There are at least two sides to all homosexual issues, but because the dominant media tend to be strongly pro-homosexual, for the most part we are only hearing the pro-homosexual sides of those issues from the dominant media.

Because of this favoritism or bias of the dominant media, the facts about homosexuality often come as an unpleasant surprise to a lot of people. But our goal is not to hurt or upset anybody. All we want to do is present facts.

One fact the dominant media is censoring or ignoring is that the anal cancer rate for male homosexuals is way above normal, maybe as high as 50 times normal, according to a 1982 study.¹ And a 1997 study again drew attention to the "strong association between anal cancer and male homosexual contact."²

You probably already know the homosexual community has been decimated by AIDS. But you may not know that, as another study has found: 1) 80% of syphilitic patients are homosexual; 2) about 33% of homosexuals are infected with active anorectal herpes simplex viruses; 3) chlamydia infects 15% of homosexuals; and 4) "a host of parasites, bacterial, viral, and protozoan are all rampant in the homosexual population."³

Another study found that: 1) amoebiasis, a parasitic disease, afflicts around 32% of homosexuals; 2) giardiasis, also a parasitic disease, afflicts 14% of homosexuals (NO heterosexuals in the study were found to have either amoebiasis or giardiasis); 3) gonorrhea afflicts 14% of homosexuals; and 4) 11% of homosexuals had anal warts.⁴

According to another study, anorectal sepsis, a potentially toxic bacterial infection, is four times more common in homosexual than heterosexual men.⁵ And another study found that the "prevalence of EBV type 2 among homosexual men was significantly higher than it was among heterosexual men (39% vs. 6%)."⁶ (EBV type 2 is the Epstein-Barr type 2 virus, which virus causes infectious mononucleosis and is associated with two types of cancer: Burkitt's lymphoma and nasopharyngeal carcinoma.)

And other studies have found abnormally high rates of hepatitis B infection,⁷ prostate cancer⁸, colitis, enteritis, proctitis, and proctocolitis⁹ in homosexual men.

An article in the pro-homosexual New York Times noted that a young male homosexual has about a 50% chance of getting H.I.V. by middle age and that the incidence of gonorrhea among homosexual men rose 74% between 1993 and 1996.¹⁰

The Chicago Department of Public Health reported that the percentage of Chicago AIDS diagnoses connected to homo/bisexual men increased from 37% in year 2000 to 44% in 2003; and in mid-2006 it also reported that homo/bisexual men accounted for approximately 73% of Chicago syphilis cases in the year 2005. And a September 2010 report from the Centers for Disease Control titled "HIV among Gay, Bisexual and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM)" noted: "Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s....At the end of 2006, more than half (53%) of all people living with HIV in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU [injection drug user]." And according to a CDC report released in November 2009, 63% of syphilis cases in this country were found in homo/bisexuals in 2008.

We'll conclude this section on male homo/bisexual STDs with three short, refreshingly honest quotes from the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association. These were found on its website, http://www.glma.org, on Nov. 4, 2009, in a document titled "Top 10 Things Gay Men Should Discuss with their Healthcare Provider." (It may still be on the website.)

The quotes: 1) "[M]en who have sex with men are at an increased risk of HIV infection....[T]he last few years have seen the return of many unsafe sex practices."

2) "Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) occur in sexually active gay men at a high rate. This includes...syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, pubic lice,...Hepatitis A, B, or C virus, Human Papilloma Virus, etc."

3) "Gay men may be at risk for death by prostate, testicular, or colon cancer....[And there are] increased rates of anal cancers in gay men."

Regarding lesbians, they face a higher breast cancer risk. One study of lesbians found that: "Sixty-three percent of the lesbians had never been pregnant....[And] Not having children increases a woman's breast cancer risk by between two to six times."¹¹ Not having children also "may be a risk factor for ovarian cancer and may be implicated in endometrial cancer as well."¹²

Another study found bacterial vaginosis occuring in 33% of lesbians but only in 13% of heterosexual women, and found that: "Cervical cytology abnormalities were uncommon but only found in the lesbians."¹³ (Those abnormalities may be precursors to cervical cancers.)

Another study of lesbians found "a relatively high prevalence of the viral STDs, herpes simplex and human papillomavirus [HPV]."¹⁴ And according to another: "Genital HPV infection and squamous intraepithelial lesions are common among women who are sexually active with women."¹⁵ HPV has been connected to cervical cancer. "DNA analysis has revealed that about 15 types of the virus account for more than 99 percent of all cervical cancer cases."¹⁶

One reason lesbians have a relatively high incidence of STDs is that, as some studies have documented, lesbians have more sexual partners than heterosexual women. For example, a large University of Chicago study concluded that lesbians have four times as many sexual partners as straight women (E.O. Laurnarm and others, The social organization of sexuality: sexual practices in the United States, U. of Chicago Press, 1994).

We'll conclude this section on lesbian STDs with two short quotes from the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association. These were found on its website in a document titled "Top 10 Things Lesbians Should Discuss with their Healthcare Provider."

1) "Lesbians have the richest concentration of risk factors for breast cancer than any subset of women in the world."

2) "Lesbians have higher risks for many of the gynecologic cancers."

It should be noted that lesbian sexual diseases and cancers have not been researched nearly as much as male homosexual sexual diseases and cancers. This is because lesbian sex was presumed to be relatively safe. Some doctors are fairly calling for more research into the health of lesbians. With more study, we may find the "lesbian lifestyle" is not so safe after all.

Another relatively unknown fact: the blood of male homosexuals tends to be so contaminated with various viruses and bacteria that all male homosexuals who have been sexually active since 1977 are barred from donating blood.

In sum, using regular mainstream medical journals, it is easy to show that the "homosexual lifestyle" tends to be a very unsafe, very unhealthy lifestyle. Indeed, prior to the discovery of anti-AIDS drugs, the average lifespan of a homosexual was actually shorter than the average lifespan of a smoker. (It is somewhat odd that many of the very same people who believe in restricting the rights of smokers want to expand the rights of homosexuals.)

Some of you might say, "So what, it's their choice." Fact is, diseases are being spread all over this country by people engaging in unsafe sex, heterosexual and homosexual. That's wrong. Innocent people have contracted various diseases through no fault of their own, like, for example, by being transfused with infected blood. Babies have been born with AIDS. Unsafe sex is clearly not a private matter; it's society's business.

The federal government is spending roughly $12 billion annually dealing with sexually transmitted diseases, and individual states like Illinois are each spending millions more. We could be spending that money feeding starving children in other countries if we didn't have to spend it on sexual diseases. Kids are starving because some people think they have the right to spread sexual diseases. If that doesn't outrage you, you may have lost your humanity.

One would think homosexuals would have learned by late 1997 the importance of "safe sex," but that is not the case. As homosexual activist Larry Kramer wrote in 1997 in the New York Times, male homosexuals are returning to unsafe sex and their rates of HIV infection and gonorrhea and syphilis are rising to "frightening heights" (his words).¹⁷ Too:"Alarming health officials, the rate of new HIV infections among gay and bisexual men in San Francisco nearly tripled over the past two years [1998 and 1999]."¹⁸ And more recent studies, noted above, also document the rising HIV infection rate for MSM.

(Incidentally, spending on AIDS research is excessive, totally out-of-whack, unconscionably unfair. In the year 2000 we spent around $180 million on prostate cancer research versus around $7 billion on AIDS research, but the number of men who are stricken with prostate cancer each year in the U.S.A. is several times the number of people annually stricken with AIDS!! And in the year 2000 we spent only around $425 million on breast cancer research versus the $7 billion on AIDS research, even though the number of women who are stricken with breast cancer each year is again several times the number of people annually stricken with AIDS in this country!!)

Let us ask and answer a basic question. Is there a "right" to homosexual behavior? It is relatively easy to show, as we will, that the answer is NO. First of all, nobody has ever proven there is such a right, because it can't be done. Second, it is relatively easy to point out the flaws in all of the arguments homosexuals use to try to justify homosexual sex. (For example, let's consider their "consenting adults" argument; namely, that if two consenting adults agree to engage in homosexual sex, what's the problem? This argument is clearly flawed because just because two consenting adults agree to do something doesn't make the act right. Two consenting adults could agree to assault someone or rob a bank or have sex in public.)

Moreover, there is a valid argument against homosexual activity that is time-tested and solid. Nobody has ever proven it wrong, because nobody can. That argument, if we may oversimplify it to save time and space, boils down to this:

Homosexual activity is immoral and illegalizeable because it is a bad and absurd legal precedent. Homosexual sex is obviously a physiologically unnatural deviation from the heterosexual norm. If we condone homosexual deviations, then we must fairly condone all kinds of other deviations by all kinds of aberrant people. (Either that or discriminate in favor of some aberrant people and against others.)

We don't have time to discuss all the many many other deviations we'd have to fairly tolerate, but if we did tolerate them the world would become an unpleasant, confused, and sick place.

Indeed, over the last 30 years or so, as we have become more accepting of immoral behavior, our divorce rate has soared, the out-of-wedlock birthrate has soared, the teen suicide rate has tripled, we have seen the rise of an epidemic of STDs, millions of babies have been aborted, etc., etc. It's time we wake up and smell the rotten coffee.

Members of our group have debated many homosexuals and their supporters over the years and we are stunned at how many of them hold this hypocritical and contradictory position: It is okay to "discriminate" against sexual deviants like exhibitionists (e.g., people who have sex in public) and incestuous couples, even if these deviants are consenting adults and even if they aren't hurting anybody; but it is NOT okay to "discriminate" against homosexual and bisexual deviants. They try to rationalize this absurd position by saying things like "Exhibitionists offend people." We point out that tens of millions of Americans and several billion people around the world are offended by homosexual activity, such as public homosexual kissing and hand-holding. We don't want to depress homosexuals and their supporters, but their position simply makes no sense. They ARE wrong. It is obvious to us and should be obvious to anyone NOT in denial about reality.

Incidentally, we don't mean to imply that all deviations from norms are bad. There are good ones. Being a genius and getting straight As in school is a good deviation, for example. However, it is easy to show that homosexual activity is one of the bad deviations, as we have explained already.

We should stress that we are NOT arguing that homosexual activity is a heinous crime, just as we would not say stealing a penny is a heinous crime. But just like legalizing the stealing of a penny is an absurd legal precedent (why not then legalize stealing two pennies? a nickel? a dollar? etc.), so legalizing homosexual deviations is an absurd legal precedent.

As to the question of whether homosexuals are born that way:

First of all, from the perspective of morality it is not a relevant question. Wrongful behavior, like stealing or bullying or whatever, is wrongful behavior, no matter if we have an inborn desire to steal or bully or engage in homosexual activity.

Second, no one has found a so-called "gay gene" yet. This fact was even noted in a 2008 article in the very pro-homosexual Psychology Today magazine. (From the article: "The best scientific surveys put the number of gays in the general population between 2 and 6 percent, with most estimates near the low end of that range---contrary to the 10 percent figure that is often reported in the popular media....[W]e know gayness is not entirely genetic....Studies suggest there is a genetic basis for homosexuality in only 50 percent of gay men. No one has yet identified a particular gay gene [emphasis ours]....There is no all-inclusive explanation for the variation in sexual orientation, at least none supported by actual evidence....[T]here are many different mechanisms, not a single one, for producing homosexuality."¹⁹)

Indeed, there is more evidence that homosexuals are born heterosexual than there is evidence that they are born homosexual. We'll talk about that shortly. Right now, the consensus of most experts is that sexual orientations are too complicated to be caused by genes only; they appear to result from a combination of biological and environmental factors. (And if homosexual genes ever really existed in humans in the past, it seems logical to conclude that they would have died out a long time ago since homosexuals tend to NOT reproduce.)

Third, we do know that many homosexuals were sexually abused when young.²⁰ (Homosexuals do not want you to know that fact because people who were sexually abused often go on to sexually abuse others. Homosexuals do not want you to know that they are more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexuals are.²¹) We also know that many homosexuals came out of dysfunctional families. (Many homosexuals understandably have psychological problems because of their troubled pasts.)

As to whether or not homosexuality itself is a mental disorder, from the perspective of morality it is not a relevant question. For example, rape and murder are immoral and intolerable whether or not the perpetrators have mental problems. So, we'll leave that question to the psychiatrists and psychologists. (We would urge, however, that psychiatrists and psychologists look into the probability, based on testimony provided by homosexuals themselves, that many homosexuals are heterophobic. For example, the homosexual author Dennis Altman admitted that many homosexuals are afraid to let themselves feel close to members of the opposite sex. His exact words: "Undoubtedly for many homosexuals there is something threatening in the idea of intimacy with the other sex."²² And well-known homosexual, David Geffen, has acknowledged that he "was afraid of the opposite sex,"²³ according to biographer Tom King, a fellow homosexual. It looks like those homosexuals who are fond of labeling certain people "homophobes" are just projecting a variation of their own phobia onto others. Also, just like a male mind in a female body or female mind in a male body is a sure sign of a disorder, so it seems eminently logical to conclude that a homosexual mind in a heterosexual body is a disorder.)

While leaving the question of whether homosexuality is a mental disorder or not to psychiatrists and psychologists, let us consider this though: Taking into account all the solid scientific evidence that homosexuals are mentally disturbed to one degree or another because of sexual abuse or dysfunctional parents or whatever, we can say that there is solid scientific evidence that homosexuality should not have been removed from the officially approved list of mental disorders. (Indeed, Dr. Ronald Bayer, a pro-homosexual psychiatrist, has written a book titled Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis which explains how the decision to remove it was based on power politics and intimidation by homosexual groups NOT science.) The psychiatrists and psychologists who voted to remove it seem to be incompetent malpractitioners more interested in being politically correct than in the truth. Malpractitioning doctors should have their licenses to ply their professions revoked.

(Having just discussed heterophobia, this would be a good spot to comment on the use of the term "homophobic" by those who love to call people like yours truly pejorative and inflammatory names. Homophobia doesn't really exist. Are people who are morally opposed to theft or rape or whatever, theftphobes, or rapephobes, or whateverphobes? Obviously not. Principled opposition to homosexual activity is clearly not a phobia, is clearly not a pathological fear. People who label others "homophobic" are just revealing their ignorance and naivety.)

Then there is the matter of legislators including "sexual orientation" in their anti-discrimination laws. Is that justified? Why just single out sexual orientations for protection while ignoring or discriminating against all the many other orientations out there? Isn't that wrong, unfair?

Moreover, pedophilia is a sexual orientation. Do we really want to protect people who have sex with little kids? Zoophilia is a sexual orientation. Do we really want to protect people who copulate with animals? Necrophilia is another sexual orientation. But you get the picture.

And besides all that, nobody is penalized because of their sexual orientation anyway. A person's sexual orientation is in his/her mind. We can't see it like we can see a person's race or age. Even if you ask a person what their sexual orientation is and the person answers you, you still don't know it because the person could be lying.

What people are penalized for is not sexual orientation but behavior, like limp wrists and lisping and cross-dressing in men or overt homosexual behavior. Since it is behavior people are penalized for and not sexual orientation, it makes no sense to add sexual orientation to our anti-discrimination laws.

So, should we add sexual behavior instead of sexual orientation to our anti-discrimination laws? That doesn't make any sense either, because it is unfair to single out sexual behaviors for protection in those laws and ignore all the other behaviors out there. In our anti-discrimination laws we protect passive states of being, like one's race or age or maleness or femaleness, and we protect beliefs like religious beliefs; but we don't explicitly protect behaviors. It's up to other laws to protect behaviors.

(And having mentioned "race" in the preceding paragraph---homosexuals love to compare their status with the status of racial minorities like black people. The comparison is absurd. Many blacks and other racial minority members are understandably offended when they are compared to people who voluntarily engage in sexually aberrant activity.)

So, again, neither sexual orientation nor sexual behavior should be added to anti-discrimination laws and policies.

To give you an idea of where some liberals really want to take this country, some college campuses (like Cornell University and New York University) are actually using textbooks that openly promote the acceptance of pedophilia. A couple of examples of those textbooks are a book titled Child-Loving and another titled Out of the Closets. Sex between adults and children is no longer taboo to some confused liberal "intellectuals."

In addition, the radically liberal American Civil Liberties Union, in its Policy Manual #4, has taken the position that the distribution and sale of child pornography should be legal.

Also, the radically liberal American Library Association has a website which takes a nonjudgmental stance towards humans having sex with animals. And a Princeton University professor, one Peter Singer, has explicitly defended consenting human-animal sex.

It's almost like some liberals want to take us back thousands of years to decadent Rome and Greece. Let's progress not regress. Let's act less like animals and more like thinking human beings.

On another matter, those who mislead young sexually confused people into thinking homosexual activity is okay are just instilling a false hope. They are doing a disservice to everyone and heartlessly setting young homosexuals up for a big fall. When young homosexuals debate conservative intellectuals and find out they cannot justify homosexual activity, when young homosexuals find out all their arguments are flawed, they can become seriously depressed. We should not be instilling the false hope---we should not be fooling young people into thinking---that homosexual activity is okay.

Another point needs to be made. Groups like Exodus International (whose main goal is to try to help homosexuals, who don't want to be homosexual, become functionally heterosexual) are constantly being contacted for help by people unhappy with their homosexual orientations.

In order to give these suffering people a way out of their unwanted homosexual orientations, in order to give them a choice, this country should begin to spend serious money researching effective therapies for these people.

A way out of homosexuality potentially or actually exists, whether it's a genetic way out and/or a psychotherapeutic one. A humane society will not force people to be homosexual (or bisexual or transsexual, etc.). A humane society will find a way for everyone to choose to be happily and healthily heterosexual. Because it's the right thing to do. Those who oppose finding a way out of homosexuality just want to keep homosexuals trapped in orientations they may find distressing. Those who oppose finding that way out want to deny homosexuals a choice.

Can homosexuals change and become heterosexual? Many can and have (possibly because they were born heterosexual and are just becoming what they really are). As Dr. Reuben Fine, Director of the New York Center for Psychoanalytic Training, has written: "It is paradoxical that even though the politically active homosexual group[s] denies the possibility of change, all studies from Schrenck-Notzing on have found positive effects, virtually regardless of the kind of treatment used....If the [homosexual] patients were motivated, whatever procedure [i.e., treatment] is adopted, a large percentage will give up their homosexuality."²⁴

Modern psychology knows that people can be conditioned to be practically anything: loving or hateful, greedy or sharing, etc. Identical twins can grow up to be very different people, with one even being heterosexual and the other homosexual. Homosexuals can be changed with therapy if they want to be changed, if they are motivated. They are not trapped in their homosexuality any more than identical twins are trapped in their sexuality by their genes.

An organization acronymed NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) actually specializes in what it calls reparative therapy for homosexuals. It can refer people to psychiatrists around the country who have been trained to practice such therapy. (A list of pro-family organizations that minister to homosexuals is available. The groups on this list all have websites.) Homosexuals should not be afraid of change, should not be afraid of becoming heterosexual.

Before concluding, one last point needs to be made. Homosexuals have done much damage to this country. For example, thousands of innocent hemophiliacs died of AIDS in years past because HIV-positive homosexuals infected the blood supply. (In 1984 "the Centers for Disease Control found 74 percent of hemophiliacs who received blood factors made from the plasma of U.S. donors were HIV positive."²⁵) And for another example, we are spending millions and millions of taxpayer dollars on anti-AIDS drugs for homosexuals who voluntarily engaged in unsafe sex. Because of these outrages homosexuals collectively owe America an apology and reparations for the damages. They should also apologize for setting bad examples for our children.

To conclude: based on all the aforegoing, we can see that it would be very wrong to allow homosexuals (and bisexuals) to impose their values on us. It would be wrong to allow them to dictate to us what we will and will not tolerate. There just is no sufficient rationale for society to condone homosexual activity or homosexual "marriage," etc. Thinking people can accept that truth. Irrational, arbitrary, excessively emotional people may not be able to, unfortunately. And with all the genuinely serious problems in the world that need our attention, don't homosexuals and their supporters have anything better to do with their time than struggle to legalize immoral sexual activity? They should get a life.

1. Council on Scientific Affairs, "Health care needs of gay men and lesbians in the United States," Journal of the American Medical Association, May 1, 1996, p. 1355. Because the homosexual anal cancer rate is so much higher than the heterosexual anal cancer rate, and because the difference is associated with the frequency of anal sex, we find many homosexuals and their supporters try to flat-out deny the inconvenient truth. Since this is a significant fact which reflects negatively on the physiologically unnatural homosexual lifestyle, we are going to provide ample documentation to prove our point. The following medical journal articles, in no particular order, also refer to the abnormally high homosexual anal cancer rate (we don't mean to imply these are the only ones that do---we're sure there are other such articles since that rate is very well-documented): M. Frisch, "On the etiology of anal squamous carcinoma," Dan Med Bull, Aug. 2002, 49(3), pp. 194-209; M. Frisch and others, "Cancer in a population-based cohort of men and women in registered homosexual partnerships," Am J Epidemiol, June 1, 2003, 157(11), pp. 966-72; D. Knight, "Health care screening for men who have sex with men," Am Fam Physician, May 1, 2004, 69(9), pp. 2149-56; S. Goldstone, "Anal dysplasia in men who have sex with men," AIDS Read, May-June 1999, 9(3), pp. 204-8 and 220; Reinhard Hopfl and others, "High prevalence of high risk human papillomavirus-capsid antibodies in human immunodeficiency virus-seropositive men: a serological study," BMC Infect Dis, April 30, 2003, 3(1), p. 6; R.J. Biggar and M. Melbye, "Marital status in relation to Kaposi's sarcoma, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, and anal cancer in the pre-AIDS era," J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol, Feb. 1, 1996, 11(2), pp. 178-82; P.V. Chin-Hong and others, "Age-related prevalence of anal cancer precursors in homosexual men: the EXPLORE study," J Natl Cancer Inst, June 15, 2005, 97(12), pp. 896-905; R. Dunleavey, "The role of viruses and sexual transmission in anal cancer," Nurs Times, March 1-7, 2005, 101(9), pp. 38-41; P.V. Chin-Hong and others, "Age-Specific prevalence of anal human papillomavirus infection in HIV-negative sexually active men who have sex with men: the EXPLORE study," J Infect Dis, Dec. 15, 2004, 190(12), pp. 2070-6; J.R. Daling and others, "Human papillomavirus, smoking, and sexual practices in the etiology of anal cancer," Cancer, July 15, 2004, 101(2), pp. 270-80; and A. Kreuter and others, "Screening and therapy of anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) and anal carcinoma in patients with HIV-infection," Dtsch Med Wochenschr, Sept. 19, 2003, 128(38), pp. 1957-62.

2. M. Frisch and others, "Sexually transmitted infection as a cause of anal cancer," N Engl J Med, Nov. 6, 1997, p. 1350.

3. S.D. Wexner, "Sexually transmitted diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus. The challenge of the nineties," Dis Colon Rectum (EAB), Dec. 1990, from the abstract, p. 1048. For further reading: J.F. Beltrami and others, "Trends in infectious diseases and the male to female ratio: possible clues to changes in behavior among men who have sex with men," AIDS Educ Prev, Dec. 2005, 17(6 Suppl. B), pp. 49-56; (No authors listed) "Latest STD data in United States continues to portend problems with prevention, HIV. Other research notes high STDs among HIV-infected women," AIDS Alert, Dec. 2005, 20(12), pp. 133-6; H.M. Truong and others, "Increases in sexually transmitted infections and sexual risk behaviors without a concurrent increase in HIV incidence among men who have sex with men in San Francisco: a suggestion of HIV serosorting," Sex Transm Infect, Dec. 2006, 82(6), pp. 461-6; R.E. Baughn and D.M. Musher, "Secondary syphilitic lesions," Clin Microbiol Rev, Jan. 2005, 18(1), pp. 205-16.

4. J. Christopherson and others, "Sexually transmitted diseases in hetero-, homo- and bisexual males in Copenhagen," Dan Med Bull, June 1988, from the abstract, p. 285.

5. N.D. Carr and others, "Noncondylomatous, perianal disease in homosexual men," Br J Surg, Oct. 1989, from the abstract, p. 1064.

6. D. van Baarle and others, "High prevalence of Epstein-Barr virus type 2 among homosexual men is caused by sexual transmission," J Infect Dis, June 2000, from the abstract, p. 2045.

7. K.S. Lim and others, "Role of sexual and non-sexual practices in the transmission of hepatitis B," Br J Vener Dis, June 1977, from the abstract, p. 190.

8. J.S. Mandel and L.M. Schumann, "Sexual factors and prostate cancer: results from a case-controlled study," J Gerontol, May 1987, from the abstract, p. 259.

9. Council on Scientific Affairs, op cit, p. 1356.

10. Sheryl Gay Stolberg, "Gay Culture Weighs Sense and Sexuality," New York Times (late edition, east coast), Nov. 23, 1997, section 4, p. 1.

11. Jim Ritter, "Breast cancer risk higher in lesbians," Chicago Sun-Times, Oct. 16, 1998, p. 50. Another reference for further reading: S.L. Dibble and others, "Comparing breast cancer risk between lesbians and their heterosexual sisters," Women's Health Issues, March-April 2004, 14(2), pp. 60-8.

12. Council on Scientific Affairs, op cit, p. 1355.

13. C.J. Skinner and others, "A case-controlled study of the sexual health needs of lesbians," Genitourin Med, Aug. 1996, from the abstract, p. 227.

14. A. Edwards and R.N. Thin, "Sexually transmitted diseases in lesbians," Int J STD AIDS, May 1990, from the abstract, p. 178.

15. J.M. Marrazzo and others, "Genital human papillomavirus infection in women who have sex with women," J Infect Dis, Dec. 1998, from the abstract, p. 1604.

16. Josh Fischman, "Sticking It To Cancer," U.S. News & World Report, Apr. 3, 2006, p. 58.

17. Larry Kramer, "Gay Culture, Redefined," New York Times, Dec. 12, 1997, p. A35.

18. Associated Press, "San Francisco's HIV rise worries officials," Chicago Tribune, July 1, 2000, sec. 1, p. 2.

19. Robert Kunzig, "Finding the Switch," Psychology Today, May/June 2008, pages 90 and 93.

20. William C. Holmes and Gail B. Slap, "Sexual Abuse of Boys," Journal of the American Medical Association, Dec. 2, 1998, p. 1855; Teen Prostitution by Joan J. Johnson (NY & Chicago: Franklin Watts, 1992), p. 53; Female Perversions by Dr. Louise J. Kaplan (NY: Doubleday, 1991), p. 437; Invisible Lives by Martha Barron Barrett (NY: William Morrow and Co., 1989), p. 140; Incest and Sexuality by therapists Wendy Maltz and Beverly Holman (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1987), p. 72; The Secret Trauma by Prof. Diane E.H. Russell (NY: Basic Books, Inc., 1986), p. 199; Incest, a family pattern by Jean Renvoize (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1982), p. 127; and Helen Wilson & Cathy Widom, "Does Physical Abuse, Sexual Abuse, or Neglect in Childhood Increase the Likelihood of Same-sex Sexual Relationships and Cohabitation? A Prospective 30-year Follow-up," Archives of Sexual Behavior, January 7, 2009.

21. Support for the position that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to sexually abuse children can be found in the following sources:

Ray Blanchard, et al., "Fraternal Birth Order and Sexual Orientation in Pedophiles," Archives of Sexual Behavior 29 (2000), p. 464.

John M.W. Bradford, et al., "The Heterogeneity/Homogeneity of Pedophilia," Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa 13 (1988), p. 218.

Michelle Elliott, "Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: What Offenders Tell Us," Child Abuse and Neglect 19 (1995), p. 581.

Kurt Freund, et al., "Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference, " Journal of Sex Research 26 (1989), pp. 107-17. This is an odd article in that it actually states (in a bow to political correctness?) that there is no correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia but provides clear statistics that indicate there is such a correlation.

Zebulon A. Silverthorne and Vernon L. Quinsey, "Sexual Partner Age Preferences of Homosexual and Heterosexual Men and Women," Archives of Sexual Behavior 29 (2000), pp. 67-76.

Robin D. Stone, No Secrets, No Lies (NY: Broadway Books, 2004), p. 153.

22. Dennis Altman, The Homosexualization of America, the Americanization of the Homosexual (NY: St. Martin's Press, 1982), p. 222.

23. Tom King, "I am in love with Cher," Chicago Sun-Times, March 15, 2000, p. 50.

24. Louis Diamant (editor), Male and Female Homosexuality: Psychological Approaches (Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corp., 1987), pp. 84-6.

25. Monifa Thomas, "Baxter, other drug firms hit with AIDS-related lawsuit," Chicago Sun-Times, April 25, 2005, p. 65.