The Scientific Case against Homosexual "Marriage".

Brian Clowes
The Wanderer, May 29, 2014, page 6A [part 1],
June 5, 2014, page 6A [part 2],
June 12, 2014, page 6A [part 3],
and June 19, 2014 [part 4].
Reproduced with Permission


The debate over homosexual "marriage" is radically different from the discussions surrounding abortion, pornography and euthanasia. To begin with, the arguments regarding same-sex "marriage" appear at first to be very ill-defined. This means that most people do not know how to research the issue and quietly go along with the pro-gay slogans repeated endlessly by the media.

Another reason the discussion over homosexual "marriage" does not generate as much passion as the other issues is because "marriage" between two men or two women does not at first appear to have any obvious victims - unlike abortion, pornography and euthanasia.

The problem for defenders of marriage is that the dire impacts of homosexual unions will not become evident for years or possibly even decades. These include the corrosion of more basic rights such as free speech and freedom to associate, injury to children, further degradation of the family and decreased life expectancy. Eventually, homosexual "marriage" will be an integral part of the social and legal landscape and will be very difficult to fight.

Additionally, most people have become convinced by the constant drumbeat of propaganda that, if they oppose same-sex "marriage," they are bigots and haters. Why should anyone stand in the way of two people who just want to be happy? Are the glossy, mass-produced picket signs true? Isn't love - of any kind - just love ?

"Bigots" are people who possess unshakable prejudices that have no basis in fact. This means that people who oppose gay "marriage" without being able to explain why are, by definition , bigots. So let us shake off our bigotry - not by blindly accepting everything the gay Napoleons try to shove down our throats, but by educating ourselves as to why ersatz "marriage" between two men or two women is a very bad idea.

The Fundamental Principle.

First of all, why is homosexual "marriage" is a bad idea? Why should we care if two men or two women who love each other get "married?" Who does it hurt?

We must begin by recognizing that the two sides in this discussion are asking completely different questions and are approaching it from two completely different angles.

Proponents of homosexual "marriage" present a purely emotional appeal. They make vague assertions that are difficult to refute, such as "It's unfair to deny marriage to two people who love each other." By contrast, those who oppose "marriage" between people of the same sex employ logic and science, and ask questions like "Is it good for society?" and "What impact does it have on children?"

The discussion over homosexual "marriage" is an intensely practical matter, because history shows us that every society that disregards marriage or dilutes its meaning will eventually fall apart. Many nations are far into this process today; for example, Japan and the Russian Federation will lose more than half of their populations long before the end of this century. 1

We must also care about our children. Every reputable study ever done has proven that a child grows up best with a mother and a father. Not just a mother. Not just a father. Not two or three fathers or two or three mothers. A father and a mother.

Homosexual "marriage" is just the latest step in the discarding of the true meaning of marriage. During the "Sexual Revolution" of the 1960s, we demanded contraception so that we could have sex without children. Although we did not realize it at the time, this was actually the most important step of all in the push for homosexual "marriage." After all, once the idea of marriage existing for the sake of procreating and nurturing children was dismissed, there was no reason at all to keep it limited to one man and one woman. It becomes an empty vessel, useful only for sex and pleasure and monetary benefits. Birth control led to an explosion of "recreational sex" outside of marriage, which naturally led to most people having a number of sexual partners before getting married. People inevitably carried this lax attitude about sex into their marriages as well, and, since adultery proliferated, they demanded free and easy "no-fault" divorce.

Now some elements of the media and well-funded interest groups are demanding that polygamy, "polyamory," incest, child sexual molestation and even bestiality be legalized.

Same-sex "marriage" will not cause the disintegration of the institution of marriage; it is the result of it.

There is No Such Thing as "Traditional Marriage."

What we have today is a conflict between two rival concepts of marriage. There is "natural" marriage, which is defined by two qualities. The first is its unitive quality, which means that the husband and the wife promise to be faithful to each other to the exclusion of all others unto death. The second is its procreative nature, which means that the husband and the wife leave their marital bond open to the possibility of new life at all times.

Then there is the revisionist view, which defines it as a loving emotional bond between partners "as long as love lasts."

As one advocate of "new" marriage wrote, "The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less 'correct' than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. ... So let's fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States - and then let's keep fighting. We're not done yet." 2

"New" marriage advocates see it as nothing more than a vehicle for adult happiness, fulfillment and enjoyment. When people believe this, divorce becomes inevitable when happiness or "love" fades. Commitment until parted by death has devolved into commitment until it is no longer fun.

Therefore, "new" marriage lacks both the unitive and procreative aspects, rendering it absolutely meaningless. It is not marriage at all.

Whatever similarities natural and "new" marriage might share are purely cosmetic, while their differences are vast. While natural marriage is an outward-looking and objective institution, "new" marriage is inward-looking and subjective. While natural marriage is based upon a permanent vow and is oriented primarily towards the founding of a family for the good of society, "new" marriage is based upon a temporary contract between two people who are "in love," however they define it; it is oriented towards companionship and the enjoyment of the couple, with no regard for the welfare of the society or of children.

Or, to put it another way, natural marriage is founded upon certain solid and objective facts: The fact of the biological and psychological complementarily of the sexes; the fact of a solemn public vow made before God which is deemed to be actually binding for life, and not a mere ceremony; the fact that sexual union between members of the opposite sex leads naturally to children; the fact that children do best with both a mother and a father; and the fact that healthy, stable families are the necessary foundation of a healthy, stable society.

By contrast, "new" marriage is founded primarily on a subjective state: The feeling of being in love. So "new" marriage, based upon rubbery and flexible concepts, can be molded into anything one wants it to be.

There is no such thing as "traditional" marriage. To use this term is to accept the possibility that there might be other , "non-traditional" types of marriage, such as between two men, two women, or one man and several women. If there is "traditional" architecture, there must be non-traditional architecture. If there is a "traditional" style of art, then there must be "non-traditional" styles of art.

If you must use an adjective to clarify yourself, you could call a union between a man and a woman a "natural marriage" and a union between two people of the same sex a homosexual union or "marriage" (with quotes, to denote a fake, a counterfeit, a third-rate, tin-plated, half-baked, pale imitation of the real thing).

Perhaps the cruelest irony of all is that people who embrace natural marriage are almost always much happier than those who support "new" forms of "marriage." We realize that, if we are to be happy, we must adjust our behavior to fit the unchanging and unyielding laws of nature. Homophiles make the tragic error of thinking they can adjust the laws of nature to fit their behavior and their endless wants. The result is inevitable: A head-on collision with the brick wall of reality, which only results in heartache and unhappiness. This is a hard way to learn the inflexible rule that God always forgives, Man sometimes forgives, but Nature never forgives.

So - What do We Do Now?

Homosexual activists complain that people think they have an agenda. As homophile activist Frank Brown said, "I want to go to my job. I want to have a home. I want to save my money. And I want to go on vacation. What kind of "hidden agenda" are they talking about"? 3

Other homophiles are more truthful. Paula Ettelbrick, former Legal Director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, said that "Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and transforming the very fabric of society." 4

Homosexuals don't want the "white picket fence." They want to burn down the white picket fence and the house behind it! Lesbian journalist Masha Gessen said that "It's a no-brainer that we should have the right to marry. But I also think equally that it's a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there - because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. … 'Marriage equality' becomes 'marriage elasticity,' with the ultimate goal of 'marriage extinction.'" 5

Already in many Western nations, homosexuals enjoy adoption and "marriage" rights. In these nations, there have been hundreds of incidents of people being fired from their jobs, physically attacked, prevented from speaking and being coerced into acting against their wills by homosexual activists.

This is the agenda. This is what they want for you: To sideline you, to push you into a kind of closet, to make you the new perverts, the new queers, the new faggots.

This is the agenda, not marriage. And if you do nothing to try to stop it, if you do not lift your hands and voices to stop it, your children and your grandchildren will have to live with it and suffer because of it.

All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men and women to do nothing.

But we can all do something . And, make no mistake, we all must do something or we will lose this fight.

Some fight homosexual "marriage" in the courts and some fight it in the streets. We have writers and speakers and artists. We have people who can debate the issues because that is their calling. Only a small percentage of people take on such high-profile tasks. The rest of us can contribute to the battle by educating those we know, and this is the most important work of all.

If we can reawaken people to the true purpose of marriage, if we can resist the efforts to mold marriage into a convenient vehicle for social revolution, if we can band together to ignite a true marriage renaissance , we will win.

The impacts of accepting the homosexual agenda are evil - not from a religious point of view, but from a scientific point of view. It hurts men. It hurts women. It hurts children. It hurts society. It hurts all of us.

Homosexuality corrupts and weakens the law because it protects and enshrines unhealthy sexual behavior and weakens more basic and fundamental freedoms. Homosexuality corrupts and weakens youth by telling them that they can practice any kind of sexual behavior they want. Homosexuality corrupts and weakens the family because it degrades natural marriage. Above all, homosexuality corrupts and weakens religion by attacking it and trying to push it out of public life.

We Christians have been too "nice," and this is why we are losing the battle. We have believed the many tragic stories of gay victimization, only to find out that most of them are lies. We have watched as those braver than ourselves have been punished and ridiculed. We have been nice - and quiet - for much too long. We must be sympathetic and caring and polite, but the time for "niceness" is over. The Left considers us "nice" if we stay in our homes and our churches and just shut up. Are we willing to watch our families and our nation be destroyed just so certain people, perhaps even within our own families, will think we are "nice?"

Not only must we take action, we must also know the topic. It is not necessary to debate against homosexual "marriage" in religious terms. In fact, doing so is often worse than useless in a so-called "secular society," because many people will simply dismiss what we have to say if we approach them from a purely religious point of view. Fortunately, it is not necessary to use a religious approach, since the Christian view on this topic, as with all of the moral issues, is strongly supported by science. It must be so, since the God Who created is the God Who reveals. Once we know the topic, we must speak out confidently against homosexual "marriage" to friends, family, co-workers, and people we attend church with. Educate them like you educated yourself, and urge them to get involved if you think that they might be interested. Above all, do not be intimidated. Some people will call you "hateful," "bigoted" and worse. This is just a knee-jerk reaction by non-thinkers and those too ignorant or fearful to discuss the issues with you. Hold your ground, look them right in the eye, speak the truth, and they will wither away.

Take action, learn the topic, and finally, get organized! You are much more powerful working together than working separately. One person speaking out can be ignored; five working together may be ridiculed but cannot be ignored; fifty or one hundred working together will be denounced but not ridiculed; but hundreds working and speaking together are so powerful that they will have to be taken seriously.

As Mahatma Gandhi once said, "First they ignore us; then they laugh at us; then they fight us; and then we win."

The Nine Myths about Homosexual "'Marriage"

Homophile groups and the media peddle nine myths in their attempts to make homosexual "marriage" appear to be benign and harmless. We must be familiar with these myths and how to debunk them if we are going to convince the people we know that it is harmful and must be discouraged.

Myth #1: "How Does My Gay Marriage Hurt You?"

The most popular myth is the one we often see on picket signs: "How does my same-sex marriage hurt your opposite-sex marriage?" Not surprisingly, these signs completely miss the point. The real issue is not how any one couple's marriage would affect any other specific couple's marriage. The issue is how approving of an entire new class of "marriage" would change the social institution of natural marriage as we now understand it.

Marriage, as part of its historical meaning, bestows full moral legitimacy upon a sexual relationship. To admit that homosexual "marriage" is possible is to give society's final "stamp of approval" to both homosexuality and homosexual activity.

Homosexual "marriage does not just hurt natural marriage. If it is accepted, natural marriage will simply cease to exist as a public policy. How can it be otherwise, when sex and gender roles are meaningless?

To make a parallel case - How does it hurt you if I print my own $20 bills? Well, it won't hurt you at first, but if more and more people begin to print their own $20 bills, the less all $20 bills are worth, including the real ones issued by the government. If enough people print enough of their own money, eventually all of the $20 bills (and all of the other currency) become worthless.

Homosexual "marriage", like all counterfeits, cheapens and degrades the real thing.

As with counterfeiting, the damage to natural marriage is cumulative and not immediately apparent. The more varieties of counterfeit there are, the more the real thing gets lost in the variety. In the end, there are no examples of a society that has failed to regulate marriage as between a man and a woman that has survived. 6

There is also the damage done to more basic human rights. Canada legalized homosexual "marriage" in 2005 and, since then, there have been more than 300 prosecutions of same-sex marriage opponents. You cannot refuse to do business with homosexuals in Canada or even refuse to marry them if you are a clergyman. You cannot even teach what your church believes about homosexuality. When the Catholic bishop of Calgary simply wrote a letter explaining traditional Catholic teaching on marriage, he was charged with a human-rights violation.

In the United States, the Boy Scouts have been pushed out of United Way chapters and denied corporate funding. Mayors of major cities have told Chick-Fil-A that the fast-food chain is evil because its founder believes that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. The Family Research Council narrowly avoided a mass murder by a shooter who cited as his motive the Southern Poverty Law Center s (SPLC) designation of FRC as a  hate group - simply because it opposes homosexual "marriage."

Once a government legalizes same-sex "marriage," the legal system recognizes no legitimate reasons to oppose it and, in fact, the justice system simply assumes that any such opposition results from a hatred of homosexuals or simple bigotry, as we have seen in several recent federal court decisions.

When people ask us "How does gay 'marriage' hurt others?," we can show that homosexuals are trying to force us to not only tolerate and accept gay "marriage," but to condone and support it as well, under threat of punishment if we do not comply. The homophiles simply do not recognize the principle of freedom of conscience. They care absolutely nothing about the rights of others.

When we give homosexual sex equal or preferred treatment under the law, it crowds out Christian morality and punishes it. We have seen this in every nation where the two percent are considered a special group with special rights, and which can impose its lack of morality on the 98 percent.

Quite simply, religious freedom and homosexual "marriage" cannot co-exist.

Myth #2: "Heterosexual Marriage is a Mess, so Gay "Marriage" is OK."

Homosexual activists claim that others should not criticize the concept of homosexual "marriage" because so many heterosexual marriages fail. If some celebrity or self-described "pro-family" politician has been married several times and has been caught cheating on their current spouse, sure, they would be hypocritical if they condemned homosexual "marriage."

The homophiles are trying to pull off an old trick here; they look at people who have no real commitment to marriage, people who have been married several times, people who do not have room in their hearts for children, people who have been caught cheating on each other repeatedly, and say that they can do better than that .

This is ridiculous. In order to get a more accurate comparison, homophiles should instead compare themselves to people who take marriage seriously. But they do not do this, of course, because they know they would always come out looking second best.

The Sacrament of Matrimony is just fine; it is people's commitment to it that is weak. This is partly the fault of the culture, which began promoting promiscuous sex through the entertainment media, enabled this irresponsible sexual behavior with contraception, then legalized "no-fault" divorce and abortion. Sixty percent of couples who get married live together before the wedding, and half of all marriages end in divorce. More than 40 percent of all children are born outside of marriage and 35 percent of children live in single-parent families. 7

The churches also deserve a large share of the blame, since few pastors have the courage to speak out against evils such as contraception, divorce or even abortion.

But most of all, we the people must be blamed because not enough of us stood up and fought these evils.

These days, about half of people, instead of introducing their husband or wife, will refer to their "life partner," "significant other," "baby daddy," "friend with benefits," "friend for the night," "love buddy," or a galaxy of other terms referring to a second-rate, third-class relationship that can be abandoned on a whim.

Diluting the meaning of marriage is not going to make the situation any better.

To use an analogy, the homophiles say that we "heteros" possess a car that has four flat tires, its engine is a solid block of rust, and every piece of sheet metal is dented and filthy. So, they say, we should smash all the windows.

How is that going to help the car get back on the road?

It is ridiculous to consider marriage as it is practiced by many, with its contraception, cheating, divorce and pornography. We must look at marriage as it should be practiced, with a husband and wife who are fruitful and faithful to each other. This is the ideal, and we must compare homosexual "marriage" to this, not to the marriage of some Hollywood tabloid star who gets famous by making a sex tape, sleeps with dozens of different men and then gets divorced after a "marriage" of just a few days.

Myth #3: "Children Do Just as Well with Gay Couples as with Heterosexuals."

It is interesting that, when homosexuals talk about adopting children, they invariably refer to their needs, their wants, and their "right" to adopt children, and not about the rights or the welfare of the children themselves. When adults treat children like mere accessories in this way, the children always suffer.

As usual, the homophiles have it exactly backwards. To have children is not a "right;" it is the right of children to have a mother and a father. The rights of children always trump the "right" to children.

There have been over a hundred studies performed on the effects of homosexual parenting on their adopted children. Some of them have found that homosexual parenting is bad for children, and some have found that it is beneficial. However, every single study showing that homosexual parenting is good for children was sloppily done, ignored basic scientific principles, or was done by the homosexuals themselves. For example, the 2011 National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study was prominently featured in the media, which neglected to mention its extreme "volunteer bias," consisting of recruiting lesbians from "lesbian events, in women's bookstores, and in lesbian newspapers in Boston, Washington, and San Francisco."

The only studies that have been performed to rigorous scientific standards by impartial researchers have shown that homosexual parenting is confusing and harmful to the psychology of children.

These studies simply confirm common sense.

The largest study done to date that has met all scientific standards is Mark Regnerus' New Family Structures Study (NFSS), which interviewed 15,000 adults aged 18-39 and asked dozens of questions about their lives, including whether their mother or father had ever been involved in a same-sex relationship. The NFSS found that children raised by same-sex couples were significantly worse off than those raised by a man and woman in a committed relationship. Those raised by homosexual parents said that they experienced significantly more depression, ill health, unemployment, infidelity, drug use, trouble with the law, sexual partners, sexual victimization, and unhappy childhood memories. 8

Children raised by lesbian couples were the worst off. Regnerus found that ten times as many children raised by lesbians were sexually assaulted (23% vs. 2% for natural marriages), and they even suffered much higher unemployment (69% vs. 17%). Most important of all, children in natural marriages were much happier than those raised by either male or female homosexuals.

Interestingly, the Regnerus study also debunked the popular homophile claim that children raised by homosexuals "are no more likely to be gay" than the children of heterosexuals. Regnerus found that children of lesbian mothers are nearly four times as likely to identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual, and children raised by homosexual men were nearly three times as likely to do so.

Since many more children of homosexual parents themselves identify as "gay," this means one of two things: (1) it shows that the "born that way" slogan is a lie, because the percentages should be the same as for children raised by heterosexuals, or (2) It shows that the children of homosexual parents are sexually confused by their upbringing, a definite strike against homosexual "marriage."

Immediately after it was released, the homophiles went into their usual automatic attack mode, condemning the Regnerus study as "anti-gay." They even accused Regnerus of ethical violations and scientific misconduct. Of course, they could provide no evidence or analysis whatsoever to back their allegations. The university launched an official inquiry into the charges and found them to be completely unsubstantiated. 9

In conclusion, every properly done study of the subject has shown that the best upbringing for children is by a married man and woman. Not a mother alone, not a father alone, not even a man and woman living together without marriage. Only when homosexual "marriage" started becoming an issue did shoddy studies start popping up "proving" that two men or two women were equal (or in some cases even better) than a married man and woman.

There is other compelling evidence that homosexual relationships are bad for children.

Homosexual relationships are generally much more violent than heterosexual ones, and feature much more drug use and alcoholism, depression and suicide. Exposing children to these influences is extremely harmful.

There are several primary common-sense reasons that children need both a mother and a father to raise them;

To see how illogical the idea of homosexual "marriage" is, just ask yourself this question: If your father had been replaced by a lesbian, would your upbringing have been any different? Did your father provide anything unique to you that your mother could not? What if your mother had been replaced by another man?

Only the ideologically blinded or fools would answer "No" to these questions.

Eleven-year-old Grace Evens testified against homosexual "marriage" before the Minnesota State legislature in March 2013. She asked "My mom is my role model on how to be a girl, and I love her very much. My dad is also very important to me because he protects me and takes care of me in a way my mom cannot. So, which parent do I not need? My mom or my dad?" 10

Not one of the legislators dared to answer her.

Finally, the "Prime Directive" of all adoption agencies has always been "Adoption exists for the benefit of the child, not for the couple who adopts him or her." However, homosexuals have not hesitated to use the law to shut down adoption agencies that recognized the danger of adopting out to them. One of the most prominent of these is Catholic Charities Boston.

This is just more evidence that the homophiles do not care at all about the welfare of children, but only about their political objective, which is to bully everyone into not just tolerating them but supporting them.

Myth #4: There is No "Slippery Slope."

The fourth myth surrounding the homosexual "marriage" debate is that it will not lead to a "slippery slope," ultimately terminating with the demise of marriage altogether.

When homophiles cannot answer an argument, they tend to resort to ridicule. Bill Maher sneered in his book New Rules that "Gay marriage won't lead to dog marriage. It is not a slippery slope to rampant inter-species coupling. When women got the right to vote, it didn't lead to hamsters voting. No court has extended the equal protection clause to salmon."

However, events show that homosexual "marriage" is just another step on the journey to even more bizarre practices. The media and well-organized special interest groups are already demanding that polygamy and polyamory be legalized. Waiting patiently for their turn are people who demand the legalization of incest, bestiality and "intergenerational love," which is the politically correct term for child sexual abuse.

We already see polygamists demanding the legalization of their lifestyles, backed up by huge feminist and civil liberties groups which include the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Organization for Women (NOW). 11 They in turn are supported by the corrupt media, which relentlessly praises and promotes polygamy. In 2009 alone, ABC News, BBC, Showtime and Newsweek Magazine featured long pieces praising polygamy and polyamory as "The Next Sexual Revolution."

One step further than polygamy is "polyamory" or "polyfidelity." One description of such a relationship is: "Sean has a wife. He also has a girlfriend. His girlfriend has another boyfriend. That boyfriend is dating (having sex with) Sean's wife." 12 Polyamorists reject the "myth" of monogamy. Their groups might consist of several men and several women, bisexuals, or male or female homosexuals, and people can enter or leave this formless liaison any time they want. Many scholars support polyamory as "a social revolution that would replace traditional marriage and family law." 13

Polyamorists use exactly the same slogans that the homophiles have made so popular. The Polyamory Action Lobby (PAL) Manifesto says that "Polyamory often isn't a choice; if people love more than one person, they can't help it." 14 The PAL's mottos are "Marriage for All" and "Love is Love." 15

Groups like the Polyamory Society, and Principle Voices admit that they see homosexual "marriage" as a stepping stone to their goals. After all, you can't get to a radical conclusion in one huge jump; you must take one small step at a time. This is what the strategy of incrementalism is all about.

In the United States and Europe, several pairs of siblings have argued that they have a right to be married and have children. 16 Once again, the mainstream press has treated these people as victims and has taken their side. The incestuous brothers and sisters also acknowledge that homosexual "marriage" is making their job a lot easier.

Then there is pedophilia, which has been supported by the homosexual movement for decades. The homophiles only stopped talking about it when they started getting serious publicity. The San Francisco homosexual newspaper The Sentinel said that "The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality. For the gay community to imply that boy-love is not homosexual love is ridiculous. … Child molesting does occur, but there are also positive sexual relations. And we need to support the men and the boys in those relationships." 17

More than a dozen major studies published in medical journals have found that the incidence of male child rape, or pederasty, among homosexual men is at least twenty times greater than among heterosexual men. 18

Academics are also now beginning to discuss pedophilia. A nationally-recognized 'sexologist' has predicted that NAMBLA and its fellow molesters may soon be demanding special civil rights, just as "mainline" homosexuals are doing today; he said that "Pedophilia may be a sexual orientation rather than a sexual deviation. This raised the question as to whether pedophiles may have rights." 19

Believe it or not, there is also a movement demanding that people be allowed to marry animals . They prefer the term "zoophile" instead of people who practice bestiality, a term that carries negative connotations. "Zoophile" Philip Buble says he is married to his dog, and asserts that "Zoophiles are born with a true love for animals and have a lifelong commitment to their care. Myself and my dog Lady live together as a married couple. In the eyes of God we are truly married. … If Maine passes an anti-bestiality law it will be a disservice to zoo couples and would keep zoo couples from coming out of the closet and drive us deeper underground. This helps no one and would force me out of state." 20

As you can see, "zoophiles" use exactly the same arguments that proponents of homosexual "marriage" use; they were born that way, they are being discriminated against, their opponents are "fanatics," they are victims, and true equality in marriage will never be achieved until they can marry their pets . 21

In summary, why are homophiles pushing so hard for homosexual "marriage?"

A number of them have revealed the true purpose of their activism. Paula Ettelbrick, the former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, wrote that "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society."

Does anyone recall being asked if we wanted the "very fabric of society" changed? The homophiles didn't ask us because they do not care about us; they care only for themselves and their social objectives. One group said that "The long-term goal of the London Gay Liberation Front, which inevitably brings us into fundamental conflict with the institutionalised sexism of this society, is to rid society of the gender-role system which is at the root of our oppression. This can only be achieved by the abolition of the family as the unit in which children are brought up."

So that is what it is all about. It is not about the rights of homosexuals to get "married;" it is about the eradication of marriage and the family themselves. Only then will the radical homosexuals feel free of the guilt that plagues them.

In conclusion, we have large, well-organized groups pushing for polygamy, polyamory, legalized incest and child sexual molestation, and even sex with various species of animals. Every single one of these groups has said that homosexual "marriage" is an important step towards achieving their goals.

The "slippery slope" is a reality. No amount of homophile denial or mockery will change that fact.

Myth #5: "Homosexuals Can Be Monogamous Too."

The next myth we often hear from homophiles is that "homosexuals can be monogamous too," which attempts to normalize homosexual "marriage." But the homophiles know that this claim is false; homosexuals themselves used to brag about their incredible promiscuity before they became more politically prudent.

A large study done in the Netherlands, a society that is very tolerant of homosexuals and homosexual "marriage," found that the average such "marriage" lasted only eighteen months. Even during these brief "marriages," homosexuals cheated on each other constantly, with an average of eight different sexual partners every year outside the "marriage." While 85 percent of married Dutch women and 75 percent of married Dutch men reported that they were faithful to their spouses, less than five percent of homosexual men reported that they were faithful to theirs. 22

Another study found that all homosexual relationships that had lasted more than five years had formally incorporated some provision for sexual activity with others. The authors stated that, among "married" homosexuals, "Fidelity is not defined in terms of sexual behavior but rather by their emotional commitment to each other." 23

A 1997 study published in the Journal of Sex Research found that the average number of sexual partners for older homosexual men ranged between one hundred and five hundred. And 10 to 15 percent of the men reported having had more than one thousand different sexual partners during their lifetimes.

In addition to being pathologically promiscuous, homosexual relationships are extremely violent. To give them the status of marriage is to indirectly approve of the violence that homosexuals inflict upon each other.

Homophile activists complain about an "epidemic of gay-bashing," but statistics show that the great majority of violence inflicted on homosexuals is perpetrated by other homosexuals . This plague has been recognized by the gay community itself for decades.

Homosexuals David Island and Patrick Letellier wrote a book entitled Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them , and said that gay domestic violence is a deadly health problem for homosexuals.

In 2011, the FBI documented 1,518 hate crimes against homosexuals in the United States. 24 By contrast, Island and Letellier wrote that "We believe as many as 650,000 gay men may be victims of domestic violence each year in the United States. ... domestic violence may affect and poison as many as 50 percent of gay male couples." 25

This means that homosexuals themselves are responsible for 99.7 percent of the violence committed against homosexuals.

Another study confirmed that homosexual relationships suffer far greater levels of violence than do married or cohabiting heterosexual couples. Just 0.05 percent of married men and 0.26 percent of married women have experienced violence at the hands of their spouses. But 11.4 percent of lesbians have suffered violence in their relationships, as have 15.4 percent of homosexual men. This means that lesbians suffer violence 44 times more often than married women, and homosexual men suffer violence 300 times more frequently than married men. 26

Because homosexuals typically live in households with a "revolving bedroom door," and because their rate of violence is so much higher than that of people in natural marriages, they are even more unsuitable for children.

Myth #6: "All Love is Equal."

Homophiles constantly appeal for sympathy, which leads to the next myth: "All love is equal. All we are asking for is equality and the elimination of unfair laws."

Liberals label everything they don't like as "unfair." Regarding homosexual "marriage," they think that if everyone else can get married and they can't, it is "unfair."

But the world is necessarily unfair in many ways, and much of this unfairness is beneficial to everyone. After all, is it "unfair" that some people cannot be airline pilots because their eyesight is bad? Is it "unfair" that some people with mental and physical illnesses can't be police officers? Is it "unfair" that people who want to drive when drunk should not be allowed to do so? Is it "unfair" that a short, uncoordinated person can't play on an Olympic basketball team?

Public policy should never be based on a vague feeling of "unfairness." It should be based upon a person's ability to fulfill the requirements of the position they want to hold or the activity they seek to perform. It should support the common good.

Homosexuals are not excluded from marriage any more than heterosexuals are - they simply have to marry a person of the opposite sex. It is obvious that, since true marriage must be both unitive and procreative, that homosexuals are simply not qualified to marry each other. This is biology, not bigotry. This is science, not theology. Denying homosexuals the right to marry is no more unfair than denying fathers the right to breastfeed their children.

They just aren't qualified .

Whenever there are standards, there will be "unfairness," because some people can't meet the standards. But to get rid of all standards does not eliminate this  unfairness - it just makes it unfair for everyone.

Homosexual  marriage and natural marriage are different behaviors with different outcomes, so the law should treat them differently. One behavior perpetuates and stabilizes society, and the other doesn't.

Sometimes we hear the homophiles say that "All love is equal."

This is just a nice-sounding but empty slogan, and it makes no sense at all.

Many people these days equate "love" with "lust." They say "But we LOVE each other!" Homosexuals relationships tend to be short and violent, and the "partners" cheat incessantly. This is not love, it is sexual addiction.

True love is durable. It is defined as wanting what is best for the other person; lust is wanting what I want, and getting it right now . Love is other -centered and lust is self -centered. So much of what's called "love" today has nothing to do with love and everything to do with unlimited, promiscuous sex.

The term "marriage equality" is also a clever fraud. It implies that anyone who opposes homosexual "marriage" is against both marriage and equality. Don't fall for this foolishness! We already have "marriage equality;" anyone can marry anyone else, except for a few impediments such as age, proximity of family relationship - or same sex.

If we deny a blind person a driver s license, it is because he is not qualified to drive. We are not discriminating. But if we deny a blind person the right to vote, we certainly are discriminating, because he is qualified to vote. By the same manner, we are not discriminating against two men or two women who want to get married. They are not qualified to marry, since they cannot have children together and thus fail to fulfill the procreative purpose of marriage.

One of the few apparently strong arguments for homosexual "marriage" is that if infertile heterosexual couples can marry, then the ability to have children cannot be essential to marriage. So homosexuals should also be allowed to marry. This argument only makes sense if there is no difference between the infertility of a heterosexual couple and the "infertility" of two homosexuals.

All homosexual relations are by their very nature sterile, while heterosexual relations can be sterile through genetic defect, accident or disease. In fact, we cannot even properly speak of the "infertility" of two homosexuals, because they cannot be fertile under any circumstances. The word "fertility" only has meaning if it describes a relative condition or quality. So we do not speak of the "infertility" of rocks or footballs. And, of course, we never speak of the "infertility" of homosexual couples.

In short, in one case an individual may be sterile due to no fault of his or her own; in the other case the type of relationship itself is always sterile.

Myth #7: "If You Oppose Us, You Hate Us."

Homophile propagandist Dan Savage likes to say that "Loving Jesus means hating gay people." 27  This is simplistic nonsense and is easy to refute.

Let's be clear about what this issue is and is not about. It is not about whether people with same-sex attraction are equal citizens who deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. All human beings should be treated with equal dignity and respect. But while all people are equal, all ideas and behaviors are not. People have rights; ideas and behavior do not have rights.

People who say that those who oppose homosexual "marriage" are hateful have one purpose, and one purpose only - to shut down debate and discussion. If people think that they cannot oppose homosexual  marriage without being verbally attacked, they will be afraid to speak or even think against it.

The homophiles not only know this, they are counting on it!

Anyone who attacks those who oppose homosexual "marriage" is either ignorant of the issues, or is simply the kind of person who has no respect for those who disagree with him. Simply accusing others of "hate" is an easy way to avoid having to defend the indefensible.

There are many examples of this. Rock musician and writer Henry Rollins said "Don't hide behind the Constitution or the Bible. If you're against gay marriage, just be honest, put a scarlet 'H' on your shirt and say 'I am a homophobe'!" 28  And in answer to a question asking what arguments against same-sex "marriage" he found compelling, New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo said "None. There is no answer from the opposition. There really isn't. Ultimately, it's 'I want to discriminate.' And that's anti-New York. It's anti-American." 29

Then, of course, there are Judy and Dennis Shepard, the parents of homosexual Matthew Shepard, who was murdered in Wyoming in 1998. Speaking of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), they said that "Anyone that believes that the hatred behind this amendment is any different than the hatred that was the cause of our son's murder is fooling themselves and doesn't understand what is happening every day in our society." 30  In other words, the Shepards are equating support of natural marriage with murder!

The Southern Poverty Law Center is an $80 million-a-year extreme left organization that lists every organization that opposes homosexual "marriage" as a "hate group." This Web site caused Floyd Corkins to going to the Washington headquarters of the Family Research Council with the intent of murdering dozens of people with a handgun.

The problem is that homophiles are so completely inflexible and close-minded in their thinking that they cannot even begin to imagine that people who oppose them may be acting in good faith. They simply cannot grasp the concept that some people actually care enough about them to want to assist them in escaping a lifestyle that is deadlier than any other.

As atheist Penn Jillette of Penn & Teller fame so reasonably asks,

If you believe that there's a heaven and hell, and that people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life or whatever, and you think that it's not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward - and atheists who think that people shouldn't proselytize 'just leave me alone, keep your religion to yourself' - how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible, and not tell them that? 31

We are all sinners. We don't want homosexuals to burn in Hell, we want them to repent and join us in Heaven. It is not only our mission to reach out to others, our very souls depend upon it . This is a concept we should keep in mind at all times.

As God spoke to the prophet Ezekiel,

If I say to the wicked, "You shall surely die," and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand.

But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you will have saved your life [Ezekiel 3:18-19, RSV].

If anyone calls you a "homophobe" or a "hater" for opposing them, simply stop them in their tracks by demanding that they produce evidence for such a silly charge, and a true discussion can then begin.

Myth #8: "Gay is the New Black."

The greatest talent of the homophile movement is its ability to create incorrect superficial perceptions among people, which they then repeat so many times that they become "common knowledge," something that "everyone knows."

Homosexuals cast themselves as helpless and brutalized victims, and part of this is their allegation that "Gay is the new Black." The civil rights battle, with shocking images of police dogs attacking peaceful Black protestors in the 1960s, is still vivid in the American consciousness. So the homosexuals compare themselves to the suffering of these protestors. This perception has a double benefit, because they can then say that opponents of homosexual marriage are just as bigoted as the racists who opposed interracial marriages.

It does not take much thought to see how the civil rights and homosexual marriage issues are entirely different. Blacks were denied full rights as American citizens based solely upon the pigment in their skin. This had nothing at all to do with their behavior. First, they were enslaved as a race. Then they lived under a strictly limited form of "freedom." They were not allowed to vote, sit or eat with White people, or travel on buses or trains on the same rows with them. They occupied the lowest rungs of the social and economic ladder for more than a century. Also, nearly 3,500 Blacks were murdered through public lynching from 1882 to 1964.

To begin with, homosexuals have never been enslaved, and those who have been killed or otherwise mistreated suffered at the hands of individual people (usually other homosexuals), not an entire society. Second, nobody has ever "experimented" with being Black in college, and nobody has decided to become Black after being White all their lives. Homosexuals claim that they are "born that way," so why are there thousands of people who call themselves "ex-gay" and say that they no longer have homosexual desires?

"Blackness" or "whiteness" are obviously genetic traits, and cannot be changed, no matter how much the person wants to be of another race. Even if homosexuality is a genetic trait, one does not have to commit homosexual acts; the temptation can be resisted, and many do indeed resist. But not many people have the will power to "resist" being Black or White. I have never met a former Asian or a former Black person. But I have met many ex-homosexuals.

The only difference between people of different races is their skin color. But there are huge and obvious differences between male and female human beings. This is why sports teams, clothing, public restrooms, and many friendships are divided by sex.

Some people wonder if denying "gays" the right to marry is similar to denying people of different races the same right to marry.

The purpose of miscegenation laws was to promote White supremacy. Racists did not think that Blacks and Whites could not form marriages; they just did not want such marriages to take place. Race is not a relevant factor in marriage, but sex is. Two people of the same sex can never form an authentic marriage.

This debate is also interesting from a historical viewpoint. In the five millennia of recorded human history, not one great philosopher or thinker has advocated homosexual "marriage," from Moses to Jesus, from Buddha to Mohammed, from Gandhi to Aquinas. To say that opposition to homosexual "marriage" is immoral is to argue that all of these great men were also immoral, as well as every religion and social movement in the history of mankind until about twenty years ago. Only the most extreme "gay rights" activist will assert that "Jesus was a homophobe."

Homosexuals claiming to be the heirs of the civil rights movement are cynical manipulators of emotion who care nothing about history or facts. They cheapen the struggle that Blacks went through to obtain equality and trivialize their great suffering with this comparison.

As a statement by Black American pastors said, "We find the gay community's attempt to tie their pursuit of special rights based on their behavior to the civil rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s abhorrent." 32

Indeed it is.

Myth #9: "Jesus Said Absolutely Nothing about Gay Marriage."

This last myth about homosexual "marriage" is the only one that is true - technically true, that is.

It is certainly true that Jesus made no literal statements condemning either homosexuality in general or homosexual  marriage in particular.

Jesus also said nothing about pyramid schemes. Does this mean that someone who bilked others of millions of dollars could offer this as a defense? He also said nothing about carjacking, kidnapping or terrorism. Could carjackers, kidnappers and terrorists allege that Jesus said nothing about their activities, so they must be all right?

This claim is like saying that Jesus said absolutely nothing about suicide bombing, so it must be all right, despite the Commandment that says "Thou shalt not kill."

This type of negative argument makes no sense at all.

Of course, Jesus did not have to say anything about homosexual "marriage," since such an idea was ridiculous 2,000 years ago.

However, He still had plenty to say about marriage.

Most dramatically,

But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh" [Mark 10:5-8]. 33

Jesus did not say, "a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his husband," and he certainly did not say "God created them female and female."

There are 55 mentions of the word "husband" in the New Testament. In every single case, it is used in conjunction with the words "wife" or "bride" or the name of a woman, and the same goes for the word "wife," which is always used in conjunction with the word "husband" or the name of a man.

Of course, homophiles say that people who have been divorced but oppose homosexual "marriage" are hypocritical if they quote the Bible, since Jesus Himself stated quite clearly that whoever divorces their spouse and marries another commits adultery. 34

On this count, at least, they are absolutely correct.

Homophiles often sneeringly refer to the Old Testament, claiming that anyone who opposes homosexual "marriage" and eats shellfish or wears clothing made out of more than one fabric is being a hypocrite. One of their favorite Old Testament passages is Deuteronomy 22:20-21, which states that, if a woman is not a virgin when she is married, she should be stoned to death.

These self-appointed "Bible scholars" are obviously ignorant of the fact that Christians live by the New Testament, not the Old. St. Paul tells us "For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second. ... In speaking of a new covenant He [the Lord] treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. 35

The  New Covenant of Jesus Christ is mentioned repeatedly in the New Testament. 36  So the only people homophiles could legitimately use this argument against are observant Jews - but they don't dare, for fear of appearing to be anti-Semitic.

It is a curious characteristic of the homophile personality that it seems not only content to disregard reality, but feels entitled to create it as well.

Since so many homosexuals have called the Bible itself "homophobic," they decided to publish their own version, the so-called "Queen James Version," which was released in November 2012. It was named after "The disciple whom Jesus loved," and of course, the homophiles took this phrase literally, broadly implying that both Jesus and John were homosexuals.

All of the "homophobic" verses in this "bible" have been "reinterpreted." For example, in a breathtaking display of theological gymnastics, the writers decided that sodomy in the Temple of Moloch was condemned, but everywhere else and at all other times it was fine. So Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 have the words [in brackets] added, altering the original King James Version verses like this;

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind [ in the temple of Molech ]: it is an abomination. … If a man also lie with mankind [ in the temple of Molech ] as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

We must ask the most obvious question: If the Bible says nothing about homosexuality, why the apparent urgent need to "reinterpret" it to make it more "gay friendly?"

In conclusion, even if Jesus Himself explicitly stated to His apostles "Amen, Amen, I say to you: Homosexuality is sinful and homosexual "marriage" is an abomination," would homophiles heed His admonition? Of course not!

The Bible, when considered as a whole, cannot honestly be interpreted as anything other than teaching that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. In both the Old and New Testaments it never speaks of marriage as anything else. When it speaks of sexual unions outside of marriage, it always condemns them. If the Bible does not affirm that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, then it does not affirm anything. If the Bible can be interpreted to affirm same-sex marriage, then it can be interpreted to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean.

The advocates of same-sex marriage want the government to teach children that same-sex "intimate relationships" are not only right, but a "right."

To do that, they must reject the natural law, the Old Testament, the New Testament, and more than 2,000 years of Western tradition.

They must teach that the God of Genesis, who created all things, was wrong about marriage. They must teach that Jesus Christ was wrong about marriage.

This shows that the "battle of the Bible" is just another diversion.

Contact Information:


1  United Nations Population Information Network at . The low variant is used, as it has historically been the most accurate prediction. [ Back ]

2  Jillian Keenan. "Legalize Polygamy! No, I am Not Kidding." Slate , April 15, 2013. [ Back ]

3  Dirk Johnson, New York Times News Service. "Stunned Colorado Gays Ponder Election." The Oregonian , November 8, 1992, page A22. [ Back ]

4  Paula Ettelbrick, former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, quoted in "Since When is Marriage a Path to Liberation?" by William B. Rubenstein, in Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Law [New York City: The New Press, 1993], pages 398 and 400. [ Back ]

5  Steve Skojec. "Gay Marriage Activist: 'It's a No-Brainer that the Institution of Marriage Should Not Exist'." Catholic Vote Blog, April 18, 2013. [ Back ]

6  Pitirim Sorokin. The American Sex Revolution [Boston: Peter Sargent Publishers], 1956, pages 77 to 105. [ Back ]

7  According to the Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, children from single-parent families account for 63 percent of all youth suicides, 70 percent of all teenage pregnancies, 71 percent of all adolescent chemical/substance abuse, 80 percent of all prison inmates, and 90 percent of all homeless and runaway children. [ Back ]

8  Mark Regnerus. "How Different are the Adult Children of Parents Who have Same-Sex Relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study." Social Science Research 41 (2012) 752-770. [ Back ]

9  Adelaide Darling. "Pediatricians' Group Ignores Data In Backing "Gay Marriage." The Wanderer , April 4, 2013, page B4. [ Back ]

10  "Amazing Grace: 11-Year-Old Marriage Testimony Stuns MN." Family Research Council Daily Report of March 14, 2013. [ Back ]

11  James L. Lambert. "ACLU Now Defends Polygamy, Further Eroding Traditional Marriage." Agape Press [American Family Association], June 24, 2005; "Polygamy Could Help Moms Who Work, Says Utah's NOW." Deseret News , August 12, 1997. [ Back ]

12  "The Slippery Slope of Same-Sex Marriage." Family Research Council , 2004. [ Back ]

13  "Editorial: The Marriage Amendment; Editorial" First Things , October 1, 2003, page 136. [ Back ]

14  Michael Cook. "Gay 'Marriage' will Never, Ever, Ever Lead to Polygamy (unless it does)." LifeSite Daily News , March 6, 2013. [ Back ]

15  Polyamory Action Lobby Facebook page at polyamoryactionlobby. [ Back ]

16  1997 Wisconsin case involving Allen and Patricia Muth, described in "Taking the Plunge: A Case of Incest." BreakPoint , August 17, 2005. [ Back ]

17  Point of View. "No Place for Homo-Homophobia." San Francisco Sentinel , March 26, 1992. For many more quotes of this nature, refer to Part 5 of Chapter 25 of The Facts of Life , "Homosexuality and Pedophilia." [ Back ]

18  1992. For excerpts from these studies, refer to Part 5 of Chapter 25 of The Facts of Life , "Homosexuality and Pedophilia." [ Back ]

19   Behavior Today , December 5, 1988, page 5. [ Back ]

20  Phillip Buble, quoted in Mark Steyn. "Animal Husbandry of a Different Nature." National Post , August 16, 2001; "The Slippery Slope of Same-Sex Marriage." Family Research Council , 2004. [ Back ]

21  As just one example, see Thaddeus Baklinski. "German 'Zoophiles' Protest Law Banning Bestiality." LifeSite Daily News , April 15, 2013. [ Back ]

22  Maria Xiridou, et al. "The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam." AIDS 17 (2003):1031. [ Back ]

23  David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison. The Male Couple [1984], which studied 156 men in homosexual relationships lasting from one to 37 years. [ Back ]

24  United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division. Hate Crime Statistics 2001, Table 4, "Offense Type for Bias Motivation, 2011," tables/table-4 . [ Back ]

25  David Island and Patrick Letellier. Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence [Binghamton, New York: Haworth Press], 1991, pages 12, 14 and 50. [ Back ]

26  United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. "Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence." July 2000, page 30; United States Bureau of Justice, Office of Statistics. "Violence Between Intimates," November 1994, page 2 According to yet another 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% percent reported being verbally abused [Eric Houston and David J. McKirnan. "Intimate Partner Abuse among Gay and Bisexual Men: Risk Correlates and Health Outcomes." Journal of Urban Health , September 2007 [Volume 84, Issue 5], pages 681-690] [ Back ]

27  Dan Savage's review of Jeff Chu's book Does Jesus Really Love Me: A Gay Christian's Pilgrimage in Search of God in America . The New York Times Sunday Book Review , April 11, 2013, page 1. [ Back ]

28  American rock musician and writer Henry Rollins. Talk is Cheap: Volume I (spoken word album), 1998. [ Back ]

29  Patrick B. Crain. "New York Governor: Opponents of Same-Sex 'Marriage' Just 'Want to Discriminate,' are 'Anti-American'." LifeSite Daily News , October 26, 2011. [ Back ]

30  Statement of Judy and Dennis Shepard, Parents of Matthew Shepard, "Hatred Fuels Federal Marriage Amendment," June 17, 2006. [ Back ]

31  Kathleen Gilbert. "Noted Atheist Says if You Believe, You Should Proselytize - Or Do you Hate Enough Not to?" LifeSite Daily News , December 22, 2008. [ Back ]

32  Statement by Black American pastors, quoted in Cheryl Wetzstein. "Blacks Angered by Gays' Metaphors." Washington Times , March 3, 2004, page 3. [ Back ]

33  See also Matthew 19:4-6 and Ephesians 5:31, RSV. [ Back ]

34  Matthew 5:32,19:9; Mark 10:11-23; Luke 16:18. [ Back ]

35  Hebrews 8:7,13. [ Back ]

36  See Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 8:8-13;9:15;12:24. [ Back ]