (and pregnancy) are basing their opinion on studies of mechanism (b). And, as it turns out, intact and well manufactured latex films are not particularly porous. Most of the people who argue that condoms give a false sense of security are basing their opinion on studies of mechanisms (a) and (c). And, as it turns out, in actual use, latex films have manufactured defects such as micro-tears or aging, flexing, and movement which cause micro-tears and holes which are orders of magnitude larger than viruses whilst yet being too small to be seen by the naked eye. The same mechanisms have been found with latex surgical gloves. HOW BIG IS AN HIV VIRUS ANYWAY? (Source)Determination of the size of HIV using adenovirus type 2 as an internal length marker. The size of a virion is a key criterion to its proper classification and may have implications in many practical aspects. Size determinations by thin section electron microscopy often result in length aberrations of more than 10% because of a number of preparative and instrumental inaccuracies, e.g. specimen shrinkage or swelling and unreliable calibration. Using adenovirus type 2 as an isometric size marker for internal calibration, we have determined the diameters of mature and immature HIV-1 to be 110 to 128 and 132 to 146 nm, respectively. The marker had been used either as a purified particle suspension added to the HIV producing culture, or adenovirus had been propagated together with HIV by infecting HIV producing cells. Using well characterized isometric markers, e.g. an icosahedral virus, in thin section electron microscopy appears to be a suitable technique for viral size determinations.PMID: 7962259 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

VIRUS TRANSMISSION THROUGH MANUFACTURING DEFECTS AND OTHER HOLES

There is significantly more potential for virus transmission through the former mechanism than through the latter. I found several references to the following article, which evaluates the inherent porosity of latex (the second mechanism). The complete articles are behind buyerwalls, so I cannot quote details of those test methods. Whilst claiming that latex films are not inherently porous (which is what condom supporters concentrate on), the article abstract is nonetheless qualified:

Lack of Latex Porosity: A Review of Virus Barrier Tests Key words: latex, porosity, virus barriers. OST scientists have reviewed evidence regarding whether latex films, as found in condoms and medical gloves, are effective barriers to virus passage together with new data from additional tests. The primary focus was to determine whether latex films are porous, as opposed to having occasional manufacture-induced defects. The published and new evidence from studies using viruses are consistent only with the presence of occasional defects and are not consistent with porosity sufficient enough to allow virus passage. However, quality control of manufactured products based on acceptable quality levels using standardized tests does not guarantee that every sample is perfect. The risk of a specific product is related to the defect rate, the use situation, and the disease of interest, in particular, the quantity of virus-carrying fluid that is needed to constitute an “infectious dose.” The possibility of latex film hydration leading to porosity and ultimately to virus passage was also found to be unlikely and not supported by data.

These holes attributable to manufacturing defects need not be large. Research into surgical gloves, which are considerably thicker than condoms, shows that doctors are often unaware of holes—they are too small to be seen with the naked eye, but can be detected by electronic monitoring:

Reducing the risk of viral transmission at operation by electronic monitoring of the surgeon – patient barrier Abstract – A new electronic device designed to detect glove holes, wet gowns and glove permeability was assessed during 50 general surgical operations. The cause of each alarm was recorded and the surgeon’s awareness of any breach noted. Some 266 alarms were recorded of which 45 were ascribed to glove holes, 86 to wet gowns, 115 to glove porosity and 20 to other causes. Glove holes occurred in 29 of the 50 procedures; the surgeon was unaware of the hole in almost 70 per cent of cases. Holes were more common in laparotomy than in laparoscopic procedures (P = 0·006). In 20 per cent of instances surgeons did not respond immediately to the alarm (median delay 16 min). Six of eight surgeons who used the device indicated that they would do so regularly for major abdominal surgery. The electronic system accurately detects breaches in the surgeon-patient barrier. Its use should improve surgical discipline in acting to restore the barrier, protecting patient and surgeon alike.

And here is the abstract of another article in the same vein, this one suggesting that the practice of double-gloving be retained:

Electronic evaluation of the value of double gloving Abstract – Background: Breakdown of the surgeon-patient barrier represents a risk for transmission of infectious disease. Such breakdowns are frequently not recognized by the surgical team. The protection afforded by double gloving under normal operating conditions was evaluated. Methods: An electronic device detected breakdown of the surgeon-patient barrier in a series of 80 surgical procedures, randomly assigned to either double or single gloving. Fluid contact due to glove perforation, porosity or gown wetting was recorded during 151 individual surgeon episodes covering 238 operator-hours. Surgical procedures were called superficial for incisions of less than 10 cm. Results: Double gloving reduced the number of perforation and porosity alarms twofold in both superficial and deep surgical procedures. Deep procedures carried a sevenfold increased risk of barrier breakdown compared with superficial procedures, the risk being greatest for the principal operator. Conclusion: Without electronic detection, a large majority of barrier breakdowns would remain undetected by the surgical team and lead to prolonged contact with potentially contaminating body fluids. The use of double gloving provides real protection against such contamination risks

Recent virus transport models consider non-static pressures across the latex film, which are more realistic of the use of condoms in coital situations.

Calculation of Virus Transmission Through Synthetic Barriers Under Realistic Use Conditions Key words: virus transmission, computational fluid dynamics, barrier evaluation, transport modeling. Scientists often perform tests on the effectiveness of synthetic barriers (gloves, condoms, instrument sheaths, etc.) to virus transmission under conditions that do not reflect actual use. For example, static test conditions are typically employed while, in reality, considerable motion is associated with use of the barrier. In order to extend laboratory results to more realistic conditions, OST has developed a mathematical model for simulating virus transport through synthetic barriers. The model was recently used to estimate the amount of virus that would be transmitted through a defect in a condom during coitus.Input into the model was the pressure difference across the condom surface, which was previously measured by OST scientists during coital simulations. The pressure waveform was periodic (a period of 2 seconds was used), with a maximum pressure difference across of approximately 60 millimeters of mercury and a minimum of approximately minus-20 millimeters of mercury. Defects of various cross-sectional shapes were considered, from circles to wide ellipses. The rate constants characterizing the interaction force between the virus and latex were obtained from previous calibration experiments if available. Where rate-constant values were not available, upper and lower bounds were used to determine the range of virus transmission rates.Virus transport under unsteady conditions revealed several interesting differences compared to steady-state transport through a pore. The oscillatory flow through the pore, which included flow from the outside of the condom to inside during part of the cycle, gave rise to better mixing of the virus suspension in the vicinity on the pore and, consequently, more adsorption of the viruses to the inside and outside surfaces of the condom. The amount of free viruses actually transmitted through the pore was consequently reduced relative to the case of a steady driving pressure. Another interesting feature of the transport was that the quantity of viruses transmitted through the pore decreased slightly with each cycle. This presumably arises from the gradual dilution of the virus concentration near the inlet of the pore, due to diffusion of the viruses to the condom interior surface and subsequent adsorption. For small pores with diameters on the order of a micron, the viruses can diffuse a distance equal to the pore diameter in less than a second, while the period associated with the periodic motion is at least a second. Hence diffusion in the direction normal to the pore axis is an important mechanism.Calculations using a 10-micron diameter circular-cylinder pore in a latex condom revealed a transmission rate of approximately 10 herpes viruses per cycle, assuming a saline suspending fluid and a titer inside the condom of 1 million viruses/ml. For a suspension of HIV, the flux would be on the order of 1 virus per cycle due to the lower titers of HIV. For hepatitis B, the titers can be as high as 10 billion/ml, and the number of viruses transmitted per cycle could be in the thousands.OST scientists are presently applying the virus-transport model to other realistic-use scenarios, such as a gloved-hand gripping an instrument during a surgical procedure. In this simulation the brief but intense pressure on the barrier surface produces a surge in virus suspension (e.g., HIV suspended in blood) through any tears present in the glove.

Recall the unit conversions above: a 10 micron hole is 0.01 millimeters—a hole much too small to be seen with the naked eye. And yet 10 microns is 10,000 nm. Recall further that an HIV virus is 110 to 146 nm. Such a hole allows for the passage of Herpes, hepatitis, and HIV viruses. There is sufficient evidence here that manufacturing defects and other “large” holes exist and can be virus transmission passages. If surgeons are double-gloving that has to say something.

CONCLUSION

Condoms, like all manufactured products, have inherent defects. Furthermore, they age, degrade in ozone or with particularly high and low temperatures. They have a propensity to fail even with respect to prevention of pregnancy—hence the recommendations to use condoms with spermicide for the prevention of pregnancy. Condom breakage and slippage don’t always result in pregnancy—recall that a woman is only fertile for about 5 days out of a month—but HIV and other diseases can be transmitted at any time.

And in the case of viruses, it is not just slippage and breakage failures but also the presence of holes in the order of a few microns across—too small to be seen but plenty big enough for viruses. If you don’t believe Cardinal Trujillo, perhaps you’ll believe the Dr. Helen Singer Kaplan, founder of the Human Sexuality Program at the New York Weill Cornell Medical Center, Cornell University, published in The Real Truth about Women and AIDS. Simon & Schuster, 1987.

Will a condom guarantee I won’t get a sexually transmitted disease? No. There’s no absolute guarantee even when you use a condom. But most experts believe that the risk of getting AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases can be greatly reduced if a condom is used properly.In other words, sex with condoms isn’t totally “safe sex,” but it is “less risky” sex.

Discussion Thread

________________________________________________

Per act relative risks of HIV transmission: Condom vs no condom: 1:20 Compared to insertive vaginal sex: receptive vaginal sex 2:1, receptive anal sex 10:1, insertive fellatio 1:10, insertive anal sex 1.3:1, receptive fellatio 1:5 (STD 2002;29:38) Note: Risks for condom use and acts are multiplicative; e.g, for the ratio for anal sex without a condom vs vaginal insertive sex with a condom is 100:1 (Source)

Route of Entry: Certain areas of the body are more susceptible to infection than others. Mucosa, present in the lining of the anus, mouth, and vagina, are very susceptible to HIV infection. Anal sex may lead to increased rates of transmission due to the trauma caused during sex. As a penis enters the anus, the trauma signals the CD4 cells to gather in the area of “distress.” CD4 cells are called to lead the attack against the cause of the trauma. These CD4 cells are potential targets for HIV. (Source)

Heterosexual Transmission: An infected man is twice as likely to transmit HIV to a female partner as the reverse. Anal sex carries a higher risk for infection than vaginal sex. Damage to tissues, such as microtrauma during sex and preexisting genital ulcer disease, increases the rate of transmission. Genital ulcer disease can increase the risk of transmission 1.5 to 7-fold. A gynecological conditon called cervical ectopy is also associated with increased risk. Sex during the menstrual period increases risk. A partner is more likely to pass on the infection if he or she has acute or primary HIV infection or more advanced disease with a higher viral load or a lower CD4 count. (Source)

Condoms will reduce your chance of infection, compared to having sex without any form of protection. Nonetheless, one in three AIDS victims will contract the disease from an infected partner despite 100% use of condoms. One study found that among married couples where one partner was HIV-positive, 17% of the uninfected spouses contracted the disease, despite the use of condoms. The best way to prevent AIDS is abstinence. (Source)

Canadian Research Suggests only 1.4% of Adults Homosexual
PHILADELPHIA, March 27, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – According to two researchers, the largest random sex survey ever conducted has reported that only 1.4% of adults engaged in homosexual behavior. Analyzing a 2003 Canadian Community survey of 121,300 adults, Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron told attendees of the Eastern Psychological Association Convention that 2% of 18-44 year olds, 1% of 50 year olds, and only a third of a percent of subjects 60+ considered themselves homosexual. Thus homosexual activity was much more common among younger adults. “What happened to the older homosexuals? Some may have ceased to be sexually active,” said Paul Cameron, “or they may have died. Recent reports from Scandinavia indicate that the life expectancy of homosexuals is 20+ years shorter than that of heterosexuals.” Among other questions (read to respondent by interviewer), the Canadian study asked:”Do you consider yourself to be: heterosexual? (sexual relations with people of the opposite sex)/ homosexual, that is lesbian or gay? (sexual relations with people of your own sex)/ bisexual? (sexual relations with people of both sexes).” “No one can say that this statistic is ‘the bedrock truth,’” Paul Cameron said, “but even with attempts to increase the percentage of active homosexuals – which Statistics Canada appears to have done by reporting only the results of those under the age of 60 – the 1.4% is a figure that has to be taken very seriously. “The US government survey of 12,381 adults in 1996, reported that 1.3% of men and 1.1% of women under the age of 60 said they’d had homosexual sex in the last 12 months. It also found few older homosexuals. The oldest male who engaged in homosexuality was 54 and the oldest female+ 49. So it appears that homosexuality is a young person’s activity – one that may contribute to an early death.” Paul Cameron, Ph.D. & Kirk Cameron, Ph.D., presented “Federal Distortion Of The Homosexual Footprint.” Paul Cameron, a reviewer for the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal, and the Postgraduate Medical Journal, has published over 40 scientific articles on homosexuality. The EPA is the oldest regional Psychological Association in the United States. At its Philadelphia convention members presented the latest advances in scientific work to colleagues. The full report can be accessed at here. (Source)

Study: HIV-positive Practicing Homosexual Men 9000% More Likely to Develop Anal Cancer
LOS ANGELES, March 22, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – New research has again shown the grave danger of homosexual sex acts to the human body. The grave health risks associated with such dangerous sexual behaviours is one of the prime reasons why society as a whole should oppose homosexual acts, doctors have told LifeSiteNews.com under condition of anonymity.A study which appears in the February issue of the International Journal of STD & AIDS, has found that “HIV-positive men who have sex with men are up to 90 times more likely than the general population to develop anal cancer.” The study was based on data from 244 patients at the University of California – Los Angeles (UCLA) CARE clinic who had anal cytology screenings (similar to a pap smear) between February 2002 and December 2004. The UCLA authors of the study are: Ross D. Cranston, Steven. D. Hart , Jeffrey A. Gornbein, Sharon L. Hirschowitz, Galen Cortina, and Ardis. A. Moe. A Canadian doctor who spoke to LifeSiteNews.com (anonymously for fear of reprisal) about the dangers our homosexual sex acts in 2005 stated: “Anal intercourse causes abrasions of the relatively fragile rectal wall, especially in the receptive partner. The penetration of E.coli, always present in the stool, and other bacteria, viruses and parasites penetrate through such lesions into the deeper body tissues. This leads to the suppression of the immune system of such individuals even if there is no exposure to HIV. The immune suppression increases the risk to develop certain cancers, opportunistic infections, to which otherwise one would be resistant, and other health problems including the risk of premature death.”Information on the health risks of gay sex is available from the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA). A survey by members of the GLMA released in August 2002 listed the main health problems affecting homosexual men. According to Christopher E. Harris, MD, GLMA President and Vincent M.B. Silenzio, MD, MPH, there are increased health risks for homosexual men.The most common health problems in homosexual men are:1. Increased incidence of infectious diseases – HIV/AIDS* – syphilis- gonorrhea- chlamydia – pubic lice – hepatitis A- hepatitis B- hepatitis C- anal papilloma2. Increased incidence of cancer especially- colon/rectal- prostate- testicular3. Increased incidence of eating disorders – bulimia- anorexia nervosa- obesity4. Increased incidences of other psychological problems- anxiety- depression- suicide5. Increased incidence of addiction problems especially – tobacco- alcohol- street drugs- amyl nitrates (poppers). (Source)

Study finds Homosexual and Bisexual Men have “Far Higher” Risk of Eating Disorder
NEW YORK CITY, April 16, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Homosexual and bisexual men may be at far higher risk for eating disorders than heterosexual men, according to a study conducted at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health. In the first population-based study of its kind, the researchers found that homosexual and bisexual men have higher rates of eating disorders. The findings are reported in the April 2007 issue of International Journal of Eating Disorders. Researchers Ilan H. Meyer, PhD, associate professor of clinical Sociomedical Sciences at the Mailman School of Public Health and principal investigator, and Matthew Feldman, PhD, of the National Development and Research Institutes and first author, surveyed 516 New York City residents; 126 were straight men and the rest were bisexual men and women. According to the study results, more than 15 percent of homosexual or bisexual men had at some time suffered anorexia, bulimia or binge-eating disorder, or at least certain symptoms of those disorders — a problem known as a subclinical eating disorder, compared with less than five percent of heterosexual men. In contrast, homosexual inclination did not seem to influence the risk of eating disorder symptoms among women. Just below 10 percent of lesbian and bisexual women and eight percent of heterosexual women had ever reported having a subclinical eating disorder. The study provides further evidence of the dangers involved with the homosexual lifestyle. LifeSiteNews.com reported in March about a study which demonstrated that practicing homosexual men with HIV are 90 times more likely than the general population to develop anal cancer. (Source)

The Direct Cost of AIDS Care in the Era of HAART. Krentz HB, Gill MJ. 11th Conf Retrovir Opportunistic Infect Febr 8 11 2004 San Franc CA Conf Retrovir Opportunistic Infect 11th 2004 San Franc Calif. 2004 Feb 8-11; 11: abstract no. 861. Southern Alberta Clinic, Calgary, Canada and 2Univ. of Calgary, Alberta, Canada BACKGROUND: The incidence of AIDS has decreased since the advent of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), however, its prevalence has increased as patients are living longer after an AIDS diagnosis. We wished to measure and compare the direct costs of providing care to HIV-positive patients with and without an AIDS diagnostic illness.METHODS: The direct medical costs of all patients presenting for HIV care at the Southern Alberta Clinic (SAC), Calgary, Canada between April 1996 and April 2002 were included. SAC is the regional HIV care center for all HIV infected patients living in southern Alberta. Detailed sociodemographic, clinical, and direct costing data (i.e. all drug, outpatient, inpatient, and home care costs) were collected for each patient. A patient was considered to have AIDS if they were diagnosed with one of the 21 AIDS-defining illness. Mean costs are presented as cost per patient per month in 2002 Canadian dollars.RESULTS: Between 1996 and 2002 the incidence of AIDS in southern Alberta decreased from 119/1000 HIV patients per year to 40/1000 whereas the yearly prevalence remained stable at 22% of the HIV population. In 1994 prior to HAART 18% patients receiving care at SAC survived 36 months after an AIDS diagnosis; in 2000, 71% achieved 36 month survival. Within the region the cost of providing care to AIDS patients accounts for 32% of the annual total direct costs of all HIV care. The mean cost per patient per month for AIDS patients was 64% higher ($1528 vs $932) than for non-AIDS patients. Drug, outpatient, inpatient, and home care costs were 55%, 40%, 143%, 288% higher in AIDS patients respectively. These differences persist even when controlling for CD4 count. After the arrival of HAART mean costs per patient per month initially converged between AIDS and non-AIDS patients, however, costs have since diverged.CONCLUSIONS: The direct costs of AIDS care remains significantly higher than for non-AIDS patients and comprises a disproportional amount of the HIV care budget. Delaying or preventing AIDS remains economically as well as clinically important. Projected prevalence rates of AIDS need to be addressed when making any economic prediction on HIV care costs. (Source)

New Study Shows 32% of Homosexuals Have Suffered Abuse by their “Partner” NEW YORK, November 9, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A study published in the most recent edition of the Journal of Urban Health, which is published by the New York Academy of Medicine, has found that over 32% of active homosexuals report that they have suffered “abuse” by one or more “partners” during the course of their lives (see report abstract at http://www.springerlink.com/content/r6q02560022h4276/?=eec72…). According to the study, which surveyed sexually active homosexuals and bisexuals in the Chicago area, 19.2% reported physical violence, which the survey characterizes as “hit, kicked, shoved, burned, cut, or otherwise physically hurt”. Another 18.5% reported “unwanted sexual activity” — that is, that they have been in some sense raped by one of their “partners”. Finally, 20.6% reported being verbally abused. The study also states that “depression and substance abuse were among the strongest correlates of intimate partner abuse”, reflecting previous studies that have shown a high level of substance abuse, depression, and other psychological and behavioral disorders among homosexuals. The study’s results confirm what numerous other studies have already shown: that homosexuals are disproportionately prone to acts of aggression against their “partners” and others. Pathological behavior is very highly correlated with the active “gay” lifestyle, including high rates of depression, alcoholism and drug abuse, promiscuity, and suicide, even in countries and societies that are generally accepting of their “lifestyle” choice. Homosexuals are also far more likely to contract venereal diseases, cancer, and other diseases. (Source)

Flesh-Eating” Bacteria Striking Gay Men: Disease spread primarily through anal intercourse SAN FRANCISCO, January 15, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A new medical study appearing in the Annals of American Medicine shows that homosexuals are spreading a new, highly-infectious and extremely dangerous bacteria amongst themselves, most probably through anal intercourse. The bacterium, called MRSA USA300, is impervious to front-line antibiotics and can only be treated with rarer drugs, primarily Vancomycin. Researchers say that the bug, which is a type of staphylococcus, is primed to develop immunity to that drug as well. Infected patients may have inflammation, abscesses, and tissue loss in the affected areas. Although the bacterium does not literally “eat” the body, it manufactures toxins that can cause “necrosis” – the death of surrounding tissue. The study’s authors note that the strong link between unhealthy behavior, particularly among homosexuals, is the driving force behind the disease. “Spread of the USA300 clone among men who have sex with men is associated with high-risk behaviors, including use of methamphetamine and other illicit drugs, sex with multiple partners, participation in a group sex party, use of the internet for sexual contacts, skin-abrading sex, and history of sexually transmitted infections,” the authors write. “The same patterns of increased sexual risk behaviors among men who have sex with men – which have resulted from changes in beliefs regarding HIV disease severity with the availability of potent antiretroviral therapy – have been driving resurgent epidemics of early syphilis, rectal gonorrhea, and new HIV infections in San Francisco, Boston, and elsewhere,” add the researchers. The study, which focused on clinics in the San Francisco area, found that in some cases up to 39% of patients had the MRSA USA300 infections in their genitals or buttocks, although the disease can be spread by general skin-to-skin contact and can even be picked up from surfaces. Observing that “Infection with multidrug-resistant USA300 MRSA is common among men who have sex with men,” the study timidly concludes that “multidrug-resistant MRSA infection might be sexually transmitted in this population,” and counsels “further research.” It is estimated that in San Francisco’s Castro District, which has the highest concentration of homosexuals in the country, the infection rate is 1 in every 588 residents. One in every 3,800 residents of San Francisco are infected. Homosexuals are 13 times more likely to be infected than others in the city. The disease is not only spreading in San Francisco, but also Boston, New York and Los Angeles. In addition to homosexuals, people who are ill or have weakened immune systems are particularly susceptible. MRSA and other types of staphylococcus bacteria, often spread in hospitals, kill more than 19,000 Americans each year, a rate higher than deaths due to AIDS. Peter LaBarbara, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, is hoping that the revelation of yet another homosexual epidemic will have an impact on the public’s perception of homosexual behavior. “I think that the media, and Hollywood, and a lot of our policy makers and certainly academia are in a world of ‘let’s pretend’ with regard to homosexual behavior and its consequences,” he told LifeSiteNews. “They don’t want to focus on the special risks that homosexual behavior, especially between men, have in the public health arena, and issues like this keep coming up.” However, LaBarbara acknowledges that the major media will “invariably spin things in a homosexual direction.” “We saw the identical thing happen 25 years ago with the reporting on AIDS,” he said, “but ironically the whole AIDS crisis strengthened the homosexual lobby in this country.”FULL STUDY TEXT: Emergence of Multidrug-Resistant, Community-Associated, Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Clone USA300 in Men Who Have Sex with Men http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/0000605-200802190-002…

Study Finds Homosexual Men Much More Likely to Consult Mental-Health Service Providers: Statistics Canada provides first national picture of health care use by sexual orientation OTTAWA, March 20, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A new study published yesterday by Statistics Canada provides the first national picture of health care use by sexual orientation. It shows that the use of health care services differs depending on self-identified sexual preference.This study confirms the numerous reports LifeSiteNews.com has published that link the homosexual lifestyle to increased risk of both physical and mental disease, and the consequent impact on the Canadian health care system.The study examined the use of various aspects of health care, such as consulting health care providers, having a regular doctor, and using preventive procedures, by an analysis of data gathered between 2003 and 2005 by the Canadian Community Health Survey for adults aged 18 to 59. “An estimated 346,000 adults identified themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual in the survey. These people represented 1.9% of the total population aged 18 to 59. Of this group, 130,000 were gay men, 59,000 bisexual men, 71,000 lesbians, and 85,000 bisexual women,” the study revealed. Despite the impression given by groups that promote homosexuality that at least ten percent of the population is homosexual, the study proves that the actual number of persons involved in homosexuality is quite small – 1.9% of the total population. It found that homosexual disposed men were much more likely than heterosexual disposed men to have consulted a medical specialist or mental health service providers, such as social workers or counselors, in the year prior to the survey. About 29% of homosexual men consulted a medical specialist in the 12 months before the survey, compared with 19% of heterosexual men. Similarly, 8% of homosexual men consulted a psychologist, nearly triple the proportion of 3% among their heterosexual counterparts. Among women, lesbians were less likely than heterosexual women to have seen a family doctor in the year prior to the survey or to have undergone a Pap test in the three previous years. 10% of lesbians consulted a psychologist, as did 11% of bisexual women, well above the proportion of only 4% among heterosexual women. The study found that homosexual men and bisexual women tended to report more chronic conditions than did the heterosexual population. They were also more likely to have had at least one disability day due to physical illness in the two weeks prior to the survey. All homosexual groups reported levels of mood or anxiety disorders above those for the heterosexual population. (Source)

Authors of this report: John Shea,MD, FRCP (C), Radiologist; John K. Wilson MD, FRCP (C), Cardiologist; Paul Ranalli MD, FRCP (C), Neurologist; Christina Paulaitis MD, CCFP, Family Physician; Luigi Castagna MD, FRCP (C), Paediatric Neurologist; Hans-Christian Raabe MD, MRCP MRCGP Internist; W. André Lafrance MD, FRCP (C),Family Research Council’s paper entitled: “Negative Effects of Homosexuality” (selections of this article included above)

‘Gay marriage’ and homosexuality: Some Medical Comments

Dermatologist

1. Background.

Despite the impression given by the media, the actual number of homosexuals is quite small. Essentially all surveys show the number of homosexuals to be only 1-3% of the population. The number of homosexuals living in ‘common law partnerships’ is even less, only 0.5% of all couples. This contrasts with 70% of all households with a married couple. The pressure for introducing same-sex marriages comes from a very small section of society.

• According to Statistics Canada, 1.3% of men and 0.7% of women considered themselves to be homosexual. www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040615/d040615b.htm)

• Recent studies in many different countries show that the prevalence of homosexuality is less than 3% of the population: In a US study, the prevalence of homosexuality was estimated to be 2.1% of men and 1.5% of women. (Gilman SE. Am J Public Health. 2001; 91: 933-9.) Another US study estimated the prevalence of the adult lesbian population to be 1.87% (Aaron DJ et al. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003; 57 :207-9.) In a recent British survey, 2.8% of men were classified as homosexuals (Mercer CH et al. AIDS. 2004; 18: 1453-8). In a recent Dutch study 2.8% of men and 1.4% women had had same-sex partners. (Sandfort TG et al. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001; 58 :85-91.) In a New Zealand study, 2.8% of young adults were classified as homosexual or bisexual. (Fergusson DM et al. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999; 56 : 876-80)

• In 2001, there were just over 8.3 million families in Canada, of which nearly 6 million (70%) were married couples and 1.1 million common-law couples. The 2001 Census was the first to provide data on same-sex partnerships. A total of 34,200 couples (or 0.5% of all couples) identified themselves as same-sex common-law couples. (www.statcan.ca/Daily/ English/021022/ d021022a.htm)

2. Health risks of the homosexual lifestyle.

The media portrays the homosexual lifestyle and relationships as happy, healthy and stable. However, the homosexual lifestyle is associated with a large number of very serious physical and emotional health consequences. Many ‘committed’ homosexual relationships only last a few years. This raises doubts as to whether children raised in same-sex households are being raised in a protective environment. A. There are very high rates of sexual promiscuity among the homosexual population with short duration of even ‘committed’ relationships.

• A study of homosexual men shows that more than 75% of homosexual men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: approximately 15% claimed to have had 100-249 sex partners, 17% claimed 250-499, 15% claimed 500-999 and 28% claimed more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. (Bell AP, Weinberg MS. Homosexualities. New York 1978).

• Promiscuity among lesbian women is less extreme, but is still higher than among heterosexual women. Many ‘lesbian’ women also have sex with men. Lesbian women were more than 4 times as likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women. (Fethers K et al. Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women. Sexually Transmitted Infections 2000; 76: 345-9.)

• Far higher rates of promiscuity are observed even within ‘committed’ gay relationships than in heterosexual marriage: In Holland, male homosexual relationships last, on average, 1.5 years, and gay men have an average of eight partners a year outside of their supposedly “committed” relationships. (Xiridou M, et al. The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam. AIDS. 2003; 17: 1029-38.) Gay men have sex with someone other than their primary partner in 66% of relationships within the first year, rising to 90% of relationships after five years. (Harry J. Gay Couples. New York. 1984)

• In an online survey among nearly 8,000 homosexuals, 71% of same-sex relationships lasted less than eight years. Only 9% of all same-sex relationships lasted longer than 16 years. (2003-2004 Gay & Lesbian Consumer Online Census; www.glcensus.org)

• The high rates of promiscuity are not surprising: Gay authors admit that ‘gay liberation was founded … on a sexual brotherhood of promiscuity.’ (Rotello G. Sexual Ecology. New York 1998)

SOURCE

American Psychological Association Changes Tune on Genetic Nature of Homosexuality

May 13, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In 1998, the American Psychological Association (APA) published a brochure titled “Answers to Your Questions about Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality.” This particular document was ostensibly published to provide definitive answers about homosexuality. However, few of the assertions made in the brochure could find any basis in psychological science. Clearly a document anchored more in activism than in empiricism, the brochure was simply a demonstration of how far APA had strayed from science, and how much it had capitulated to activism. The newest APA brochure, which appears to be an update of the older one, is titled, “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality.” Though both brochures have strong activist overtones (both were created with “editorial assistance from the APA Committee on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns”), the newer document is more reflective of science and more consistent with the ethicality of psychological care. Consider the following statement from the first document: “There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.” That statement was omitted from the current document and replaced with the following: “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles…”
Although there is no mention of the research that influenced this new position statement, it is clear that efforts to “prove” that homosexuality is simply a biological fait accompli have failed. The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion. There is no gay gene. There is no simple biological pathway to homosexuality. Byne and Parsons, and Friedman and Downey, were correct: a bio-psycho-social model best fits the data. On the question of whether or not therapy can change sexual orientation, the former document offered a resounding “no.” However, the current document is much more nuanced and contains the following statement: “To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective.” Of course, no mention is made of the Spitzer research, the Karten research, or the recent longitudinal research conducted by Jones and Yarhouse — all of which support the conclusion that some people can and do change. Of the Spitzer research, psychologist Dr. Scott Hershberger (who is a philosophical essentialist on questions of sexual orientation) conducted a Guttman analysis of the study sample, and declared: “The orderly, law-like pattern of changes in homosexual behavior, homosexual self-identification, and homosexual attraction and fantasy observed in Spitzer’s study is strong evidence that reparative therapy can assist individuals in changing their homosexual orientation to a heterosexual one.” The Spitzer study found no evidence of harm. Neither did the Karten study, nor the Jones and Yarhouse study. For the rest of this commentary please see the website of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality here: http://www.narth.com/docs/deemphasizes.html

Mega Analysis of Over 100 Years of Research Shows Treatment for Unwanted Homosexuality Beneficial

NEW YORK, June 23, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A new report in the first edition of the peer-reviewed Journal of Human Sexuality has found that sexual orientation is not immutable and that psychological care for individuals with unwanted homosexual attractions is beneficial and poses no significant risk of harm. The study, What Research Shows: NARTH’s Response to the American Psychological Associations Claims on Homosexuality, examines over 100 years of professional and scientific literature as well as over 600 reports from clinicians, researchers, and former clients principally published in professional and peer-reviewed journals. This research, assembled over a period of eighteen months by three of the leading academics and therapists in the field and under the direction of the NARTH Scientific Advisory Committee, refutes claims made by some factions of the American Psychological Association and several other professional mental health organizations. Radical elements in the American Psychological Association have posited that: (1) Homosexuality is fixed and unchangeable (2) Attempts to therapeutically assist those with unwanted homosexuality are harmful (3) There are no quality of life differences in those who engage in homosexual and heterosexual behaviors. The study, conducted by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, found that a change in sexual orientation is possible for some individuals and does not cause psychological harm on average. “This research is a significant milestone when it comes to the scientific debate over the issue of homosexuality,” said NARTH president Dr. Julie Hamilton. “It also confirms what we have seen evidenced in hundreds of individuals who have benefited from the help of NARTH therapists. “We believe that every person should have the right to independently determine their own course in life and for many that involves seeking counseling options that affirm their personal beliefs.” Read a summary by clicking here.

The Psychological Profession and Homosexuality: Lunatics Running the Asylum?

WASHINGTON, August 14, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A man goes to a psychologist with a problem. “Doctor,” he says, “I’m suffering terribly. I feel like a woman trapped inside the body of a man. I want to become a woman.” The psychologist responds: “No problem. We can discuss this idea for a couple of years, and if you’re still sure you want to be a woman, we can have a surgeon remove your penis, give you hormones for breast enlargement and make other changes to your body. Problem solved.” Gratified, the first patient leaves, followed by a second. “Doctor,” he says, “I feel terrible. I’m a man but I feel attracted to other men. I want to change my sexual preference. I want to become heterosexual.” The psychologist responds: “Oh no, absolutely not! That would be unethical. Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic!” The irony of this little tale is that, while reading like a joke, it is in reality an accurate description of the mental health professions today. While dismissing and condemning reparative therapy for homosexual orientation, the majority of psychiatrists and psychologists in Anglophone North America have embraced the concept of “sex change,” a procedure that does nothing more than mutilate the patient to appease his confused mind. In its most recent statement on the topic, the American Psychological Association (APA) has softened its tone somewhat against psychologists who do reorientation therapy for homosexuals. However it maintains that, “Contrary to claims of sexual orientation change advocates and practitioners, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation”. The refusal of the organization to accept the increasingly strong evidence against its position is another reminder of how entrenched the sophistry of sexual hedonism has become among the leaders of the organization. In recent years, a number of studies have been published in peer-reviewed psychology journals, indicating that significant numbers of patients who voluntarily participate in therapy to change their sexual orientation are successful and happy with the results. Combined with numerous individual testimonies by former homosexuals, evidence in favor of the practice is overwhelming. However, in its new report, “Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation,” the APA’s leadership declares that all of those studies can be dismissed because, in its words, “None of the recent research (1999-2007) meets methodological standards that permit conclusions regarding efficacy or safety.” The report therefore conveniently disposes of the most recent studies on the topic — the ones that undermine the APA’s position. The only studies that remain are ones done before the resurgence of the reparative therapy movement, in the 1970s, when the APA declared that homosexual orientation and sodomy really weren’t unhealthy after all. New research is rejected in favor of research that is now over 30 years old, applied to therapeutic practices that may no longer be in use. However, the authors of Essential Psychotherapy and its Treatment, a standard text in medical schools, disagree with the APA’s leadership, and say that the newer studies vindicate sexual reorientation therapy. The newest edition (2009) notes on page 488 that, “While many mental health care providers and professional associations have expressed considerable skepticism that sexual orientation could be changed with psychotherapy and also assumed that therapeutic attempts at reorientation would produce harm, recent empirical evidence demonstrates that homosexual orientation can indeed be therapeutically changed in motivated clients, and that reorientation therapies do not produce emotional harm when attempted (e.g., Byrd & Nicolosi, 2002; Byrd et al., 2008; Shaeffer et al., 1999; Spitzer, 2003).” The APA’s latest report, done by a task force composed of psychologists with long records of homosexualist activism, also claims as “scientific facts” that “same-sex sexual attractions, behavior, and orientations per se are normal and positive variants of human sexuality-in other words, they are not indicators of mental or developmental disorders” and “no empirical studies or peer-reviewed research supports theories attributing same-sex sexual orientation to family dysfunction or trauma.” These unbelievable statements fly in the face of more than a century of scientific, peer-reviewed studies and clinical observation that indicate that much homosexual behavior originates in deficient family relationships and is associated with a wide range of diseases and pathological behaviors. Studies have shown that homosexuals disproportionately come from families in which sons or daughters lack a healthy relationship with one or both of their parents, or in situations in which the homosexual was the victim of child sex abuse by a same-sex adult. Homosexual behavior is also statistically associated with a host of diseases, disorders, and pathological behaviors, including venereal and other diseases, promiscuity and unstable relationships,anxiety disorders,depression and suicide,alcoholism and drug abuse, domestic violence, pederasty, and early death. Even the homosexual Gay and Lesbian Medical Association admits that homosexuals suffer disproportionate rates of disease and self-destructive behavior. Although the homosexualist leadership at the APA tries to rationalize these relationships by claiming that they are caused by social stigma or other factors, their claims ring hollow. Many stigmitized groups exist in society that display none of the pathological tendencies of homosexuals, and these tendencies appear even in countries that are very tolerant of homosexual behavior, such as the Netherlands. The very existence of the report, however, is evidence that the homosexualist establishment currently in power at the APA is on the defensive, and seeking to preserve its ideology of sexual permissiveness as a paradigm in the psychology profession. After surrendering itself to a hedonistic ethos in the 1970s and 80s, the American psychological practice has been transformed into a vehicle for patients to rationalize and reconcile themselves with self-destructive, irrational, and narcissistic behavior, paying an “expert” to soothe their consciences by assuring them that “science” is on their side. However, an increasing number of mental health professionals whose institutions were stolen from them by political activists in the 1970s are now rising up to take back their profession in the name of true science, and patient health. Former APA President Dr. Robert Perloff has publicly endorsed the National Organization for the Research and Treatment of Homosexuality (NARTH), the largest American organization devoted the treatment of unwanted homosexual attractions, and has denounced the APA’s campaign against such treatment. “The ideology of those who oppose efforts to try to facilitate transfers from SSA, that is, Same Sex Attraction, to heterosexual attraction, must not, must not stand in the way of those homosexual persons who desire to live their lives heterosexually, a choice which is unarguably theirs to make,” he said in a videotaped statement played at NARTH’s 2008 annual meeting. Dr. Robert Spitzer, who has been been called the “architect” of the American Psychiatric Association’s normalization of homosexuality in the 1970s, provoked outrage from the homosexualist establishment when he admitted in 2001 that his own investigations had convinced him that sexual reorientation therapy can work. His study, published in the peer-reviewed Archives of Mental Health in 2003, found that a majority of his sample of 247 people had developed heterosexual urges or had ceased to be predominantly homosexual after only one year of therapy. None of the subjects said that they had been harmed in the process. After presenting his paper before the American Psychiatric Association in 2001, Spitzer said: “I’m convinced from people I have interviewed…many of them…have made substantial changes toward becoming heterosexual. I came to this study skeptical. I now claim that these changes can be sustained.” Other prominent figures in psychiatry and psychology have also raised their voices in protest, including Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, a psychiatrist and physicist who has testified before Congress in favor of reparative therapy, and has denounced the hijacking of the mental health professions by homosexualist ideologues in his book, the “Trojan Couch”. “Some of my psychiatric and psychological colleagues have woven for themselves their own set of illusory robes of authority, and for the past 35 years have been proclaiming doctrines in the public square that depend upon the authority that derives from the public’s belief that these robes exist,” Satinover said in a recent interview . “The diagnostic change that in 1973 removed homosexuality as a formal disorder from the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), a change that many now accept as simply indisputable in spite of the fact that it was based wholly on fiction,” he added. “The question isn’t just homosexuality, said Satinover, “but rather, freedom from all sexual constraint. This has been an issue for civilization for thousands of years…We now have so little of a moral compass that we’re really completely at sea. We’re awash in the tide of unconstrained instinctive behaviors which are all being labeled ‘okay’ because nobody really has a sense, any more, as to what’s right and what’s wrong.” The debate over reparative therapy for homosexuality runs deeper than the issue itself. It is arguably a debate over the future of the psychological professions as a whole. Although there are signs that an increasing number of mental health experts are taking an honest look at the facts regarding homosexual behavior and sexual orientation therapy, there are other signs that portend an even darker future for the profession. In 1998, the APA released a study by three psychological researchers from Temple University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Michigan, claiming that the “negative potential” of adult sex with children was “overstated” and that “the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from their child sexual abuse experiences.” It even claimed that large numbers of the victims reported that their experiences were “positive,” and suggested that the phrase “child sex abuse” be replaced with “adult-child sex.” The APA not only passed the paper through its peer review process where it was approved by multiple psychologists associated with the organization, but actually published it in one of its journals, Psychological Bulletin. Moreover, when objections were raised by radio talk show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger and various pro-family groups, the organization defended the article for an entire year. It was also defended by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which chillingly stated that it “saw no clear evidence of improper application of methodology or other questionable practices on the part of the article’s authors.” Although the sheer insanity and destructiveness of the content should have prevented the APA from publishing the article in the first place, the sexual libertines in charge of the organization only issued a muted retraction after the U.S. Congress joined the fray, passing an unprecedented resolution condemning the study. The publication of the paper was only one example of such lunacy by mental health professionals in peer-reviewed journals. One of the three authors of the study, Robert Bauserman, has a history of publishing pedophilia-advocacy “studies,” including one for the now-defunct journal Paidika, The Journal of Paedophilia, whose editors admitted to being pedophiles. Since the 1998 article, Bauserman and fellow author Bruce Rind have gone on to write more articles defending child sex abuse, which have appeared in such mainstream journals as the Archives of Sexual Behavior (2001) and Clinical Psychology (2003). Apparently, the psychology profession is comfortable with Bauserman and Rind’s work, and intends to continue publishing it. Another apologist for child sex abuse who has received acceptance, affirmation, and recognition from the mental health professions is Dr. Theo Sandfort , who is currently an Associate Professor of Clinical Sociomedical Sciences (in Psychiatry) at Colombia University. Sandfort published a study in 1981 that claimed that boys as young as 10 years old had “positive” experiences in their “sexual relationships” with adults. While he was co-director of the research program of the Department of Gay and Lesbian Studies at the University of Utrecht, Netherlands, Sandfort interviewed 25 boys from between the ages of 10 and 16 who were in such “sexual relationships” — that is, they were being sexually abused by adults. In fact, the abusers themselves took Sandfort to their victims so he could interview them. When the victims gave Sandfort their “positive” responses, he duly recorded them. “For virtually all the boys … the sexual contact itself was experienced positively,” Sandfort wrote, without a hint of irony. The fact that Sandfort was promoting the sexual abuse of minors with the help of their victimizers didn’t seem to faze him. Nor did it faze his then-employers at the University of Utrecht. Nor did it faze the prestigious University of Colombia, which later gave him a professorship, even after he went on to write articles such as “Pedophile relationships in the Netherlands: Alternative Lifestyles for Children?” and books such as “Childhood Sexuality: Normal Sexual Behavior and Development” (2000). It hasn’t fazed the APA either, which has named Sandfort a “fellow” of the organization since 2002. The defense and even the promotion of mental health experts who defend child sex abuse is a terrifying, but expectable movement down the slippery slope of sexual hedonism embraced by the powers that be at the APA. It not only threatens homosexuals, who are deceived by the seductive argument that their orientation is nothing to worry about, but psychology and psychiatry themselves. The outcome of the current battle over the science of homosexuality may well determine the future of the mental health professions as a whole. Will they turn back from the brink, or plunge into the abyss? And what will become of the societies that heed their counsel?

Ten Percent of Adult Homosexuals in Brazil Have HIV: Study

BRASILIA, June 24, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A new study by Brazil’s Ministry of Health has revealed that in the 10 most populous cities of Brazil, the rate of HIV infection among homosexuals is over 10%. According to the same agency, the overall rate of HIV infection among males between the ages of 15 and 49 years is only 0.8%, making the rate of HIV infection among adult homosexuals more than 13 times higher. The study also found that homosexuals in large Brazilian cities are highly likely to be victims of rape. At least 14% have been forced to have sexual relations against their will. Brazil has one of the most gay friendly governments in the world.  Every year, Sao Paulo hosts the largest gay pride march on earth, which has in the past been financed by the government itself.  The federal government, under President Luiz Lula da Silva, also runs a massive nationwide propaganda campaign called “Brazil Without Homophobia” and censors television to prohibit ministers from preaching against sodomy before 11 pm. The statistics from Brazil are reflected by another recent study in Spain, which also found that one in 10 homosexuals are infected with HIV.  In the United States, the relative HIV rate among active homosexuals is even higher.  According to the most recent data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, for Men who have Sex with Men (MSM), “for HIV and syphilis respectively, the rate was 60 and 61 times the rate for other men.” According to numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies, homosexual behavior is also statistically associated with high rates of a variety of other communicable diseases and medical problems, as well as high rates of promiscuity, violence, depression, pathological behaviors, and suicide. The Spanish government is using the one in 10 statistic to promote its ongoing campaign to convince homosexuals to use condoms, despite the fact that such campaigns have generally succeeded in increasing the rate of sexually transmitted diseases in countries afflicted with HIV. The campaign is called “give yourself a medal,” and shows a man’s naked chest with a condom suspended from a ribbon of the style used for hanging medals around athletes’ necks.

_________________________________________________________________

Other Sources:

MEGA SOURCE: Conservapedia.com: Homosexuality

Units of measure of viruses are in nanometers (nm).
1000 nm = 1 micron.
1000 microns = 1 millimeter.

VIRUS TRANSMISSION THROUGH THE INHERENT POROSITY OF LATEX FILMS

There is currently quite a bit of research going on to see just what can and cannot pass through a latex film—either glove or condom. Sometimes larger things can pass through (like 110 nm fluorescent microspheres) whereas smaller things (like 27-nm FX174 viruses) cannot, due to various surface effects and interactions between the latex and the object in question. When reading this, recall from the abstract above that HIV virus ranges in size from 110 to 146 nm.

Using Fluorescent Microspheres to Evaluate Barrier Integrity Key words: latex, barrier integrity, virus, microspheres. Fluorescent microspheres of 100-110-nm diameter can pass through more latex condoms than the 27-nm virus F X174. This study was conducted by a mentorship student from a science and technology high school who investigated whether there are properties of fluorescent polystyrene microspheres that could be responsible for these disparate results. The results demonstrated that the microspheres adsorb to condom latex as well as highly-adsorptive viruses (and much more than does F X174), and free fluorescent dye is not released when the microspheres are in close contact with latex. These findings argue against the properties of microspheres being responsible for the disparate results. However, an increase in the fluorescence of buffer after contact with condom latex was found, in the absence of microspheres. This increase may require extended contact. Thus, this study found an artifact that could be misconstrued as evidence of fluorescent microspheres passing through latex barriers.

  • “. the rubber comprising latex condoms has intrinsic voids about 5 microns (0.0002 inches) in size,” Roland states. “Contrarily, the AIDS virus is only 0.1 micron (4 millionths of an inch) in size. Since this is a factor of 50 smaller than the voids inherent in rubber, the virus can readily pass through the condom.”

    In addition, condom manufacturers allow 0.4 percent of any given batch to be defective, before a recall is ordered….Studies done by Georgetown Medical University and the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., published in Nature, Sept. 1, 1988, show that latex gloves, made to much higher specifications than the condom, have pores 50 times larger than the 0.1 micron HIV virus. (Source)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s