Introductory Comments

1. INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS

In the introduction to the South African Law Reform Commission’s Discussion Paper 104, Project 118 with regard to Domestic Partnerships, it is explicitly stated that the goal of the legislation is to give recognition to same sex relationships. Creating legislation with the purpose of giving recognition to same sex relationships might give official sanction or encourage a relationship that is unfavorable for bringing up children and is physically and psychologically unnatural and harmful to the children and the partners and even society as a whole.

It is noted that the Commission’s options in respect of marriages proceed from the viewpoint of accommodating homosexuals within the institution of marriage without considering medical and psychological research as such and the far reaching and harmful consequences proceeding from these unions.

In the words of Dr Satinover we would like to emphasize the importance that: “these deliberations be based not only on compassion, and justice, but on the factual truth as well. Indeed, unless resting upon truth, neither justice nor compassion can long endure against shifts in sentiment. That as a society we strive no longer to condone – rather to condemn – cruelty toward people attracted to members of their own sex is an absolute requirement of both justice and humanity. But we would be short sighted indeed were we to advance this, or any other, just cause based on fictions: Not only will the inevitable uncovering of those fictions, however long delayed, provide an excuse for bigotry to reclaim its unearned place, it will engender beliefs, attitudes and policies that, by flying in the face of reality, will lead to an increase, rather than a decrease in the happiness all are entitled to pursue. Nature (and if you prefer, “Nature’s God”) cannot be fooled.”1

2. THE IMPORTANCE AND VALUE OF THE TRADITIONAL HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE

Marriage is a virtually universal and fundamental human institution.2 It is not a creation of the law and predates the law or constitution. At its heart it is an anthropological and sociological reality, not a legal one. Laws relating to marriage merely recognize and regulate an institution that already exists.3

No culture or any of the major religions anywhere in the world has a moral objection against the Traditional Heterosexual Marriage. On the contrary all major religions value the Traditional Heterosexual Marriage highly. Neither has any human society ever

tolerated “marriage” between members of the same sex as a norm for family life.4

A few pro-homosexual writers, such as William N. Eskridge, Jr. (author of a 1996 book called The Case for Same-Sex Marriage), have argued against this. They support their claim by citing evidence, mostly from obscure, primitive tribes, suggesting some tolerance of gender non- conformity or even homosexual relationships (particularly between men and boys). But the important point is that, in none of these cultures was such behavior seen as the moral and social equivalent of lifelong Traditional Heterosexual Marriage. 5

Anthropology teaches that every human society is established by males and females joining in permanent unions to build a life together and bear and raise children. The differences we see in family from culture to culture are primarily variations on this model: how long the male and female stay together, how many spouses either can have and how the labor is divided. Some cultures make greater use of extended family than others. Family diversity is largely confined to these differences. But there has never been a culture or society that made homosexual marriage part of its family model.

Marriage is more than just a way of recognizing people who love each other and want to spend their lives together. If love and companionship were sufficient to define marriage, then there would be no reason to deny “marriage” to unions of a child and an adult, or and adult child and his or her ageing parent, or to roommates who have no sexual relationship, or to groups rather than couples. Even though love and companionship are usually considered integral to marriage in our culture, they are not sufficient to define it as and institution. 6

Marriage is a public commitment, not a private liaison. The married family is profoundly important for a stable society. 7 It is still true that the vast majority of children are raised by married couples. 8 Children have been shown to suffer not only from the presence of well- documented negative parental characteristics, (e.g., harsh discipline, overt abuse) they have also been shown to suffer from the absence of desiderata, in particular reference to the above, multigenerational stability, that is, the capacity of their own family to reproduce itself by raising biological children who themselves raise children who go on to establish stable, harmonious families. (See Annexure “A”: “The Marital Statute” by Dr Jeffrey Satinover attached hereto).

It is therefore not surprising that in 2000 Jack Straw stated in the British House of Commons “[Marriage is] about a union for the procreation of

3 children, which by definition can only happen between a heterosexual couple. So I see no circumstances in which we would ever bring forward proposals for so-called gay marriages”.

Refer to Annexure “B” hereto from Liberty Council for a study on the history of marriage, including its purposes and effect, which included social and economic effects. This section also discusses why, given what marriage is and is intended to do, prohibiting marriage for same-sex couples does not violate Art. 9 of the South African Constitution.

2.1 STATISTICS PROVE THE SUCCESS OF TRADITIONAL HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE

2.1.1 Advantages of Traditional Heterosexual Marriage to the partners involved

Research consistently shows that married adults: - do better in virtually every measure of well-being; - live longer; - have happier lives; - enjoy higher levels of physical health; - enjoy higher levels of mental health; - recover from illness quicker; - earn and save more money; - are more reliable employees; - suffer less stress and; - are less likely to become victims of any kind of violence; - are less likely to be the victims or perpetrators of crime; - find the job of parenting more successful and enjoyable; - they have more satisfying and fulfilling sex lives.

These benefits are largely equal for men and women. 9 (See annexure “F” hereto)

2.1.2 Advantage of Traditional Heterosexual Marriage to the children involved

Compared with children in any other situation, children with married parents:

- need to visit doctors less often for physical or emotional problems; - do better in all measures of intellectual and academic development; - are more sympathetic toward others; - are much less likely to be in trouble at school, at home or with the police; - are less likely to engage in delinquent and criminal behaviour; - are much less likely to use drugs; - are much less likely to be involved in violent behavior; - are much less likely to be involved in premarital sexual activity and childbearing; - are unlikely to live in poverty or; - are at less risk of being victims of sexual abuse; 10

2.1.3 Further Statistics of the Traditional Heterosexual Marriages

- Marriage increases the likelihood that fathers have good relationships with their children. - Cohabitation is not the functional equivalent of marriage. - Growing up outside an intact marriage increases the likelihood that children will themselves divorce or become unwed parents. - Children who live with their own two married parents enjoy better physical health, on average, than do children in other family forms. - Marriage is associated with a sharply lower risk of infant mortality. - Marriage is associated with lower rates of disability for both men and women. - Divorce appears to significantly increase the risk of suicide. 11

3. SAME SEX MARRIAGES AND RELATIONSHIPS WILL NOT HAVE THE SAME VALUE AS THAT OF THE TRADITIONAL HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGES

Although some argue that children with two parents of the same gender are as well adjusted as children with one of each kind there is not sufficient scientific proof to sustain that view point.

A 1996 study by an Australian sociologist compared children raised by heterosexual married couples, heterosexual cohabiting couples, and homosexual cohabiting couples. It found that the children of heterosexual married couples did the best, and children raised by homosexual couples the worst, in nine of the thirteen academic and social categories measured. 12

Studies that try to prove that same sex couples would serve the same purpose are unconvincing. The presence of methodological defects – a mark of substandard research – would be cause for rejection of research conducted in virtually any other subject area. In a look at 49 studies about children in homosexual households, it was found that all had fatal flaws such as tiny sample size, skewed selection of subjects, and built in biases of the researchers.

For further material on this topic please refer to annexure “C” hereto : document by Timothy J. Daily.

To prove that there still remains a huge question mark on the desirability of bringing children up in a same sex relationship, we would like to refer to: The American Academy of Pediatrics’ report, brought out by the Task Force on the Family (Pediatrics, June 2003). This report was commented on by the College of American Pediatricians as follows: “…The report is marred by the inclusion of a gratuitous section describing same-gender parenting as the only alternative “family” constellation to be devoid of internal problems. Notably the Task Force Report admits to a lack of science and sites articles already judged to be flawed and biased. In addition, the Report admits of no possible problems for the child inherent in this arrangement. This is despite clear statements throughout the remainder of the Report about the importance of stable mother/father marriages and the risks for children inherent in single parent households, divorced families, stepfamilies and grandparent-constituted families… The American College of Pediatricians urges that the Task Force Report be withdrawn until due attention is given to the objections voiced by one-third of the Task force members, and the section on same-gender parenting is rewritten to note the potential for harm, documented or postulated in the medical and social sciences literature”.

Doctors For Life International is convinced that children are the future of our nation and society and as such they deserve to be

reared in the best possible family environment committed to ensuring their optimal health and well-being.

Research has shown that stepparents do not offer the same advantages to their children. One study found that a pre-scholar living with a stepfather was forty times more likely to be sexually abused than one living with both of his/her biological parents.13 In a same sex couple relationship, at least one of the child’s parents will be a stepparent.

Giving same sex relationships legal recognition will most probably lead to such couples being allowed to adopt children. Homosexual adoption is a highly controversial issue. According to the British Social Attitudes, no other gay rights measure is more opposed by the public in Britain than homosexual adoption. Some 84% opposed adoption by homosexual men.14 The same topic is extremely controversial in Switzerland.

Refer to Annexure “B” For “The detrimental social implications of expanding marriage to include same-sex couples.”

3.1 BECAUSE SAME SEX RELATIONSHIPS ARE UNNATURAL

3.1.1 They are physically unnatural

Human anatomy clearly demonstrates an incompatibility for a sexual relationship between two people of the same sex.

The function of the vagina is for sexual intercourse and childbirth, and it has in-built defence mechanisms against infection. Whereas the vaginal wall consists of 6-10 layers of squamous epithelium that protects against infection, that of the anus has a single layer of squamous epithelium. Very superficially, underneath this layer of epithelium is a network of capillaries. The capillaries are designed to reabsorb liquid before waste leaves the body to prevent dehydration. Tearing and bruising of the anal wall is very common during anal intercourse15, fisting (where the forearm and fist is pushed up the rectum) Semen also contains enzymes that erode this layer of squamous epithelium. In the process the anus, becomes a mixing bowl for faeces (with all the organisms that are found in it), semen and other sexual secretions. The function of the lower bowel (rectum) and anus is the elimination of body waste (faeces). The lower bowel has in-built mechanisms

to prevent infectious organisms, including bacteria and viruses, found in faeces from entering the body circulation. The lower bowel also removes water from body waste so that faeces are semi-solid rather than fluid. The anus has a strong band of muscle (sphincter) which ensures continence and ability to control passage of wind (flatus), waste (faeces) and liquid (fluid faeces) as occurs with diarrhoea. In receptive anal intercourse the anus and rectum are traumatised with tearing of the skin lining these organs. In addition the anal sphincter may be damaged or completely torn (even more so if ‘fisting’ occurs). 16

Infectious agents from the recipient’s own bowel, enteric pathogens or sexually transmitted organisms (including HIV) carried on the penetrating penis and sexual secretions can infect the recipient. At the same time, the same organisms present in the rectum can enter the urethra, or the space under the foreskin of the partner practicing penetrative anal intercourse and cause acute infection.

Same sex relationships can clearly not procreate because of being unnatural. Even though there may be some heterosexual couples who are infertile it can usually be attributed to some abnormality or pathology or the normal, physiological result of old age that is universal to all of mankind. In fact, same sex couples are even incapable of engaging in the type of sexual conduct that results in natural reproduction. It takes no invasion of privacy or drawing of arbitrary boundaries to determine that.

Not that marriage is only defined by the ability to procreate.

But the Traditional Heterosexual Marriages also: - Foster the bonding between men and women. - Foster the birth and rearing of children. - Foster the bonding between men and children. - Foster some form of masculine identity. - Foster the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults. 17

3.1.2 They are psychologically unnatrual 18

By way of introduction we would like to quote Dr Joseph Nicolosi: “Heterosexual love is the drive to bring together the male-female polarity through the longing for the other-

8 than-me. In homosexuals it is the attempt to fulfill a deficit in wholeness of one’s original gender. Both partners are coming together with the same deficit. Each is symbolically and sexually attempting to find fulfillment of gender in the other person. But the other person is not whole in that way either so that relationship ends in disillusionment.

The inherent unsuitability of same sex relationships is seen in the form of fault-finding, irritability, feeling smothered; power struggles, possessiveness, and dominance; boredom, disillusionment, emotional withdrawal, and unfaithfulness.

Gay couplings are characteristically brief and very volatile with much fighting, arguing, making-up again, and continual disappointments. They take the form of intense romances, where the attraction remains primarily sexual, characterized by infatuation and never evolving into mature love; or else they settle into long-term friendships while maintaining outside affairs. Research, however, reveals that they almost never possess the mature elements of quiet consistency, trust, mutual dependency, and sexual fidelity characteristic of highly functioning Traditional Heterosexual Marriages.

This is not to dismiss same-sex friendships. To the extent that there is friendship there is love; but it is love limited to friendship.

In search for the masculine ideal and in spite of gay rhetoric androgyny, masculinity remains the gay ideal. It is one’s own deficient masculinity that is sought out in sexual partners. Hooker (1965) observes the particular valuing of masculinity; 19 Hoffman (1968) describes masculinity as “the single most desirable feature” (p.17) and says that “effeminate men are held in much lower esteem than are masculine-looking homosexuals” (p.145). 20 The following was observed by Barry Dank (1974):

In the gay world masculinity is a valued commodity, an asset in the sexual marketplace… If there is a consensus on any subject in the gay world, it is that masculinity is better than femininity. The norm in the gay world is that one should be masculine. One should “be a man” and not “a sissy.” Statements such as, “Those nellie queens make me sick” are typical. This preference for the masculine involves

9 not only the area of sexual attraction… in the friendship groupings and homophile organizations I have studied… status differentiation… is highly related to masculinity – femininity, with the most masculine being nearest the top of the status hierarchy. (p.191) 21

In their landmark study, Bell and Weinberg (1978) similarly noted:

A chief interest which many of our respondents had in a prospective sexual partner was the degree to which he conformed to a stereotypically “masculine” image. (p.62) 22

As one client explained:

This week I made a list of all the guys I’ve ever had sex with. I wondered, what was I attracted to? I realized it had to do with exterior traits of masculinity and an appearance of self-assuredness. Some of the guys had this hypermasculinity. They were bodybuilders and so on. Looking back, I realize this attraction to masculinity had to do with my not being confident in myself. I also realize now that most of them were actually as insecure as I was.

Anna Freud (1949) describes cases in which the search for the “strong man” as a sexual partner represented a striving toward one’s own lost masculinity. Secondary masculine sex attributes (hair, strength, roughness) were used as determinants of sexual object-choice because they represented what the patient himself lacked. 23 Nunberg (1938) also describes a type of homosexual client whose “sympathetic magic” leads him to believe that “through mere contact with a man of strength, or through an embrace, or through a kiss, he would absorb this strength and become himself as strong as the man he desired” (p.5). 24

The heterosexual, on the other hand, is not as psychologically dependent upon finding the feminine idea for gratification, since he has no unconscious need to fulfill a deficit in original gender.

A client describes this drive toward another man’s maleness and its roots in his own sense of deficit:

I was born a man. It is my identity. I have always liked the idea of being a man, but I’ve always felt insecure about it. I was not born insecure. Insecurity was given to me by people and situations the same way that confidence is given. All my life, I’ve received messages that told me I was not good enough as a man. My father taught me that men worked hard, then continually criticized and belittled me.

I was born with an orthopedic condition which kept me away from rigorous exercise and competitive sports. I spent a lot of years watching my peers express their exuberant maleness through these activities, clearly enjoying themselves and feeling accomplished. However I, trying to do the same, was left in physical pain in fear of collapse, and it was another message that I was failing at being a male.

I felt intimidated trying to mix with guys who were accomplishing things that I could not. They saw me as second best; I stood back and got left out of the club of men. I felt not only insecure, but disenfranchised from all of maleness. I was supposed to be a guy, but didn’t feel it because of what was happening to me. And then society said this craving I had for masculinity was because I was “born that way”! During my two and a half years of therapy, I have seen that my homosexual tendencies were not a cry to have another man, but a manly self. I wasn’t born this way. It was a wound inflicted upon me. It was a sin of pride that made me believe that brokenness is shameful. I have forgiven the men that failed me, as I have forgiven myself for the years of running away. And I have been blessed by freedom and empowerment. 25

THE MISSING FEMININE ELEMENT

Women bring stability and complementarity into a love relationship. Without the stabilizing element of the feminine, and the stimulation of her complementary physical and emotional make-up, men are generally unable to sustain sexual intimacy and closeness. When romantic passions wane and same-sex familiarity sets in, one person will usually fall out of love. Typically, an event or situation will serve as a catalyst – something unexpected or uncharacteristic that disappoints one partner. Suddenly the other is seen as failing to live up to the ideal he was originally thought to be. There is deep hurt and a mutual

11 sense of betrayal. There may follow an increasing number of petty quarrels, after which one or both partners decides that they are not as compatible as they first believed, or there may be a single violent and destructive showdown.

With the first experience of boredom in the relationship, male couples often resort to narcissistic maneuvers to regenerate interest. And so there is cheating, teasing, a show of disinterest, and fights, followed by romantic make- up gestures. Homosexual relationships are “often bedeviled from the start by dramas, anguish and infidelities” (Pollak 1985, p.51) 26, with a particular intensity of dependency, jealousy, and rage. The most volatile domestic relationships I have worked with have been those of male couples. There are typically complaints of intense ambivalence, violent conflicts, and sometimes physical injuries. Because the relationship is forced to bear the burden of unmet childhood dependency needs, there is a great deal of jealousy and suspicion. The homosexual partner is often preoccupied with such questions as “Where is he now?” “Who is he with?” “If he is masturbating, who is he thinking about?” There may be sexual impotence or a deliberate sexual frustration of the other person as a form of control. The partners frequently become demanding or envious and complain that personal boundaries have been intruded upon. When the couple splits up, they often become cynical about relationships.

Later, a new romance will often bring romantic love with another twinning stage, characterized by excitement with the discovery of each shared trait. However, because these discoveries are often projections of nonexistent similarities, the stage is set for disillusionment. Soon again such a man feels smothered and overwhelmed, and restlessness and disappointment spark the desire for yet another lover.” 27

Consequently a child brought up in a same sex relationship won’t have an example of a truly natural relationship to use as role model.

If this opinion of same sex relationships being unnatural is intolerant, it would mean that nature itself is intolerant. Marriage has not been “imposed” upon culture by some religious institution or government from which it needs to be “set free”.

3.2 A LARGE AMOUNT OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT SAME SEX RELATIONSHIPS ARE NOT LASTING OR TRULY MONOGAMOUS

This principle has been born out over the years by numerous studies. To mention a few:

1) Williams and Wilkins found that 8% of homosexual men and 7% of homosexual women had relationships lasting more than 3 years.28

2) The Gay Report indicated that only 7% of homosexuals had a relationship lasting over 10 years. 29

3) J. Harry found a 87% rate of non-exclusivity in couples together less than one year; 78% for 5 years; 91% for more than 5 years. 30

It has been confirmed and re-confirmed in psychiatric literature: 31

4) “Most people, regardless of sexual orientation hope for a permanent relationship. Life long relationships offer most people a higher level of self-esteem, emotional security, health, and happiness.

Homosexuals too report the desire to share their lives with a partner. (Saghir and Robins 1973). They see stable relationships as the solution to many personal problems (Hoffman 1968) When in a relationship, the gay man is less worried about public intolerance, and he feels less depressed and guilty (Weinberg and Williams 1974).

With the exception of the pioneering work of Warren (1974), little attention was given until recently to long-term same-sex relationships. Then in 1984 McWirter and Mattison published “The Male Couple”, an in-depth study designed to evaluate the quality and stability of long-term homosexual couplings. Their study was undertaken to disprove the reputation that gay male relationships do not last. The authors themselves are a homosexual couple, one is a psychiatrist, the other a psychologist. After much searching they were able to locate hundred and fifty six male couples in relationships that had lasted from 1-37 years. Two- thirds of the respondents had entered the relationship with either the implicit or the explicit expectation of sexual fidelity.

The result show that of those 156 couples, only 7 had been able to maintain sexual fidelity. Furthermore, of those 7 couples, none had been together more than 5 years. In other words, the researchers were unable to find a single male couple that was able to maintain sexual fidelity for more than 5 years. They reported: “the expectation for outside sexual activity was the rule for male couples and the exception for heterosexuals. Heterosexual couples lived with some expectation that their relationships were to last ‘until death do us part’, whereas gay couples wondered if their relationships could survive”.

McWirter and Mattisson admit that sexual activity outside the relationship often raises issues of trust, self-esteem, and dependency. However, they believe that the single most important factor that keeps couples together past the ten-year mark is the lack of possessiveness they feel. Many couples learn very early in their relationship that ownership of each other sexually can become the greatest internal threat to their staying together.

Other researchers also see sexual freedom as beneficial to gay relationships (Harry 1978, Peplau 1982).

A host of studies have found infidelity to be characteristic of prolonged male relationships (Begler 1951, Dailey 1979, Saghir and Robins 1973). In a study of thirty couples, Hooker (1965, p. 46) found that all but three expressed “an intense longing for relationships with stability, sexual continuity, intimacy, love and affection” – but only one couple had been able to maintain a 10- year monogamous relationship. Hooker concluded, “For many homosexuals, one-night stands or short-term relationships are typical”.

The desire for sexual fidelity in relationship and the benefits of such a commitment are universal. In the long history of man, infidelity has never been associated with maturity. Even in cultures where it is relatively common, it is no more than discreetly tolerated.

Faced with the undeniable fact that gay relationships are promiscuous, gay literature has no choice but to promote the message that faithful relationships are unrealistic. McWhirter and Mattison go further to say that we must redefine fidelity to mean “emotional dependability.” That is to say, while it is understood that they will have outside sexual relations, there is an agreement

14 that the partners will nevertheless manage to be faithful to each other emotionally.

Yet how can a relationship without sexual fidelity remain emotionally faithful? Fidelity as such is only an abstraction, divorced from the body. In fact, the agreement to have outside affairs precludes the possibility of trust and intimacy.

Disillusionment and the Choice of Love.

The homosexual relationship is doubly burdened with both defensive detachment and the motivation to compensate for personal deficit. Therefore it will usually take the form of an unrealistic idealization of the person as an “image.” The pursuit of this image often means developing a self-denigrating dependency on the other man. This unrealistic perspective is based on the superficial aspects of the other person and leads to disappointment. Because of these unrealistic projections, the homosexual couple has difficulty moving beyond this “disillusionment” stage in a relationship.

As he often did with his father, the homosexual fails to fully and accurately perceive his lover. His same-sex ambivalence and defensive detachment mitigate against trust and intimacy. Easily disillusioned in relationship, he often renews his hope by seeking another partner. Yet it is this disillusionment stage that offers the opening into a mature relationship. Here we are required to make a realistic, honest perception of the other person, including his faults. Based on that honest perception, we may then choose to love. It is this choice to love that marks the beginning of a mature relationship.

In seeking out and sexualizing relationships with other males, the homosexual is attempting to integrate a lost part of himself. Because this attraction emerges out of deficit, he is not completely free to love. He often perceives other men in terms of what they can do for him. Thus a giving of the self may seem like more of a diminishment than a self-enhancement. The person who brings into a relationship a deep sense of deficit may fail to weather the disillusionment stage because by choosing one person, he cannot have it all. To commit to one person is to give up future options. There is the fear – actual anxiety – as the possibility of doing without. Thus the homosexual person is inclined to place his hope in possible future relations.

Choosing to love is having to accept the limits of the relationship. It may never have this, or that, or the other thing. The loved one will never be such and such, and so on. Yet maturity means to accept these limitations and create out of them. The creativity to see new options in the relationship comes from a flexibility found within. For in reality, there will always be options – perhaps not externally, but in our expanded repertoire of response.

The moral of this story is: do not expect a monogamous homosexual relationship, for recreational affairs are a part of the gay life-style……….Carol Lynn Pearson’s description of her gay husband’s relationships in “Goodbye, I Love You” gives a sensitive portrayal of this cycle of infatuation and disillusionment. Pearson describes how her husband left her and their four children to pursue life in the San Francisco gay community, falling into step to the drumbeat of the “unseen sergeant of Castro Street.” (He later died of AIDS.)

Pearson’s husband came home periodically to tell her about his lovers, believing each time that he had found the right man for a lifetime. Yet after a brief period of infatuation, he invariably became disillusioned. His affairs were characterized by emotional swings from elation and optimism to deep disappointment and hurt. He complained that his lovers were overly dependent, demanding, and immature, and bemoaned the fact that he could not find a man like his wife. William Aaron described how he resigned himself to a similar problem:

I had accepted the facts of life of the gay world and was able to enjoy sexual contacts for what they were: transitory, immature, but often pleasant adventures… of the gay men I’ve known, the ones who are happiest are the ones who have made a good- humored adjustment to the facts of homosexual life and don’t expect much. (1972, p.138)

The tendency toward repeated disillusionment in relationships is often interpreted by gay affirmative therapists as the result of internalized homophobia. We disagree. Rather it is evidence of both defensive detachment and the fundamental incompatibility inherent in any same-sex coupling. Men tend to much more readily separate sex and love than do woman. Without the feminine influence in a love relationship, an essential grounding force will always be missing.

THE CHALLENGE OF RELATIONSHIPS

We come to know ourselves best in a committed relationship, and the more intimate the relationship, the greater the opportunity for personal growth. We learn about ourselves by the way we affect our partners, and the way they affect us, on the deepest levels. Very often, however, homosexual clients report that when they begin to know another man intimately, their sexual interest in him diminishes. It is always, they report, the distant person who is sexually attractive. We see here the frustrating cycle of distant attraction and then close disinterest, a cycle of continual, and for so many, lifelong, frustrated desire for intimacy.

The Problem of Boundary Setting

Every couple committed to a relationship is challenged to surrender to the partner, yet paradoxically, to establish boundaries for their intimacy. The relationship can simultaneously enhance and threaten individual identity. Consequently, in all relationships there is an unavoidable approach–avoidance conflict. This approach-avoidance conflict is particularly evident in homosexual relationships. Many clients who have been in long- term relationships describe them as possessive, controlling, and smothering. When threatened by what seems to be a fusion of identity into someone else, a person usually attempts to establish new boundaries, and in the gay world, this typically involves an outside affair.

Having an outside sexual experience can be a devastating way to recoup the weak sense of boundary. Contrary to the popular gay dictum about its recreational nature, sexual relations remain a profound interpersonal exchange. An outside affair violates trust and creates a new separateness between the partners. To move from one person to another and from one relationship to another is like wandering about in a hall of mirrors. Everywhere a man turns, he comes face-to-face with himself. When he stops and looks at his life, he is faced with the pattern of his disappointments: while each of his partners looked like the problem, he in fact remains the constant.” 32

5) A large amount of Publications confirm that in homosexual relationships: “Fidelity is not defined in terms of sexual behavior but rather by their emotional commitment to each

other; 95% of couples have an arrangement whereby the partners may have sexual activity with others.”33

6) According to Prof. Anne Peplau, a professor in psychology at the University of Los Angeles there is “clear evidence that gay men are less likely to have sexually exclusive relationships than other people”. She is however of the opinion that this is not typically more harmful to their relationships because partners agree that it is acceptable. 34

7) Some reports from the Netherlands, arguably the most “gay- friendly” culture on earth, indicate that homosexual men have a very difficult time in honoring the ideal of marriage. A recent study appeared in the British Medical Journal. This study done on Dutch homosexual men of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service (May 2003) found that their relationships lasted 1 – 1 and a half years on average. The study further found that gay men have an average of 8 partners a year outside those relationships. 35, 36

Even though there have been efforts to argue that same sex marriages are becoming increasingly stable, there is definitely not enough evidence to warrant a change in legislation.

8) A Dutch epidemiological study found that the majority of HIV infections in the Netherlands among gay men occur between partners in long-term relationships rather than via casual sex. 37

There is also not enough sound research to prove that these problems result from society's "discrimination" against homosexuals. If "discrimination" were the cause of homosexuals' mental health problems, then one would expect those problems to be much less common in cities or countries, like San Francisco or the Netherlands, where homosexuality has achieved the highest levels of acceptance.

In fact, the opposite is the case. In places where homosexuality is widely accepted, the physical and mental health problems of homosexuals are greater, not less. This suggests that the real problem lies in the homosexual lifestyle itself, not in society's response to it. In fact, it suggests that increasing the level of social support for homosexual behavior (by, for instance, allowing same-sex couple legal recognition), would only increase these problems, not reduce them. 38

In concluding this section:

There are no precedents in recorded history where advanced civilisations have endured based on temporary relationships. Neither are there any advanced civilisations which have endured where marriage has been equated with temporary relationships. Attempts have certainly been made to give cohabitation the same status as marriage, and provide for easy divorce, but either these moves had to be reversed within a few years, as in Revolutionary Russia and France, or the civilisation itself collapsed. Aldous Huxley in his book Ends and Means examined the massive anthropological comparative study Sex and Culture by J D Unwin. Huxley found Unwin’s evidence compelling. 39 Unwin concluded after studying eighty primitive and sixteen advanced societies that cultural achievement and sexual licence were incompatible for more than one generation. Societies flourished where absolute monogamy had been practised. 40

From the point of view of the children involved, each termination of a relationship stands a good chance of having the same psychological impact as divorce.

It is not necessary to alter current legislation regarding marriage to enable these individuals who honestly desire monogamous tie to achieve their goal. Current legislation in no way hinders them.

3.3 THERE IS AN INCREASED RISK OF HARM WITH SAME SEX MARRIAGES

3.3.1 To the partners involved – both physically and mentally

Some homosexual acts are physically harmful because they disregard normal human anatomy and function. These acts are associated with increased risks of tissue injury, organ malfunction, and infectious diseases. These and other factors result in a significantly shortened life expectancy. 41

Pediatrics, the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, published in May 1998 one of the most convincing studies identifying the association between health risk behaviors and sexual orientation. Results of the

19 analysis revealed greater than 30 risks positively associated with self-reported gay-lesbian-bisexual orientation. 42

These include :

1) A high prevalence of risky sexual behaviour among homosexuals. 2) A higher level of promiscuity amongst homosexuals. 3) A higher prevalence of various STI’s amongst homosexuals. 4) An increased risk of anal cancer. 5) Even those homosexual relationships that are loosely termed “monogamous” do not necessarily result in healthier behavior. 6) Some studies indicate an increased risk of breast and cervical cancer among lesbian couples. 7) A higher prevalence of compulsive behavior among lesbians. 8) A higher prevalence of violence in lesbian relationships. 9) A high incidence of mental health problems among homosexuals and lesbians. 10) A reduced life span. 11) A higher prevalence of suicide.

A government-sponsored study of 5998 adults in the Netherlands ages 18-46 which was published in the January 2001 issue of “The Journal of the American Medical Association”. The findings support the assumption that people with same sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders. 43 Specifically, the study found that compared to heterosexual men, males who engage in homosexual behaviors are:

• 727% more likely to have suffered bipolar disorders at some point in their lives and 502% more likely in the last 12 months. • 718% more likely to have suffered obsessive- compulsive disorder in the last 12 months, and 620% more likely at some point in their lives. • 632% more likely to have suffered agoraphobia (fear of leaving home or being in public) in the last 12 months and 454% more likely at some point in their lives.

• 421% more likely to have suffered “panic disorder”, and 229% more likely to have suffered “social phobia” at some point in their lives. • 375% more likely to have suffered simple phobia in the last 12 months, and 361% more likely at some point in their lives. • 311% more likely to have suffered mood disorders at some point in their lives, and 293% more likely in the last 12 months. • 261% more likely to have suffered anxiety disorders in the last 12 months, and 267% more likely over the course of their lifetimes. • 270% more likely to have suffered two or more psychiatric disorders during their lifetime. • 235% more likely to have suffered major depression at some point in their lives.

Compared to heterosexual women, females who engage in homosexual behavior are:

• 405% more likely to have suffered a substance abuse disorder • 241% more likely to have suffered mood disorders during their lifetimes. • 209% more likely to have suffered two or more mental disorders during their lifetimes.

Some may argue that such mental health problems are the result of societal non-acceptance and/or stigmatization of homosexual behavior. Such conclusions however, are unlikely and still unproven in scientific circles. Studies like the above Dutch study were not done in a culture that is antagonistic or even ambivalent toward homosexuality. This study specifically notes that the Dutch social climate toward homosexuality has long been and remains considerably more tolerant. 44

Refer to Annexure “B” hereto for extensive research on the negative health consequences of homosexual behaviour, which includes both the mental health and physical consequences. Several articles submitted on this point that go into great length about the diseases that are prevalent in the homosexual community.

Numerous other studies have confirmed these findings. Among those involved in homosexual acts, there is an

increased incidence of drug or alcohol dependence, compulsive sexual behavior, anxiety, depression, and suicide. 45

3.3.2 To the children involved and society as a whole

Homosexual lifestyles are destructive to the structures necessary for healthy marriages, families and society. Men who commit homosexual acts have a higher incidence of promiscuity, predatory sexual behavior, and sexually transmitted infections. Homosexual lifestyles burden society with increased medical costs, increased disability, and loss of productivity. 46

A large number of the previously mentioned negative effects of same sex relationships can pose a danger to children or have a negative impact on children involved in or adopted into such relationships. For a critical overview of some studies in support of same sex couples raising children we refer to the following extract of Timothy J. Dailey: A number of studies in recent years have purported to show that children raised in gay and lesbian households fare no worse than those reared in traditional families. Yet much of that research fails to meet acceptable standards for psychological research; it is compromised by methodological flaws and driven by political agendas instead of an objective search for truth. In addition, openly lesbian researchers sometimes conduct research with an interest in portraying homosexual parenting in a positive light. The deficiencies of studies on homosexual parenting include reliance upon an inadequate sample size, lack of random sampling, lack of anonymity of research participants, and self-presentation bias.

Refer to Annexure “B” heretofor several articles discussing statistics on child molestations by same- sex parents and foster parents wherein the detrimental impact on children raised in same-sex parent households.

The presence of methodological defects—a mark of substandard research—would be cause for rejection of research conducted in virtually any other subject area. The overlooking of such deficiencies in research papers on homosexual failures can be attributed to the "politically

22 correct" determination within those in the social science professions to "prove" that homosexual households are no different than traditional families. However, no amount of scholarly legerdemain contained in an accumulation of flawed studies can obscure the well-established and growing body of evidence showing that both mothers and fathers provide unique and irreplaceable contributions to the raising of children. Children raised in traditional families by a mother and father are happier, healthier, and more successful than children raised in non-traditional environments.

David Cramer, whose review of twenty studies on homosexual parenting appeared in the Journal of Counseling and Development, found the following:

The generalizability of the studies is limited. Few studies employed control groups and most had small samples. Almost all parents were Anglo-American, middle class, and well educated. Measures for assessing gender roles in young children tend to focus on social behavior and generally are not accurate psychological instruments. Therefore it is impossible to make large scale generalizations . . . that would be applicable to all children.1

Since these words were penned in 1986, the number of studies on the subject of homosexual parenting has steadily grown. The fact that these studies continue to be flawed by the methodological errors warned about by Cramer has not inhibited the proponents of homosexual parenting from their sanguine assessment of the outcomes of children raised in homosexual households.

Silverstein and Auerbach, for example, see no essential difference between traditional mother-father families and homosexual-led families: "Other aspects of personal development and social relationships were also found to be within the normal range for children raised in lesbian and gay families." They suggest that "gay and lesbian parents can create a positive family context."2

This conclusion is echoed in the official statement on homosexual parenting by the American Psychological Association’s Public Interest Directorate, authored by openly lesbian activist Charlotte J. Patterson of the University of Virginia: In summary, there is no evidence that

23 lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect. . . . Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.3

Problems with homosexual parenting research

Upon closer examination, however, this conclusion is not as confident as it appears. In the next paragraph, Patterson qualifies her statement. Echoing Cramer’s concern from a decade earlier, she writes: "It should be acknowledged that research on lesbian and gay parents and their children is still very new and relatively scarce. . . . Longitudinal studies that follow lesbian and gay families over time are badly needed."4 The years have passed since Patterson’s admission of the inadequacy of homosexual parenting studies, and we still await definitive, objective research substantiating her claims.

In addition, Patterson acknowledges that "research in this area has presented a variety of methodological challenges," and that "questions have been raised with regard to sampling issues, statistical power, and other technical matters (e.g., Belcastro, Gramlich, Nicholson, Price, & Wilson, 1993)." She adds, revealingly:

Research in this area has also been criticized for using poorly matched or no control groups in designs that call for such controls. . . . Other criticisms have been that most studies have involved relatively small samples [and] that there have been inadequacies in assessment procedures employed in some studies.5

Though she admits to serious methodological and design errors that would call into question the findings of any study, Patterson makes the astonishing claim that "even with all the questions and/or limitations that may characterize research in the area, none of the published research suggests conclusions different from those that will be summarized below." But any such conclusions are only as reliable as the evidence upon which they are based. If the alleged evidence is flawed, then the conclusions must likewise be considered suspect.

One suspects that the lack of studies with proper design and controls is due to the political agendas driving the acceptance of homosexual parenting, which favor inadequate and superficial research yielding the desired results.

In a study published in the Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, P. Belcastro et al. reviewed fourteen studies on homosexual parenting according to accepted scientific standards. Their "most impressive finding" was that "all of the studies lacked external validity. The conclusion that there are no significant differences in children raised by lesbian mothers versus heterosexual mothers is not supported by the published research data base."6 Similarly, in their study of lesbian couples in Family Relations, L. Keopke et al. remark, "Conducting research in the gay community is fraught with methodological problems."7

A careful reading of studies used to lend support to homosexual parenting reveals more modest claims than are often attributed to them, as well as significant methodological limitations:

Nearly all of the existing studies of homosexual parenting have major deficiencies in sampling: They use a small sample size; they fail to obtain a truly representative sample due to sources of sampling bias; they do not use a random sample; or they use a sample with characteristics that are inappropriate for the crucial development research question involved in the study.8

Inadequate Sample Size

Studies examining the effects of homosexual parenting are weakened by inordinately small sample sizes:

After finding no significant difference between a group of nine children raised by lesbians and a similar group of children raised by heterosexual parents, S. L. Huggins admitted, "The meaning and implications of this finding are unclear, and the small sample size makes any interpretation of these data difficult."9

A report by J. M. Bailey et al. in Developmental Psychology, commenting on studies of the children of gay and lesbian parents, notes that "available studies [are] insufficiently large to generate much statistical power."10

S. Golombok and F. Tasker admit in their follow-up study of children reared by lesbians, "It is possible that the small sample size resulted in an underestimate of the significance of group difference as a result of low statistical power (Type II error)."11 Elsewhere they caution that negative effects of children reared by lesbians "could have remained undetected because of the relatively small sample size. Therefore, although discernible trends were identified, caution is required in interpreting these results."12

In his study published in Child Psychiatry and Human Development comparing the children of homosexual and heterosexual mothers, G. A. Javaid frankly admits that "the numbers are too small in this study to draw any conclusions."13

J. J. Bigner and R. B. Jacobson state in the Journal of Homosexuality:

Those who do study gay fathers may be frustrated by the difficulties of obtaining valid and adequate sample sizes. Most often, researchers must deal with many methodological problems in locating and testing gay fathers in numbers sufficiently large to make acceptable statistical analyses of data. For this reason, what is known currently about gay fathers is weakened by these methodological problems. It is practically impossible to obtain a representative sample of gay fathers, and those studies published to date frequently utilize groups of white, urban, well-educated males for study because of convenience sampling.14

In her study of lesbian families, Patterson admits to sampling bias: Some concerns relevant to sampling issues should also be acknowledged. Most of the families who took part in the Bay Area Families Study were headed by lesbian mothers who were White, well educated, relatively affluent, and living in the greater San Francisco Bay Area. For these reasons, no claims about representativeness of the present sample can be made.15

Similarly, N. L. Wyers, in his study of male and female homosexual parents that appeared in Social Work, acknowledges that his study "cannot be considered

26 representative" and that "therefore, the findings cannot be generalized beyond the sample itself."16

By contrast, R. Green et al. writing in Archives of Sexual Behavior, found that the few experimental studies that included even modestly larger samples (13–30) of boys or girls reared by homosexual parents:

[Found] developmentally important statistically significant differences between children reared by homosexual parents compared to heterosexual parents. For example, children raised by homosexuals were found to have greater parental encouragement for cross-gender behavior [and] greater amounts of cross-dressing and cross-gender play/role behavior.17

Lack of Random Sampling

Researchers use random sampling to ensure that the study participants are representative of the population being studied (for example, homosexuals or lesbians). Findings from unrepresentative samples have no legitimate generalization to the larger population.

L. Lott-Whitehead and C. T. Tully admit the inherent weaknesses in their study of lesbian mothers: This study was descriptive and, therefore, had inherent in its design methodological flaws consistent with other similar studies. Perhaps the most serious concerns representativeness. . . . Probability random sampling . . . was impossible. This study does not purport to contain a representative sample, and thus generalizability cannot be assumed.18

N. L. Wyers acknowledges that he did not use random sampling procedures in his study of lesbian and gay spouses, rendering his study "vulnerable to all the problems associated with self-selected research participants."19

Golombok et al. write of their study: A further objection to the findings lies in the nature of the samples studied. Both groups were volunteers obtained through gay and single- parent magazines and associations. Obviously these do not constitute random samples, and it is not possible to know what biases are involved in the method of sample selection.20

Lack of Anonymity of Research Participants.

Research procedures guaranteeing complete anonymity are necessary to prevent a source of bias as to who will consent to participate as a research subject, and ensure the truthfulness and candor of their answers.

M. B. Harris and P. H. Turner point out in the Journal of Homosexuality:

Most gay/lesbian parents who participate in such research are concerned about their parenting and their children, and most have established a public gay identity. ‘Closet’ gay parents are difficult to identify, and their problems may be quite different from those of more openly gay parents.21

Harris and Turner employed superior research techniques to ensure the complete anonymity of their research subjects. As a result, in contrast to other studies, they reported problems associated with being a homosexual parent that had gone unreported by earlier studies: "Perhaps the anonymity of the present sampling procedure made subjects more willing to acknowledge those problems than those in earlier studies."22

Self-presentation Bias

A lack of random sampling and the absence of controls guaranteeing anonymity allow subjects to present a misleading picture to the researcher that conforms to the subject’s attitudes or opinions and suppresses evidence that does not conform to the image he or she desires to present.

In their National Lesbian Family Study N. Gartrell et al. found that eighteen of nineteen studies of homosexual parents used a research procedure that was contaminated by self-presentation bias. Gartrell mentions the methodological problems of one longitudinal study of lesbian families:

Some may have volunteered for this project because they were motivated to demonstrate that lesbians were capable of producing healthy, happy children. To the extent that these subjects might wish to present themselves and their families in the best possible light, the study findings may be shaped by self-justification and self-presentation bias.23

Harris and Turner admit, with regard to their study: There is no way of knowing how representative the sample is. . . . The high proportion of gay subjects who indicated a willingness to be interviewed suggests that they were perhaps unusually interested in the issues raised in the questionnaire and thus willing to divulge their homosexuality to the researchers.

Moreover, even though the questionnaire was anonymous, the gay parents may have been particularly biased toward emphasizing the positive aspects of their relationships with their children, feeling that the results might have implications for custody decisions in the future. Thus, all generalizations must be viewed with caution. . . . Because all uncorroborated self-report data are subject to biases, and because parents may deliberately or unconsciously minimize the extent of conflicts with their children, these findings cannot be accepted at face value.24

Evidence from Marmoset Monkeys?

Some advocates of homosexual parenting claim to find confirmation of the "normalcy" of homosexual parenting by observing animal behavior. Silverstein and Auerbach, for example, adopt the unusual tactic of appealing to the offspring-raising habits of a soft-furred, tree-dwelling South American monkey to support their contention that homosexual households lead to positive child outcomes:

"Marmosets illustrate how, within a particular bioecological context, optimal child outcomes can be achieved with fathers as primary caregivers and limited involvement by mothers. Human examples of this proposition include single fathers . . . and families headed by gay fathers."25

The twenty-six species of marmosets live in family groups of up to thirty monkeys. Only the dominant female of the group gives birth, usually to twins. What Silverstein and Auerbach find so impressive about these tiny primates is that, after birth, the males as well as females of the group help carry the baby marmosets, passing them back to the mother for nursing.

It is difficult to grasp the significance Silverstein and Auerbach attach to what they readily admit is an "extreme example" of the supposed "limited parenting involvement

by mothers."26 The authors contend, "Male marmosets behave like full-time mothers."

It seems there are specific chores that the male marmosets cannot perform. As the authors themselves admit, marmoset mothers perform the essential function of nursing their young, without which the baby marmosets—who must depend upon their mother’s milk for the first three months of life—could not survive. In turn, the males of the group fill the vital role of watching the baby marmosets, protecting them from predators, while the nursing mother forages to replenish herself. In short, one could just as well argue, contrary to Silverstein and Auerbach, that the behavior of marmoset monkeys demonstrates that both male and female fulfill separate and important functions in the raising of young.

Psychologist David Blankenhorn, head of the Institute for American Values and author of Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem, criticized such attempts to rely upon behavioral studies of non- human primates to draw conclusions about the character of human families:

"I always appreciate critical articles, because they can focus your argument and point out weaknesses. But [Silverstein and Auerbach’s] article was unusually silly. Not one thing they said was what I would call a serious insight."27 In their thorough review of homosexual parenting studies, Robert Lerner and Althea K. Nagai found little evidence to support the oft-repeated mantra that homosexual households are "just like" traditional families: "We conclude that the methods used in these studies are so flawed that these studies prove nothing. Therefore, they should not be used in legal cases to make any argument about ‘homosexual vs. heterosexual’ parenting. Their claims have no basis." (“Homosexual parenting placing children at risk” by Timothy J. Daily PhD.)

While there is ample evidence to show that children of married couples in intact families fare better than children of single parents or divorced couples, reliable studies comparing children raised in traditional families to those raised by cohabitating adults who engage in homosexual practices are not so common.

The study with the largest number of children was examined all USA appellate cases of custody disputes involving a homosexual parent in 29 states to 38 appeals cases involving custody disputes drawn randomly from 1956 to 1991.

The advantages of selecting cases that reach the appeals court level are many: They offer official distillations of large bodies of information that have passed through two or more layers of the legal system. Also, the children in these studies tend to be older, thereby providing evidence of long-term effects. Furthermore, unlike studies done with volunteers, in which all relevant data is available only to the investigator, the relevant data in Cameron and Cameron is available for public inspection in essentially every law library in the United States.

It was the first study to examine the character of homosexual and heterosexual parents in an adversarial setting. The results were startling. Eighty-two percent of the homosexual parents versus 18 percent of the heterosexual parents were recorded as having poor character. More importantly, of the recorded harms to children, which included molestation and physical abuse, 97 percent were attributed to the homosexual parent.

The study with the second largest number of children of homosexuals is the only one that has compared children of coupled married heterosexual parents and coupled cohabiting heterosexual parents to coupled paired homosexual parents.

Dr. Sotirios Sarantakos, an associate professor of sociology in Australia, ran an investigation to compare the school performance of 58 children who were being raised by homosexual couples to 58 closely matched children being raised by married couples and 58 children being raised by cohabiting partners.

The children's school teachers were asked to rate their scholastic achievements, participation in varies group activities as well as their socialization skills. The teachers also reported on parental involvement through their observations as well as by interviewing the children.

The children of homosexual couples scored dramatically lower than the average of the children of the other two groups in verbal skills, vocabulary, composition and basic mathematical skills. The children of the homosexual couples performed better in social studies but only slightly. Also, there was an important difference in the social development. The children of homosexual parents were less likely to be involved with sports or other group activities. They were considered by their teachers to be introverts and loners, and were uncomfortable when having to work with students of a sex different from that of their cohabiting homosexual parent.

Far from being ideal parents, the homosexual couples were less likely to visit the children's schools, volunteer or help the children with their homework. 47

In conclusion: There has recently been an attempt to demonstrate that raising children in a same-sex household has no ill effect. These studies are few in number, none have ever looked at those areas where difficulties would be expected and one of the most repeatedly cited researchers was excoriated by the court for her testimony when she refused to turn over her research notes to the court even at the urging of the ACLU attorneys for whom she was testifying.

What is known, from decades of research on family structure, studying literally thousands of children, is that every departure from the traditional, stable, mother-father family has severe detrimental effects upon children; and these effects persist not only into adulthood but into the next generation as well.48

3.3.2.1 An increased risk of exposing children to the danger of sexual molestation

Without stereotyping homosexuality or equating homosexuality with Paedophilia, it is a fact supported by a large bulk of scientific literature, that there is a higher prevalence of child molestation amongst homosexuals than amongst heterosexuals. 49, 50

For more details we refer to statement by T.J. Daily, “C” annexed hereto.

A review of 6 444 news stories from 1989-2002 about child molestation yielded 33 cases involving foster parents. Of the 25 foster-parent perpetrators, at least 15 (60%) engaged in homosexuality. In Illinois 1997-2002, 92 (34%) of 270 foster or adopted parent perpetrators who engaged in “substantiated” sexual abuse homosexually abused their victims. These findings suggest that the proportion of homosexual perpetrators in a systematic tally of newspaper stories is similar to the proportion of homosexual perpetrators in datasets from large entities. 51

Analysis of studies (including the original Kinsey survey conducted in the 1940’s involving more or less 10 000 people, the 1970 Kinsey Institute Survey in San Francisco conducted on more or less 1 500 adults and other surveys) confirm that:

a) Homosexuals typically had their first sexual experience at a younger age than heterosexuals did and usually with another older homosexual:

• In a study involving 4 640 adults it was found that 29% of those brought up by at least one homosexual parent reported having had sex with a parent whereas only 0,6% of those having been brought up by heterosexual parents reported sex with a parent. (See fig 4)

Fig. 4 Effects of Homosexual Parenting

50 47 45 40 35 29 30 25 20 15 9 10 0.6 5 0 not sex with exclusivly parent hetro

non-homo parent homosexual parent

• The same disproportionality shows up in surveys of incest of 31 consecutively referred boys in Washington in 1988 - 15 fathers and 5 stepfathers had sexually abused them. • Of 11 male incest victims, over a 4 year period in a psychiatric acute care unit, 5 (45%) were abused by their father. 52 • Another study of psychiatric literature over the past 50 years showed that, at least 15% and possibly as much as 40% of all child molestation cases concerned homosexuality. c) The largest random survey 53 found that 60% of boys who experienced homosexual sex before heterosexual sex ended up engaging in homosexuality in adulthood and 95% of boys who claimed to be heterosexual in adulthood had a heterosexual first sexual experience. Williams reported that 57% of 757 sexually abused boys had been sexually involved with their father. 54

Consequently, a child under the care of a homosexual couple is at an increased risk of being sexually molested which implies an increase of risk of developing an STD or even being infected with HIV.

Comparing raising a child within a same sex relationship to raising a child within a single parent family.

At this stage we would like to draw attention to the statement by Dr.J.Satinover, annexure “A” hereto. While the statement supports more than one of our arguments, we would like to specifically draw attention to the extent to which it answers the question of whether adopting a child into a same sex relationship is not better than bringing the child up within a single parent set up.

Looking at the statistics in the above document as well as the rest of our submission it is clear that:

Homosexual relationships are seldom lasting and monogamous. We have also demonstrated clearly that divorce is extremely harmful to the children involved in more than one way. One must also keep in mind that a child in a one-parent family has already often gone through

the trauma of a divorce or the death of a parent. Therefore, bringing the child into a same sex relationship will not benefit the child because:

• Firstly, the child will either be condemned to living through the breaking up of more relationships, each of which will probably have the same impact as a divorce on the child.

• Secondly, if the first scenario does not realise, then the child is condemned to either never have a father or else, to never have a mother. In the case where the existing parents are both females, the only way the child can have a father is by the parents putting the child through another divorce and one of the “mothers” taking the child with her to marry a man. The analogous situation applies if both parents are males.

• Thirdly, one must remember that same sex couples will not only adopt children with nobody else to adopt them and with no possibility to be ever adopted into a normal heterosexual marriage.

• Fourthly, same sex couples do not only adopt already existing children who do not have anybody to care for them, but sometimes on purpose create children through in vitro fertilization with donor sperm or surrogate mothers. They do this exclusively to satisfy their own desires, not considering what would be in the best interests of the child.

4. SOME IMPLICATIONS OF GIVING LEGAL RECOGNITION TO SAME SEX RELATIONSHIPS

If we consider the right to sexual orientation as allowing all kinds of practices that the majority of South Africans would not approve of, where will we draw the line? Will all sexual practices be acceptable as long as it is between consenting adults? Will we allow necrophilia as long as the person whose corpse is involved has indicated before his death that he would have objection against any one using his corpse for

35 that purpose? What about, incest, beastiality, masochism and more specifically hipoxyphilia (where people get sexual gratification out of choking themselves e.g. by pulling a plastic bag over their face)? Also sadism and polyamory or group marriage? Will the law allow sadists to fracture each other’s bones as long as they are both consenting adults?

A very graphic example of the legal and moral quagmire this can lead us in to, is given by the recent incident in Germany: During March 2001 a certain 42 year old computer technician Armin Meiwes allegedly killed by consent, a 43 year old microchip engineer Bernd-Jurgen Brandes. Meiwes dismemebered Brandes’ corpse after having cut off Brandes’ penis while he yet lived which both Meiwes and Brandes had eaten. Meiwes proceeded to then eat the pieces of his victims’ corpse which he had preserved in a deep-freezer. Meiwes confessed his own perverse fantasies to his attorney and has been charged with murder for sexual satisfaction as no crime for cannibalism exists in Germany. The partners had not by way of Meiwes’ internet advertisement. There is no doubt that this incident emphasizes the extremes to which persons are capable of going in order to satisfy their sexual perversive fantasies culminating in the repulsive act of cannibalism.

Acts of this nature serves to strengthen the urgent need for any society putting in place legal and moral codes which would control human behaviour and criminality. (See annexed hereto cnn.com report (2003) marked “D” and report by Ruth Elkins “Cannibal on trial in Germany” see annexure “E” hereto).

The official sanction that this law will give, will not only apply to one same sex couple. It can lead to a national policy that no longer sees a mother and a father as being any better than two mothers or two fathers. Such legislation can therefore turn important principles upside down:

Marriage: Can become merely an emotional relationship that is flexible enough to include any grouping of loving adults. If it is acceptable for two men or two women to marry, the terms “husband” and “wife” would become merely words with no meaning.

Parenthood: Would consist of any number of emotionally attached people who care for kids. ”Mother” and “father” would become only words.

Gender: Men will be able to demand the right to go into a ladies public restroom. Children may be taught that sexual differences are mere personality types with no relation to the biological facts.55 One recent

example in the USA involved a male employee who allegedly perceived himself as a female. When his employer instructed him not to use a woman’s restroom, he sued-and-won under the sexual orientation provision of the Minesota Human Rights Law.56

Men in key public relations positions may demand to be allowed to come to work in a dress and high heels.

Another result, as suggested by research results cited earlier, will probably be a loss of stability in society, with a rise in crime, sexually transmitted diseases and other social pathologies.

DFL further argues that any new legislation for the purpose of granting to same sex conjugal relationships the status of a married heterosexual couple would pave the way for the adoption of children by same sex couples which is not in the best interests of children. It will also necessarily improve the quality of the relationships.

Homosexual unions may have a direct impact on Traditional Heterosexual Marriages than one would think. For example, the Boston Globe reported June 29, 2003, that "nearly 40 percent" of the 5,700 homosexual couples who have entered into "civil unions" in Vermont "(where same-sex relationships have been recognized by the law) have had a previous Traditional Heterosexual Marriage." Of course, it could be argued that many of those marriages may have ended long before a spouse found their current homosexual partner. And some may assume that no opposite-sex spouse would want to remain married to someone with same-sex attractions. The myth that a homosexual orientation is fixed at birth and unchangeable may blind one to the fact that many supposed "homosexuals" have, in fact, had perfectly functional Traditional Heterosexual Marriages. As Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby points out, "In another time or another state, some of those marriages might have worked out. The old stigmas, the universal standards that were so important to family stability, might have given them a fighting chance. Without them, they were left exposed and vulnerable." 57

The most significant impact of legally recognizing same-sex unions would however be more indirect. Expanding the definition of what "marriage" is to include relationships of a homosexual nature would inevitably, in the long run, change people's concept of what marriage is, what it requires, and what one should expect from it. These changes in the popular understanding of marriage would, in turn, change people's behavior both before and during marriage. 58

In support we quote from the state of Vermont that has allowed civil unions between same-sex couples since 2000. A study by two university of Vermont psychology professors compared homosexual couples in civil unions with homosexual couples not in unions and married heterosexual couples. Among the Vermont findings, the overwhelming majority of women – both lesbians and married heterosexuals – felt it was not acceptable to have sex outside of their primary relationship. However, 79% of married men felt sex outside marriage was not okay, compared to 34% of homosexual men in committed relationships and 50% of homosexual men in civil unions. 59

Some may argue that marriage will change the behavior of homosexuals. In the light of the Dutch and Vermont experience (where same sex relationships have received legal recognition) already quoted, it is far more plausible that the behavior of homosexuals will change people's idea of marriage, further undermining the concepts that marriage is a lifelong commitment and that sex should be confined to marriage. We are of the opinion that, to suggest that giving same sex relationships legal recognition is suddenly going to result in homosexuals settling down into faithful, monogamous, childrearing is naïve.

The benefits of marriage do not flow simply from the presence of two people and government recognition of their relationship. Instead, they flow from the inherent complimentarity of the sexes and the power of lifelong commitment. The first of these is rejected outright by homosexuals, and the second has been shown in this document to be far less common among them.

Giving non-marital relationships the same status as marriage does not expand the definition of marriage; it destroys it. For example, if you declare that, because it has similar properties, wine should be labeled identically to grape juice, you have destroyed the definitions of both "wine" and "grape juice." The consumer would not know what he is getting.

Marriage laws are not discriminatory. Marriage is open to all adults, subject to age and blood relation limitations. As with any acquired status, the applicant must meet minimal requirements, which in terms of marriage, means finding an opposite-sex spouse. Same-sex partners do not qualify. To put it another way, clerks will not issue dog licenses to cats, and it is not out of "bigotry" toward cats.

Comparing current laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman with the laws that once limited inter-racial marriage is irrelevant and misleading. The very soul of marriage - the joining of the two sexes--

38 was never at issue, when laws against inter-racial marriage was struck down.

Requiring citizens to sanction or subsidize homosexual relationships violates the freedom of conscience of millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims, African Traditional Religions and other people who believe marriage is the union of the two sexes. Civil marriage is a public act. Homosexuals are free to have a "union" ceremony with each other privately, but they are not free to demand that such a relationship be solemnized and subsidized under the law.

The ability to attain marital benefits outside wedlock (i.e. with civil unions) will reinforce extramarital sex and may send a message to young people that marriage is no longer important.

DFL is of the opinion that any new legislation for the purpose of granting legal recognition to same sex conjugal relationships (even though it may not use the word “marriage”) by arrogating the privileges that pertain to heterosexually married couples, will create a gay marriage in all but name. Giving rights to same sex relationships may erode the status of Traditional Heterosexual Marriage. It is argued that civil partnership is not a threat to marriage but merely an alternative for those who want it. But if the legal benefits of marriage are given away to any other type of relationship, the status of marriage is eroded.

This can be illustrated by some simple analogies. Disabled parking spaces are a necessary privilege for disabled people who have a disabled parking permit. If you extend the privilege of free parking in disabled parking spaces to able-bodied people, then you have taken away the privilege from those it belongs to. There is no longer any special recognition for disabled people. Allowing anyone to park in disabled parking spaces does not extend a benefit, it erodes a status. The disabled parking permit would become worthless. In the same way if virtually all the benefits of marriage are given to those who are in a civil partnership, then the currency of marriage is devalued.

It may well be that the law can be amended to remedy some simple injustices which the law creates for people in non-marital households. But if this is done it must be done fairly and it must be done without undermining marriage. Legislation already exists covering the situation of people living in partnerships of various kinds other than marriage. Separate Civil Union legislation would be an unnecessary duplication.

The symbolic nature of the proposed legislation is huge and the campaign for civil partnerships to equate with marriage is an issue that is not going to go away. Marriage is already in danger of death by a thousand cuts, already losing privilege after privilege, and in turn holding fewer and fewer incentives. This bill would effectively be the death-blow to the special status of marriage in law and society.

The legislation has the obvious connotation of being a sexual affair. Everyone knows examples of two people choosing to live together on a long term basis because of care needs, friendship or companionship. They are not in a sexual relationship. They are simply friends or relatives. They would not gain from this legislation. 60 Non-sexual relationships where there is a great degree of mutual care and commitment are in fact much more common than the small number of households which comprise a same-sex couple. Examples of such households include two sisters, a daughter living with her elderly mother, two close friends of the same sex who share a house, a nephew living with his aunt, or a grandson living with his grandfather. Millions of people live in such households. These households face some or all of the hardships complained of by homosexual couples. This makes it all the more surprising that there should be such a focus on such a small section of society.

Looking at homosexual literature one gets the impression that, to fight for same sex marriage and its benefits appears to be a “middle ground”. Once granted, the institution of marriage will be redefined completely. In other words demanding the right to marry is not done as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes, but rather a small minority group’s effort to “debunk a myth” and radically alter an “archaic institution”.” 61

To quote a couple of examples from gay literature which demonstrate how recognition of same sex marriages would erode the ideal of Traditional Heterosexual Marriages:

In, “The Culture of Desire: Paradox and Perversity in Gay Lives Today”, writer Frank Browning describes how "gay people have pushed open a social space through which individuals are searching for new kinds of family roles and relationships, and that out of the search, some as yet unknowable traditions will emerge…. Their determination to find a new sort of family may well provide vital models for the remaking of all families, straight and gay." 62

In an article in World Magazine Gene Edward Veith wrote: "This sort of reductionism — a spouse is nothing more than a sex partner, so a sex

partner is the same as a spouse — misses the point of what marriage is and what its role in society amounts to," Veith writes "… So far, governments are resisting same-sex marriages. But instead, marriage is being defined down. As marriage becomes unnecessary—not just for job benefits but for adopting children, inheriting property, and being socially acceptable—the whole nation will be ‘living in sin.’" 63

5. THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN INHERITED TRAIT

During the the 1940’s and up till the 1970’s, it was widely argued and believed by scientists that male homosexuals had a deficiency of male hormones. However, when finally the results were evaluated it was found that only 3 studies had indicated lower testosterone levels in male homosexuals, while 20 studies found no differences, and two reported elevated testosterone levels in male homosexuals. Unfortunately textbooks kept alluding to this supposed “fact” of hormonal differences for 3 decades.

Another significant study was when, in 1991, Simon Le Vay published his “gay brains” research, 64 where he compared the SDN-POA brain centre in male rats to the INAH3 brain centre in humans. Le Vay assumed that the SDN-POA centre in male rats had an effect on male rats’ crouching/mounting behaviour during mating and that the two centres (the SDN-POA in rats and the INAH3 in man) were functionally the same. He reasoned that a difference in the corresponding INAH3 in humans would make men homosexual.

In 1993 Drs William Byne and Bruce Parsons from the New York State Psychiatric Institute critically reviewed the evidence. 65 They found that:

1) “The effective lesion site within the anterior hypothalamus for disrupting mounting behaviour [in male rats] lies above, not within the SDN-POA. The SDN-POA therefore does not play a critical role in male typical behaviour in male rats and the correlation between its size and mounting frequencies does not reflect a casual relationship.”

2) The Le Vay study also had numerous technical problems e.g.; his sample included 19 brains of gays who died of AIDS and 16 brains from men whose sexual orientation was not known. He assumed that the 16 were heterosexual even though 5 had died of AIDS.

3) Although Le Vay argued that a small INAH3 “caused” homosexuality, some gays had an INAH3 that was larger then the average size of INAH3 of the “heterosexuals” and some of the “heterosexuals” had an INAH3 that was smaller than those of gays.

Next was the “gay twin” study of Bailey and Pillard. 66 They reported that 52% of identical twins of homosexuals were also homosexual.

1) King and McDonald 67 however shortly after them published a new “sexual orientation of twins study”, which found concordance rates of only 25% for homosexuality in identical twins. That is half of the 52% reported by Bailey and Pillard. Byne and Parsons noted the large proportion of identical twins in both studies “who were discordant for homosexuality despite sharing not only their genes but also their prenatal and familial environments... [This] underscores our ignorance of the factors that are involved, and the manner in which they interact, in the emergence of sexual orientation”.

Byne & Parsons finally concluded in the Archives of General Psychiatry that there is no evidence at present to substantiate a biological theory of sexual orientation.

Another study which we would like to quote is research done by Dr. Dean Hamer who claimed (in an interview with the Washington Post 7/6/93) to have studied 40 pairs of homosexual brothers who volunteered to be studied.

Hamer claimed that 33 of the 40 pairs of brothers showed identical markers on 5 loci of the q28 region of the X-chromosome which is indicative that a gene or genes in this region influences the expression of homosexuality in at least 64% of brothers tested.

Looking at the experiment, however, one finds that it has many weaknesses, inconsistencies and loopholes. To mention a few: Hamer did not double-check the same genetic markers in the non- homosexual brothers of his subjects.

1) Similar gene markings for manic depression have been dismissed in the past after failed attempts to replicate findings.

2) The 40 pairs of brothers were volunteers - one does not know how representative the results are of either the general or the homosexual populations.

a. A correlation for specific genetic markers does not imply that a gene or genes caused the brothers’ homosexuality. (The results could be pointing to another trait shared by these subjects and which is disproportionately common in gays).

b. Examination of the marker data for each pair indicates that there is some uncertainty in even the 33 concordant pairs.

c. Specifically, computation of the statistical probability of the result depended on the assumption that the mother was heterozygous for these markers. Because the mother’s X- chromosomes were not examined in 22 of the 33 concordant pairs, it is not known whether her sons (the homosexual brother pairs) had to receive identical markers (i.e. because she was homozygous) or not. Clearly it means much less to say that a homosexual pair is genetically concordant if in fact all male children in that family would be genetically identical for such markers regardless of orientation. In each of the eleven cases where the mother’s X-chromosomes were mapped, the mother was indeed homozygous at 1, 2, or 3 of the 5 key markers.

Dr. Ruth Hubbard, Professor emeritus of Biology at Harvard considered it “Surprising that the correlation found in this research warranted publication without these controls especially in as influential a journal as ‘Science’”. She further stated that “sexual attraction depends on personal experience and cultural values and that desire is too complex, varied and interesting to be reduced to genes”.

Already the researcher himself (Dean Hamer) said in regards to homosexuality and genetics: “We knew that genes were only part of the answer. We assumed the environment also played a role in sexual orientation, as it does in most, if not all behaviors… homosexuality is not purely genetic….environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay…I don’t think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay. 68

Evolutionary theory states that, instead of humans picking a certain trait, evolutionary mechanisms are said to maintain and expand favourable genetic mutations because they convey some sort of net advantage which makes the parent and children more apt to survive in their environment. Because they are more apt to survive, the children in turn propagate the condition to their children etc. As long as the trait is advantageous is will presumably endure and grow in prevalence. If it is harmful it will eventually decline and disappear. Doctors for Life does not necessarily support this theory, but many scientists do believe that

43 this is how evolution works. If, however, you try to apply this theory to homosexuality, you get stuck with some unanswered questions:

1. What is the net advantage of being a homosexual? In what way does homosexuality exhibit behaviour traits or physical attributes that give it an advantage in its environment? On the contrary, when 6 714 obituaries from 16 U.S. homosexual journals over the past 12 years were compared to a large sample of obituaries from regular newspapers, 69 the obituaries from the newspapers (which were similar to official statistics for the USA) showed that:

Married men: - median age at death was 75 and 80% of them died at 65 or older.

Unmarried men: - median age of death was 57 and 32% of them died at 65 or older.

Married women: - average age at death was 79 and 85% died old.

Unmarried women: - average age at death 71.

But with homosexuals however, nation wide, only 2% died at 65 years or older (98% died before 68 years). If AIDS was the cause of death - average age at death was 39. For 829 gays who did not die of AIDS the median age at death was 42 and only 9% died old.

The largest study which compared gays (of both sexes) and straight on a wide range of topics, was based on a random sample which involved 4 340 adults. 70 The study showed that:

- Homosexuals were about twice as apt to report having had a STD. And over twice as apt to have had at least 2 STDs.

- Homosexuals were about 5 times more apt to have tried to deliberately infect another with a STD.

- Homosexuals were 3 times more likely to have attempted suicide.

- Homosexuals were about 4 times more likely to report having been raped.

This is not surprising if you take into account that the Seattle Sexual Diary Study 71 reported that gays had, on yearly average:

- Fellated 108 men and swallowed semen from 48.

- Exchanged saliva with 96.

- Experienced 68 penile penetrations of the anus.

- Ingested faecal material from 19.

During a 6 month study, 10% contracted Hepatitis B and 7% Hepatitis A.

In the light of the above, the genetic theory of homosexuality disintegrates. There might however be those who claim that homosexuality might be a mutation which might account for a certain, low level of homosexuality that would spring from this mutation and maintain itself at that level in the population. The natural conclusion from that fact is that statement no. 1 above (that homosexuality is a “normal healthy variant” of human sexuality) is not true. And then there are even problems with the mutation explanation.

Haemophilia is a condition that can be caused by a low level of spontaneous genetic mutation. We know we can’t outlaw haemophilia, no matter how we decry it or discriminate against it - haemophilia will just “happen” at a certain rate no matter what we do. If we keep those with recessive genes from having children, we can maintain it at a low level, but it will still occur no matter what we do. With homosexuality we find, however, that the prevalence varies enormously depending on the kinds of social control and acceptance that prevail. (See Christopher Hewitt’s analysis below). It is a fact that where societies accept or ignore homosexuality it is far more prevalent than in societies that discriminate against gays. Similarly, both Kinsey and other surveys found homosexuality far less common among the deeply religious, whether Christian or Jew.

Frequency of Homosexuality In Various Societies

Attitude Toward Homosexuality # absent/rare not uncommon No concept of homosexuality 5 100% Strongly disapprove & punish 15 60% 40% Ridiculed / mild disapproval 10 50% 50% Accepted, ignored 9 11% 89%

After Broude & Green Ethology 1976, 15, 409-430

To quote a few researchers:

The general consensus therefore is that the causes of same-sex attraction appear to be multi-factorial and may include developmental, psychosocial, environmental and biological factors. There is no credible evidence at this time that same-sex attraction is genetically determined.

Some researchers, like Drs. Byrd, Cox and Robinson state: “what is clear, however, is that scientific attempts to demonstrate that homosexual attraction is biologically determined have failed. The major researchers now prominent in the scientific arena – themselves gay activists – have in fact arrived at such conclusions”. 72

In discussing the fluidity of sexual orientation, refer to annexure “B” hereto for a discussion on the lack of evidence demonstrating that homosexuality is genetic. It also discusses reports of people changing the sexual orientation

We conclude therefore that, acting on homosexual attraction is voluntary. Claims of genetic or environmental determinism do not relieve individuals of moral responsibility for their sexual behaviour. 73

6. LARGE AMOUNTS OF EVIDENCE INDICATE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS A LEARNED REACTION

There is strong evidence that a large percentage of homosexuals were seduced into the homosexual lifestyle

Homosexual behaviors and lifestyles can be self-propagating. Some homosexual groups and individuals engage in active recruitment. A child who is sexually molested has an increased likelihood of later engaging in homosexual acts and adopting a homosexual lifestyle. There is also an increased incidence of homosexuality among children raised by same sex couples. 74

Homosexually-assaulted males identified themselves as subsequently becoming practicing homosexuals almost 7 times as often as bisexuals and almost 6 times as often as the non-assaulted control group. 58% of adolescents reporting sexual abuse by a man prior to puberty revealed either homosexual or bisexual orientation (control group 90% heterosexual) Age of molestation 4-14 years. “Nearly half of men who reported a childhood experience with an older man were currently involved in homosexual activity.” Disproportionately high number of male homosexual incestuously molested by homosexual parent. Conclusion was that the experience led a boy to perceive himself as homosexual based on his having been found sexually attractive by an older man. 75

See also:

• Bell and Weinber, "Homosexualities, A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women." Simon and Shuster, New York, 1978.

• Fewer than 4% of boys are molested by men, but the rate of childhood molestation by homosexual and bisexual men is 35%. 76

• 75% of homosexual men report their first homosexual experience to have been prior to age 16. 77

• NARTH (National Association for Research and Treatment of Homosexuality (headed by Charles Socarides, Professor of Psychology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, N.Y.)

• "Combined Intervention for Controlling Unwanted Homosexual Behavior: An Extended Follow-up." Archives of Sexual Behavior. 5: 4 (1976) 269-274.

Subsequently the homosexual sexual desires are not innate and therefore not unchangeable. Sexual preference is also not identical to other immutable characteristics such as ethnicity. It is incorrect to argue that people cannot govern their sexuality anymore than they can govern their skin color, and that sexual activity stemming from these desires is not self-validating. Consequently homosexual orientation does not deserve special protection in the

nation’s civil rights laws and corporate policies. One can also argue that religious beliefs about sex and morality of society may play an important role in drawing up legislation.

Finally, this research demonstrates that the previously demonstrated high prevalence of child molestation by homosexuals, may have the further implication of such children at the same time being seduced into the homosexual lifestyle.78

7. THERE IS VALID EVIDENCE THAT MANY INDIVIDUALS WHO DESIRED TO ABSTAIN FROM HOMOSEXUAL ACTS OR LEAVE THE HOMOSEXUAL LIFE STYLE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO SO

Already in 1984 the American Journal of Psychiatry published an article which stated that: "Certain individuals who want to change their homosexual preference can be helped by a short-term intensive intervention adapted from the Masters and Johnson model for treating heterosexual disorders. … The failure rate in helping dissatisfied homosexuals establish heterosexual lifestyles after the intensive phase of the intervention was 20.9%, and after 5 years' follow-up it was 28.4%." 79

In his review of studies on conversion therapy that seeks to change people with homosexual orientation to heterosexual orientations, Dr. Throckmorton notes the problem of defining sexual orientation. He reports that if anything can be concluded from his review of the literature, it is that change is possible. In regards to early work in the area of therapy with homosexuals, he comments on Bieber et. al.(1962) who reported on the psychoanalyses of 106 homosexual men. A third of the men did not indicate they wanted to change orientation, despite that 27% of the clients reported changing to exclusive heterosexuality as a result of their psychoanalytic therapy. Socarides (1979) reported that 44% of 45 gays treated with psychoanalytic psychotherapy achieved "full heterosexual functioning." Birk in 1980 reported that of 14 clients, 100% of exclusively gay men were able to obtain a heterosexual adaptation and 10 were satisfactorily married. 80

Dr. Robert L. Spitzer led the team that in 1973 helped take homosexuality as a diagnosis out of the psychiatric diagnostic manual. At that time he believed that sexual orientation could not be changed. His belief about this changed after his study of 200 former homosexuals led him to believe that "some people can and do change". 81

Dr. Isay reported that overall most, but not all "dynamically oriented psychiatrists" and especially psychoanalysts believed that

homosexuality should be changed to heterosexuality through therapy that uncovers childhood conflicts that interfere with psychosexual development. Dr. Richard Isay was chair of the American Psychiatric Association (APA's) Committee on Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues, as well as a professor of psychiatry at Cornell Medical School. 82

The Social Organisations of Sexuality is a 700 page book representing the most comprehensive study of human sexuality ever performed. It was undertaken at the urging of the United States government as a consequences of the AIDS pandemic and is universally acknowledged as the authoritative source document on the subject. It contains an entire chapter (eight) on the subject of homosexuality and was repeatedly cited (as noted above) in amicus briefs inter alia in the landmark Lawrence v. Texas case, supporting Lawrence and the majority decision. The study also contains a wealth of information concerning the development of same sex attractions, experiences, antecedents and behaviors over the course of a lifetime in both men and women; extensive demographic pictures of the associated types and patterns of sexual experiences (as also for opposite sex attractions, experiences, etc.). Of particular relevance here is the fact that the cohort of “men who have sex with men” as defined by the CDC, age 16- 20, at highest risk for either becoming HIV positive or developing AIDS before age 30 (between 30-50% in numerous multi-center studies in the United States, Canada and Europe). But Laumann et al, found that 42% of these men never had sex with men again after age 18. In short, by any rigorous definition of “homosexuality”, the highest risk-factor for AIDS is spontaneously reversible midway through that time when sexual activity is its notorious peak, and “sexual identity” is supposedly long-since fixed. This statistical fact is quite apart from any questions of deliberate therapeutic change. 83

A study was conducted of 11 homosexuals who claimed to have switched from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality. "Religious ideology and a religious community offered the subjects a 'folk therapy' that was paramount in producing their change." 84

Dr. Byrd notes that many homosexual men that he has had in treatment have been in the gay lifestyle for years. They often describe the life style as being lacking in meaningful relationships, lonely, unfulfilling and depressing. They report that their homosexual activity serves to relieve their depression. In addition to helping his patients decrease or eliminate homosexual attraction and behavior, he helps them develop the ability to have non-sexual closeness with other men. Many of his patients report experiencing love, joy, peace and fulfillment through what he labels "gender affirmative therapy." 85

8. THE RIGHT TO SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS NOT ABSOLUTE

No right is absolute. No one has the right to sell himself into slavery. No one has the right to start selling his organs in exchange for money. If a certain religious group would practice voluntary human sacrifice, will the constitutional rights sanction such practices?

Looking at history, fundamental rights are those rights and benefits rooted in tradition and history.

Also, all people have the same right to marry, as long as they abide by the law. As shown earlier in the document, marriage is not a creation of the law and predates the law or constitution. At its heart it is an anthropological and sociological reality, not a legal one. Laws relating to marriage merely recognize and regulate an institution that already exists.86 People cannot marry a close relative, adults cannot marry children and marriage is not allowed between people and animals.87 Likewise men cannot marry men and women cannot marry women.

9. THE TRADITIONAL HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE SHOULD THEREFORE ENJOY SPECIAL PRIVILEGES

In the light of the important role that the Traditional Heterosexual Marriage plays in stabilising society, we should give it special privileges in order to create an optimum climate within which it can prosper and to serve as an incentive and encourage Traditional Heterosexual Marriage.

The legal and financial benefits of marriage are not an entitlement to be distributed equally to all (if they were, single people would have as much reason to consider them "discriminatory" as same-sex couples). Society grants benefits to heterosexual marriage because marriage has benefits for society--including, but not limited to, the reproduction of the species in households with the optimal household structure (i.e., the presence of both a mother and a father).

The argument that marriage should enjoy special privileges are therefore justified, especially in the light of the fact that there is no scientific proof that the homosexual sexual orientation is an inherited, and therefore unchangeable, trait.

DFL is of the opinion that the term marriage should be retained for the traditional form of marriage.

In the words of Judge Feinberg in her 71 page ruling of the New Jersey legislature: The state’s interest in preserving the long-accepted definition of marriage, on the other hand, is substantial. It is entirely rational for the Legislature to conclude that the rights of gay and lesbians can be protected in ways other than alteration of the traditional understanding of marriage. The institution of marriage has played a unique role in the formation of our society. Its status as the union of people of different genders has remained unchanged throughout history. While the Legislature has demonstrated its desire to recognize the rights of individuals in same-sex relationships, it is not unreasonable for the Legislature to conclude that a fundamental change in the centuries-old meaning of marriage is necessary to protect same-sex couples.

But when history, common law, and the uniform law of the United States all reach the conclusion that marriage does not extend to same-sex couples, it is entirely reasonable for the New Jersey Legislature to decide that the rights of gay men and lesbians can be protected short of creating the unique right to enter into a same-sex marriage.88

Further, we are not convinced that same-sex couples even want to assume the responsibilities that are found in a Traditional Heterosexual Marriage. There is considerable reason to doubt that they do. A front- page article in the New York Times (August 31, 2003) reported that in the first 2 months after Ontario's highest court legalized "marriage" for same-sex couples, fewer than 500 same-sex Canadian couples had taken out marriage licenses in Toronto, even though the city has over 6,000 such couples registered as permanent partners.

The Times reported that "skepticism about marriage is a recurring refrain among Canadian gay couples," noting that "many gays express the fear that it will undermine their notions of who they are. They say they want to maintain the unique aspects of their culture and their place at the edge of social change." Mitchel Raphael, the editor of a Toronto "gay" magazine, said, "I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever." And Rinaldo Walcott, a sociologist at the University of Toronto, lamented, "Will queers now have to live with the heterosexual forms of guilt associated with something called cheating?" 89

In England the experience appears to be just as controversial amongst homosexuals.90

Consequently, redefining marriage to include same sex relationships will not only go against the grain and norms of the majority of South Africans but may even be against the wishes of the majority of the homosexual community in the country.

The legislation will create an incentive for people to pretend they are homosexuals or live-in lovers in order to gain partnership rights (e.g. two spinsters living together for 40 years but are excluded from benefit, on account of their unwillingness to register as a lesbian couple). This is precisely what has already happened in the French Civil Pact of Solidarity (PaCS) scheme.

10. UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS THE GOVERNMENT HAS THE RIGHT TO OVERULE THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS

If a certain practice is proved to be sufficiently harmful, the government has the right to overrule the rights of the individual performing the practice e.g. forcing people to wear safety belts and not allowing people to drink and drive. We believe that the harm of same sex marriage has been demonstrated clearly in the document.

11. CONCLUSION

Vast amounts of evidence indicate that same sex relationships are harmful, both physically and mentally, to the partners involved, the children involved and to society as a whole. The material is so convincing that any move to grant same sex relationships legal recognition cannot even be considered before sufficient evidence to prove the opposite has been produced. Adding to this is the fact that such a move would go against the norms and values of the majority of South Africans. In the eyes of society it will devalue the traditional heterosexual marriage, which is known to be beneficial, and provide incentives for same sex marriage, which has been shown to be harmful.

We quote again from our annexed document by Dr. Satinover: “Once constituted in a union, all marriages of one man and one woman are inherently similar entities, constituting a homogenous community of such unions, whereas unions of two men and two women dichotomize along the natural sexual fault line into two distinct communities. The use of terms such as “same-sex marriage,” “civil unions” and “domestic partnerships” obscures not only this self-evident conceptual and biological but more importantly sociological reality with direct impact on the individuals who would undertake contractual relations with each other on such a basis, as likewise on any dependent children, and on society at large.

Another major problem with mother-mother or father-father families is that they deliberately institute, and intend to keep in place indefinitely, a “family structure” known to be deficient in being obligatorily and permanently either fatherless or motherless. 91

Children have been shown to suffer not only from the presence of well-documented negative parental characteristics, (e.g., harsh discipline, overt abuse) they have also been shown to suffer from the absence of desiderata, in particular reference to the above, multigenerational stability, that is, the capacity of their own family to reproduce itself by raising biological children who themselves raise children who go on to establish stable, harmonious families.

In the first place DFL is therefore of the opinion that the term marriage should be retained for the traditional heterosexual form of marriage.

In the second place DFL is of the opinion that any new legislation for the purpose of granting legal recognition to same sex conjugal relationships (even though it may not use the word “marriage”) by arrogating the privileges that pertain to heterosexually married couples, will create a gay marriage in all but name. Giving rights to same sex relationships may erode the status of Traditional Heterosexual Marriage. It is argued that civil partnership is not a threat to marriage but merely an alternative for those who want it. But if the legal benefits of marriage are given away to any other type of relationship, the status of marriage is eroded. It will pave the way for the adoption of children by same sex couples which will not be in the best interest of those children.

REFERENCES:

1. Satinover, Jeffrey; Testimony on Homosexuality Massachusetts; 2003, April 28. 2. Glen, Norval D; Nock, Steven; Waite, Linda J; et al; 2002; Why Marriage Matters; pp. 8. 3. Sprigg, Peter; Questions and Answers: What’s Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples “Marry?”; Issue No. 256. 4. Stanton Glenn T; 2003, August 27; Is Marriage in Jeopardy? 5. Sprigg, Peter; Questions and Answers: What’s Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples “Marry?”; Issue No. 256. 6. Sprigg, Peter; Questions and Answers: What’s Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples “Marry?”; Issue No. 256. 7. Hart, Colin; Calvert, Simon; Dobson, Humphrey; Woodward, Rachel; 2002, January 17: Counterfeit Marriage: How ‘civil partnerships’ devalue the currency of marriage. 8. Over 70 per cent of children live in household headed by a married couple. House of Commons, Hansard, 11 May 2001, col.435 wa. 9. Glenn T. Stanton, Why Marriage Matters: Reasons to Believe in Marriage in Postmodern Society, (Colorado Springs, Pinon Press, 1997); Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier and Better Off Financially, (New York: Doubleday, 2000); Robert Coombs, “Marital Status and Personal Well-Being: A Literature Review,” Family Relations 40 (1991) 97- 102; Lois Verbrugge and Donald Balaban, “Patterns of Change, Disability and Well-Being,” Medical Care 27 (1989): S128- S147; I.M. Joung, et al., “Differences in Self-Reported Morbidity by Marital Status and by Living Arrangement,” International Journal of Epidemiology 23 (1994): 91-97; Linda Waite, “Does Marriage Matter?” Demography 32 (1995): 483-507; Harold Morowitz, “Hiding in the Hammond Report,” Hospital Practice (August 1975), p. 39; James Goodwin, et al., “The Effect of Marital Status on Stage, Treatment, and Survival of Cancer Patients,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 258 (1987): 3152-3130; Benjamin Malzberg, “Marital Status in Relation to the Prevalence of Mental Disease,” Psychiatric Quarterly 10 (1936): 245-261; David Williams, et al., “Marital Status and Psychiatric Disorders Among Blacks and Whites,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 33 (1992): 140-157; Steven Stack and J. Ross Eshleman, “Marital Status and Happiness: A 17-Nation Study,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60 (1998): 527-536; Robert T. Michael, et al., Sex in America: A Definitive Survey, (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1994), p. 124-129; Randy Page and Galen Cole, “Demographic Predictors of Self-Reported Loneliness in Adults,” Psychological Reports 68 (1991): 939- 945; Jan Stets, “Cohabiting and Marital Aggression: The Role of Social Isolation,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 53 (1991): 669-680; “Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1992,” U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, (March 1994), p. 31, NCJ-145125; Ronald Angel and Jacqueline Angel, Painful Inheritance: Health and the New Generation of Fatherless Families, (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1993), pp. 139, 148; Richard Rogers, “Marriage, Sex, and Mortality,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 57 (1995): 515-526. 10. David Popenoe, Life Without Father: Compelling Evidence that Fatherhood and Marriage Are Indispensible for the Good of Children, (New York, The Free Press, 1997); Glenn T. Stanton Why Marriage Matters: Reasons to Believe in Marriage in Postmodern Society, (Colorado Springs, Pinon

Press, 1997); Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994); Deborah Dawson, “Family Structure and Children’s Health and Well-Being: Data from the 1988 National Health Interview Survey on Child Health,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 53 (1991): 573-584; Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi, A General Theory of Crime, (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990), p. 103; Richard Koestner, et al., “The Family Origins of Empathic Concern: A Twenty-Six Year Longitudinal Study,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58 (1990): 709-717; E. Mavis Hetherington, “Effects of Father Absence on Personality Development in Adolescent Daughters,” Developmental Psychology 7 (1972): 313 –326; Irwin Garfinkel and Sara McLanahan, Single Mothers and Their Children: A New American Dilemma (Washington D.C.: The Urban Institute Press, 1986), pp. 30-31; David Ellwood, Poor Support: Poverty in the American Family (New York: Basic Books, 1988), p. 46; Ronald J. Angel and Jacqueline Worobey, “Single Motherhood and Children’s Health,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 29 (1988): 38-52; L. Remez, “Children Who Don’t Live with Both Parents Face Behavioral Problems,” Family Planning Perspectives, January/February 1992; Judith Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee, Second Chances: Men and Women a Decade After Divorce, (New York: Ticknor & Fields, 1990); Judith Wallerstein, et al., The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25 Year Landmark Study, (New York: Hyperion, 2000); Nicholas Zill, Donna Morrison, and Mary Jo Coiro, “Long-Term Effects of Parental Divorce on Parent-Child Relationships, Adjustment, and Achievement in Young Adulthood,” Journal of Family Psychology, 7 (1993): 91-103. 11. Glen, Norval D; Nock, Steven; Waite, Linda J; et al; 2002; Why Marriage Matters; pg. 7-8; 11-14. 12. Sprigg, Peter; Questions and Answers: What’s Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples “Marry?”; Issue No. 256. 13. Martin Daly and Margo, 1985. “Child Abuse and Other Risks of Not Living with Both Parents,” Ethology and Sociobiology 6: 197-210. 14. Jowell, R et al, British Social Attitudes (The 11th Report), Dartmouth Publishing, 1994, page 196. 15. Noebel, David A.; The Homosexual Revolution, Manitou Springs: Summit Press, 1984, p. 89.

16. (Duncan E and Tibaux G. Sexually transmitted diseases: the Cinderella of tropical medicine. Proc R Coll Physicians Edinb 1995: 25: 240-250) 17. Sprigg, Peter; Questions and Answers: What’s Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples “Marry?”; Issue No. 256. 18. Nicolosi, Joseph; Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach. 19. Hooker, E (1965). An empirical study of some relations between sexual patterns and gender identity in male homosexuals. In Sex Research, New Developments, ed. J. Money, pp. 24-52. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 20. Hoffman, M (1968). The Gay World: Male Homosexuality and the Social Creation of Evil. New York: Baic Books. 21. Dank, B (1974). The homosexual. In Sexual Deviances and Sexual Deviants, ed E. Goode and R. Troiden, pp 174-210. New York: William Morrow And co. 22. Bell, A., and Weinberg, M. (1978). Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster. 23. Freud, A. (1949). Some clinical remarks concerning the treatment of male homosexuality. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis 30:195. 24. Nunberg, H. (1938) Homosexuality, magic and aggrassion. International Journal of Psychoanalysis 14:1- 16.

25. Nicolosi, Joseph; Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach. 26. Pollak, M. (1985). Male homosexuality. In Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, pp. 40-61. New York: Basil Blackwell. 27. Nicolosi, Joseph; Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach. 28. Saghie and Robins, “Male and Female Homosexuality, A Comprehensive Investigation. “ Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, 1973. 29. Ray and Young; “The Gay Report”. 30. Harry, J.; “Gay Couples; Praeger Books, New York; 1984. 31. Nicolosi, Joseph; Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach. 32. Nicolosi, Joseph; Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach. 33. Fagan, Amy; Study finds gay unions brief; Published 2003, July 11. 34. Fagan, Amy; Study finds gay unions brief; Published 2003, July 11. 35. Stanton Glenn T; 2003, August 27; Is Marriage in Jeopardy? 36. Fagan, Amy; Study finds gay unions brief; Published 2003, July 11. 37. Cairns, Gus; Positive Nation: Netherlands: HIV is up among gay couples. 38. Sprigg, Peter; Questions and Answers: What’s Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples “Marry?”; Issue No. 256. 39. Huxley, A.; Ends and Means, Chatto and Windus, 1948, pages 311-318. 40. Johnstone, O.R.; Op cit, pages 43-44. 41. Increasingly, evidence suggests that the human herpesvirus 8 (HHV-8) is likely the cause of Kaposi's Sarcoma. Its prevalence in men who have sex with men is much higher than in the general population, 30 to 54% of those who are seropositive for HIV have been found to have antibodies to HHV-8. HHV-8 virus was found much more frequently in oral samples than in semen or anal swab samples, suggesting oral transmission of this virus. Pauk, J., et al. (2000, November 9) "Mucosal shedding of human herpesvirus 8 in men." The New England Journal of Medicine. 343, 1369-1377.

"Human herpesvirus 8 (HHV-8), the causal agent of Kaposi's sarcoma, is transmitted sexually among homosexual men." Cannon, M. J., et al. (2001, March 1). "Blood-borne and sexual transmission lf human herpervirus 8 in women with or at risk for human immunodeficiency virus infection." The New England Journal of Medicine. 344 (9), 637-643.

In a study of 920 young black males, ages 15-22, who have sex with men, very high rates (16%) of HIV infection were found. (2002, August 23) Unrecognized HIV infection, risk behavior, and perceptions of risk among young black men who have sex with men--six U.S. cities, 1994-1998. PubMed [On-line], Available PMID: 12201605 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]. Abstract from: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Morbidity and Morality Weekly Report. 51 (33), 733-736.

Men who have sex with men were found to have a 100 to 700 times greater prevalence rate of HIV infection than primarily heterosexual men who applied for service in the U. S. military. Men who have sex with men were also found to have a high prevalence of hepatitis B viral markers (10.7%). High HIV rates were correlated with anal sex and having had sex with 20 or more men. Valleroy, L. A., et al. (2000, July 12). "HIV prevalence and associated risks in young men who have sex with men." Journal of the American Medical Association. 284 (2), 198-204.

This study involved interviews of 21,857 males. Significant and perhaps increasing percentages of men who have sex with men reported engaging in unprotected anal intercourse in the period from 1994-1997 in San Francisco. During this period an increase in rectal gonorrhea rates was noted. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Morbidity and Morality Weekly Report, (1999, February 24) "Increases in unsafe sex and rectal gonorrhea among men who have sex with men - San Francisco, California, 1994-1997." Journal of the American Medical Association. 281 (8), 696-697.

This study of 324 women and 93 men with invasive or in situ anal cancer findings supported the previously recognized association between anal cancer and homosexual contact. Frisch, M. F., et al. (1997, November 6). "Sexually transmitted infection as a cause of anal cancer." The New England Journal of Medicine. 337 (19), 1350-1358.

It was found that the risk of anal cancers was strongly associated with a history of male homosexual activity involving receptive anal intercourse. Daling, J. R., et al. (1987, October 15). "Sexual practices, sexually transmitted diseases, and the incidence of anal cancer." The New England Journal of Medicine. 317 (16), 973-977.

"In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday." p. 657. Hogg, R. S., et al. (1997). "Modeling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men." International Journal of Epidemiology. 26 (3). 6576-661.

Four databases were used to evaluate homosexuals' median age of death, which was found to be less than 50 years. "The four lines of evidence were consistent with previous findings suggesting that homosexual activity may be associated with a lifespan shortened by 20 to 30 years." Cameron, P., Cameron, K., & Playfair, W. L. (1998). "Does Homosexual Activity Shorten Life?" Psychological Reports. 83, 847-866.

Homosexual males "have a higher incidence of venereal warts than does the general population." Lamb, C. Based on interviews with Farber, G. A., Owen, L. G., & Tromovitch, T. A. (1984, September 30). "Help for the patient with venereal warts." Patient Care. 64.

In a British study involving an unselected series of 27 lesbians attending a genitourinary medicine clinic, these women were noted to have a relatively high prevalence of the human papilloma virus (which can lead to cancer) and herpes simplex virus. Edwards A. Thin, (1990 May) "Sexually transmitted diseases in lesbians." PubMed [On-line], Available: PMID: 2083290 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]. Abstract from: International Journal of STD & AIDS. 1 (3), 178-81.

42. Garofalo, Robert, et.al., “The Association Between Health Risk Behaviors and Sexual Orientation Among a School-based Sample of Adolescents,” PEDIATRICS, Vol. 101, No. 5, May 1998: 895-902. 43. Sandfort, Theo G.M. et. Al., “Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders,” Archives of General Psychiatry (Journal of the American Medical Association), Vol. 58, No.1, January 2001.

44. Sandfort, Theo G.M. et. Al., “Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders,” Archives of General Psychiatry (Journal of the American Medical Association), Vol. 58, No.1, January 2001. 45. "Findings support recent evidence suggesting that gay, lesbian, or bisexual young people are at increased risk of mental health problems." This study involved "a 21-year longitudinal study of a birth cohort of 1265 children born in Christchurch, New Zealand. At 21 years of age, 1007 sample members were questioned about their sexual orientation and relationships with same-sex partners since the age of 16 years. Twenty-eight subjects (2.8%) were classified as being of gay, lesbian, or bisexual sexual orientation."...Gay, lesbian, or bisexual sexual young people were at increased risks of major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, nicotine dependence, other substance abuse and/or dependence, multiple disorders, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts." Fergusson, L. J., Horwood, A. L., & Beautrais, A. L. (1999) "Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people?" Archives of General Psychiatry. 56 (10), 876-880.

In a study of 186 Canadian women who self identified as lesbian they were found to smoke, drink alcohol and use caffeine more than other women. Moran, N., (1996, May) "Lesbian health care needs." MedPub [On-line] Available at PMID: 8688691 [PubMed - endexed for MEDLINE]. Abstract from: Canadian Family Physician. 42, 879-884.

In a study of 7 independently conducted surveys of lesbian/bisexual women involving 11,876 who were compared with national estimates for women in general, increased prevalence rates were found in lesbian/bisexual women for obesity, alcohol use, and tobacco use. Cochran, S. D., et al. (2001 April). "Cancer-related risk indicators and preventive screening behaviors among lesbians and bisexual women." PubMed [On-line] Available: PMID: 11291371 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]. Abstract from: American Journal of Public Health. 91 (4),178-81

In this review of lesbian and bisexual womens health which included results from an Institute of Medicine Study issued in 1999 as well as subsequent studies it was found that lesbian and bisexual women have higher reported rates of risk for cancer and cardiovascular disease as well as obesity. They also appeared to have high rates of human papilloma virus infection. DNA for this virus was found in 31% of women who engaged in sex with other women even though they had not had sex with a man for 12 previous months. Roughly 5% (4.9%) of exclusively lesbian women had cytologic abnormalities on a Pap smear. Bisexual and lesbian women were found to have higher scores for anxiety, suicidal ideation and suicide attempts than heterosexual women. Bradford, J. (2002, July 10). "Lesbian and bisexual health: an overview for healthcare providers." Journal Watch Women's Health [On-line], Available: womens-health.jwatch.org/cgi/content/full/2002/710/9.

"…Homosexual people are at a substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression, and anxiety disorder. Preliminary results from a large, equally well- conducted Dutch study generally corroborate these findings." Bailey, J. M. (1999). "Homosexuality and mental illness" (Commentary). Archives of General Psychiatry. 56 (10), 883-884.

A Dutch study of 5998 heterosexual and homosexual men and women showed that "psychiatric disorders were more prevalent among homosexually active people compared with heterosexually active people…homosexual men had a much larger chance of having had 12-month and lifetime bipolar

disorders and a higher chance of having had lifetime major depression…The 12-month prevalences of agoraphobia, simple phobia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder were higher in homosexual men than in heterosexual men…On a lifetime basis, homosexual women had a significantly higher prevalence of general mood disorders and major depression than did heterosexual women…Lifetime prevalence of both alcohol and other drug dependence was also significantly higher in homosexual women than in heterosexual women." Sanfort, T. G. M., de Graaf, R., Bijl, R.V., & Schnabel, P. (2001, January) "Same- Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders: findings from the Netherlands mental health survey and incidence study" (NEMESIS). Archives of General Psychiatry. 58, 85-91.

This study of male twins who were Vietnam veterans found that male homosexuals were 5.1 times more likely to experience suicidal thoughts and behaviors than were their heterosexual twins. Herrell, R., et al. (1999, October). "Sexual Orientation and Suicidality: a Co-Twin Control Study in Adult Men." Archives of General Psychiatry. 56 (10), 867-874.

Men who were sexually abused when they were boys may well experience "sexual dysfunction, vague somatic complaints, substance abuse and STDs." Some were also noted to experience compulsive masturbation. It also appears that boys who were sexually molested have subsequently "a higher incidence of homosexuality." The majority of sexual abusers of boys are male. Elliott, D. M., & Briere, J. (1992, February). "The Sexually Abused Boy: Problems in Manhood." Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality. 26 (2), 68-71.

"This paper presents the findings of a large (n=3400) survey of a homosexual population…Substantially higher proportions of the homosexual sample used alcohol, marijuana, or cocaine than was the case in the general population." Mc Kirnan, D. J., Peterson, P. L., (1989). "Alcohol and drug use among homosexual men and women: epidemiology and population characteristics." PubMed [On-line] , Available:PMID: 2589133 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]. Abstract from: Addictive Behavior. 14 (5), 545-553.

In a review of the literature the authors found that among other variables male bulimics were more likely to be homosexual and have a later age of onset than female bulimics. Carlat, D. J. & Camargo, C. A., (1991) "Review of bulimia nervosa in males." American Journal of Psychiatry. Abstract, 148, 831-843.

In a New Zealand study of 770 heterosexual men and women and 172 men and women who experienced different degrees of same sex attraction, the authors found: That attempts to inflict self harm increase with the degree of homosexual attraction; Men who reported same sex attraction were significantly more likely than heterosexual men to report attempts to hurt themselves; Those who reported same sex attraction were less likely to be living with a partner of either sex than those with heterosexual attraction; There were elevated rates of substance abuse in both sexes experiencing same sex attraction. This was particularly prominent in lesbians. Skegg, K., et al. (2003, March). "Sexual orientation and self-harm in men and women." American Journal of Psychiatry. 160 (3) 541-546.

46. Increasingly, evidence suggests that the human herpesvirus 8 (HHV-8) is likely the cause of Kaposi's Sarcoma. Its prevalence in men who have sex with men is much higher than in the general population, 30 to 54% of those who are seropositive for HIV have been found to have antibodies to HHV-8. HHV-8

virus was found much more frequently in oral samples than in semen or anal swab samples, suggesting oral transmission of this virus. Pauk, J., et al. (2000, November 9) "Mucosal shedding of human herpesvirus 8 in men." The New England Journal of Medicine. 343, 1369-1377.

"Human herpesvirus 8 (HHV-8), the causal agent of Kaposi's sarcoma, is transmitted sexually among homosexual men." Cannon, M. J., et al. (2001, March 1). "Blood-borne and sexual transmission If human herpesvirus 8 in women with or at risk for human immunodeficiency virus infection." The New England Journal of Medicine. 344 (9), 637-643.

Syphilis and gonorrhea are rising in the homosexual and bisexual population. Schwabke, J. R. (1991, April). "Syphilis in the '90s." Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality. 44-49.

A telephone interview study of 2585 homosexually active men in Australia found that in men over 50 years old that more of them reported the had 101-500 lifetime partners than any other category involving numbers of sexual partners and that only 2.7% reported just one lifetime sexual partner. Five research studies of interest. (2002, April) NARTH Bulletin, 11, (1) 5-8, Review of: Van de Ven, P., Rodden, P., Crawford, J., &Kippax, S. (1997). "A comparative demographic and sexual profile of older homosexually active men." Journal of Sex Research. 34 (4), 349-360.

"Sixteen percent of adult men in the general population have said they were sexually abused as children." (p. 80) Most abusers are men. Boys often will not reveal abuse and the treating physician needs to be aware of the circumstances and behaviors that should raise suspicion that the boy has been abused. Zavodnick, J. M. (1989, January). "Detection and Management of Sexual Abuse of Boys." Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality. 80-90.

This study analyzes 22 cases of male rape and the impact it had on the rapists and their male victims. Groth, A. N., & Burgess, A. W. (1980, July). "Male Rape: Offenders and Victims." American Journal of Psychiatry. 137 (7), 806-810.

Psychiatric evaluations were made over a two year period of 13 military men who were victims of same- sex rape reporting their disturbances. Goyer, P. F., & Eddleman, H. C. (1984, April). "Same-Sex Rape of Nonincarcerated Men." American Journal of Psychiatry. 141 (4), 576-579.

"…The gay community is full of men who are sexual compulsives, having hundreds of sex partners a year." (p.25) Bruce, T. (2003). The Death of Right and Wrong. Roseville, CA: Prima.

"The San Francisco Sentinel, a Bay Area gay-activist newspaper, published a piece arguing that pedophilia is central to the male homosexual life. Thus an advocacy group exists, the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), which actively promotes homosexual pedophilia as an

acceptable alternative form of sex." Satinover, J. (1996). Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Grand Rapids, MI: Hamewith Books. 63.

47. Chastain, Jane; Trophy Children; 2002, February 21. 48. Satinover, Jefferey; Testimony on Homosexuality Massachusetts; 2003, April 28. 49. Doll, L.S. et. al., “Self-Reported Childhood and Adolescent Sexual Abuse Among Homosexual and Bisexual Men,” Child Abuse and Neglect. (1992) 16:855-64. 50. McWhirter and McTherson, “The Male Couple, How Relationships Develop, “ Prentice Hall, 1984. 51. Cameron, Paul; Molestations by Homosexual Foster Parents: News Paper Accounts v Official Records; Publ. Psychological Reports 2003; 93:793-802. 52. Bigros et. al., Severe parental sexual abuse in early childhood and systematic aggression against the family constitution Canadian Psychiatric; 1991; 36: 527-29. 53. Cameron et.al., Child molestation and Homosexuality Psychol Rpts. 1985: 58; 327-33. 54. Williams, On Father and Son incest: a review and analysis of reported incidents Clinical social work 1988: 16: 165-179. 55. Stanton Glenn T; 2003, August 27; Is Marriage in Jeopardy? 56. Goins v. West Group, 619 N.W.2d 424 (Minn.App. 2001). 57. Sprigg, Peter; Questions and Answers: What’s Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples “Marry?”; Issue No. 256. 58. Sprigg, Peter; Questions and Answers: What’s Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples “Marry?”; Issue No. 256. 59. Fagan, Amy; Study finds gay unions brief; Published 2003, July 11. 60. Hart, Colin; Calvert, Simon; Dobson, Humphrey; Woodward, Rachel; 2002, January 17; Counterfeit Marriage: How ‘civil partnerships’ devalue the currency of marriage. 61. Michelangelo Signorile; “Bridal Wave,” OUT magazine, December / January 1994, p. 161. 62. Frank Browning, The Culture of Desire: Paradox and Perversity in Gay Lives Today (New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1993), pp. 155, 157. 63. Gene Edward Veith, "Wages for sin: Marriage benefits are starting to go to those who are shacking up," World magazine, Aug. 18, 2001, Vol. 16, No. 31. 64. Le Vay, S.A. Differences in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men. Science 1991; 253: 1034-1037. 65. Human sexual orientation: The biologic theories reappraised. Arch Gen Psychiatric; 1993: 50; 228-239. 66. Bailey J M & Pillard R C A genetic study of male sexual orientation. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1991;48:1089- 1096. 67. King M & McDonald E Homosexuals who are twins: a study of 46 probands. Brit J Psychiatry 1992:160:407-409. 68. Byrd, D., Cox, S.E. & Robinson, J.Y., (2001, August); NARTH Bulletin; 10, (2), 11-13. 69. Cameron P., Playfair W. and Williams. The lifespan of homosexuals: Paper presented at the Eastern Psychological Assn. Convention April 17, 1993. 70. Cameron P et al Effect of homosexuality upon public health and social order Psychological Reports 1989,64,1167-7: Sexual orientation and sexually transmitted disease Nebraska Medical Journal 1985;292-299; Homosexuals in the armed forces Psychological Reports 1988,62,211-219. 71. Corey L & Holmes K K Sexual transmission of Hepatitis A in homosexual men New Engl. J. Med. 1980:302:435-38.

72. Byrd, D., Cox, S.E. & Robinson, J.Y., (2001, August); NARTH Bulletin; 10, (2), 11-13. 73. "Each individual's homosexuality is the likely result of a complex mixture of genetic, intrauterine, and extrauterine biological factors combined with familial and social factors as well as repeatedly reinforced choices. These create a particular blend of impulses. The role of genetic influence is small, and in any event means very little in terms of compelling an individual to become homosexual." Satinover, J., (1996). Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Grand Rapids, MI: Hamewith Books. 245.

Camille Paglia, lesbian activist, is quoted by Drs. Byrd, Cox and Robinson as saying: "We should be honest enough to consider whether homosexuality may not indeed be a pausing at the prepubescent stage where children anxiously band together by gender…current gay cant insists that homosexuality is 'not a choice;' that no one would choose to be gay in a homophobic society. But there is an element of choice in all behavior, sexual or otherwise. It takes an effort to deal with the opposite sex; it is safer with your own kind. The issue is one of challenge verus comfort." Byrd, D., Cox, S. E. & Robinson, J. W., (2001, August). "The innate-immutable argument finds no basis in science. In their own words: gay activists speak about science, morality, philosophy." NARTH Bulletin. 10 (2), 11-13.

74. In a study of 942 non-patient adults, 46% of homosexuals versus 7% of heterosexuals reported homosexual molestation as a child. Of the male study subjects 68% first identified as homosexual after the molestation which occurred at a mean age of 11. Five research studies of interest. (2002, April) NARTH Bulletin, 11, (1) 5-8, Review of: Tomeo, M., Templer, D., Anderson, S., & Kotler, D. (2001). "Comparative data of childhood and adolescence molestation in heterosexual and homosexual persons." Archives of Sexual Behavior. 30 (3), 535-541.

This article documents cases of molestation by 416 Scoutmasters, at least 1,151 Scouts reported leader abuse, and a discussion of the serious problem this is for the Boy Scouts. "More than once a week for the past two decades, on average, a Cub Scout, Boy Scout or Explorer has reported being sexually abused by a Scout leader." Boyle, P. (1991, June 17). "The Scouts' Badge of Dishonor." Insight. 12-23.

"The child molester has found a home in the world of youth sports, where as a coach he can gain the trust and loyalty of kids-and then prey on them…The average 'preferential' molester, the kind most common in youth sports, victimizes about 120 children before he is caught…For every child who reports being molested, according to a variety of experts on the sexual exploitation of children, at least 10 more keep their secrets unrevealed." Nack, W. & Yaeger, D. (1999, September 13). "Every Parent's Nightmare." Sports Illustrated. 40-53.

Tammy Bruce, who is a feminist, lesbian and former president of the Los Angeles Chapter of NOW, states in her book: "Almost without exception, the gay men I know (and that's too many to count) have a story of some kind of sexual trauma or abuse in their childhood--molestation by a parent or an authority figure, or seduction as an adolescent at the hands of an adult." Bruce, T. (2003). The Death of Right and Wrong. Roseville, CA: Prima. 99.

It is estimated that the number of Americans who have had a homosexual parent is less than 0.5 %. Those with homosexual parents were more likely to experience the following problems: 1. have an increased likelihood of sex with a parent, 2. have a first sexual experience be homosexual, 3. suffer

sexual abuse, 4. become bisexual or homosexual, 5. be less satisfied with their growing up experience. Cameron, P., Cameron, K., (1996, Winter) "Homosexual Parents." Adolescence. 31 (124), 757-776.

Children of homosexuals are more likely to become homosexual than are children of traditionally married couples. Adding together various studies suggests that they are at least 3 times more apt to become homosexual than are children who are raised by traditionally married couples. Cameron, P., Cameron, K., (1997) "Did the APA Misrepresent the Scientific Literature to Courts in Support of Homosexual Custody?" The Journal of Psychology. 131 (3), 313-332.

Bisexuals and homosexuals are more likely to be exposed to infection, have more sexual partners, and be reported more frequently for illegal activity than heterosexuals. In this sample, 31% of those sexually molested by an adult when they were younger than 13, were homosexually molested. Since homosexuals and bisexuals in the USA make up between 3% and 5% of the total population, it appears that homosexuals are more likely to molest children than heterosexuals, perhaps around 8 times as much. Cameron, P., Cameron, K., & Proctor, K.(1989). "Effect of Homosexuality Upon Public Health and Social Order." Psychological Reports. 64, 1167-1179.

This study found the prevalence of intimate partner battering victimization to be 39.2% among men who have sex with men during the last 5 years. The characteristics of the battering victims were identified and the implications of this serious public health problem were explored. Greenwood, G. L., et al. (2002, December). "Battering Victimization Among a Probability-Based Sample of Men Who Have Sex With Men." American Journal of Public Health. 92 (12), 1964-1969.

"Gay, lesbian, or bisexual (GLB) students were more likely than non-GLB students to have engaged in 30 different high health risk behaviors, including the following: GLB vs. non-GLB, Alcohol use (< age 13) 59.1% 30.4%, Cocaine use (

"The gay community must face the truth and see sexual molestation of an adolescent for the abuse it is, instead of the 'coming-of-age' experience many regard it as being. Until then, the Gay Elite will continue to promote a culture of alcohol and drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, and suicide by AIDS." Bruce, T. (2003). The Death of Right and Wrong. Roseville, CA: Prima. 99.

The author clearly describes how homosexuals brought disruption and immorality into the Catholic Church (which may help explain the high rates of sexual abuse seen among Catholic clergy involving young boys). Rose, M. S., (2002). Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption Into the Catholic Church. Washington, D. C: Regnery.

75. Shrier, D., and R.J. Johnson, “Sexual Victimization of Boys.” Journal of the National Medical Association. 219 (1988) 1189 – 1193. 76. L.S. Doll, et.al., "Self-Reported Childhood and Adolescent Sexual Abuse Among Homosexual and Bisexual Men," Child Abuse and Neglect. (1992) 16: 855-64.

77. McWhirter and McTherson, "The Male Couple, How Relationships Develop." Prentice Hall, 1984.

78. Conclusion of comprehensive review of 135 research studies, prior reviews, academic summaries, books, and book chapters, on the subject of the biology of homosexuality by William Byne and Bruce Parsons from Columbia University. Byne, W. & Parsons, B. (1993, March) Human sexual orientation, The biologic theories reappraised. Archives of General Psychiatry. 50, 228-239. 79. Schwartz, M. F. & Masters, W. H. (1984, February). "The Masters and Johnson treatment program for dissatisfied homosexual men." American Journal of Psychiatry. 141 (2), 173-181. 80. Throckmorton, W., (1998). "Attempts to modify sexual orientation: a review of outcome literature and ethical issues." Journal of Mental Health Counseling. 20. 283-304. 81. Nicolosi, L. A. (2001 August). "Historic gay advocate now believes change is possible." NARTH Bulletin. 10 (2). 1, 28. 82. Isay, R. A., (1992, May 1). Psychiatric News. 83 Satinover, Jeffrey; Testimony on Homosexuality Massachusetts; 2003, April 28.

84. Pattison, E. M., & Pattison, M. L. (1980, December). "Ex-Gays: Religiously Mediated Change in Homosexuals." American Journal of Psychiatry. 137 (12), 1553-1562. 85. Byrd, A. D., (2002, September 30). "Treatment of male homosexuality: a cognitive-behavioral and interpersonal approach." NARTH [On-line]. Available: narth.com/docs/byrd.html. 86. Sprigg, Peter; Questions and Answers: What’s Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples “Marry?”; Issue No. 256. 87. Sprigg, Peter; Questions and Answers: What’s Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples “Marry?”; Issue No. 256. 88. LaRue, Jan. 2003, November 7; New Jersey Court Rules Against Same-Sex ‘Marriage’. 89. Sprigg, Peter; Questions and Answers: What’s Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples “Marry?”; Issue No. 256. 90. Hart, Colin; Calvert, Simon; Dobson, Humphrey; Woodward, Rachel; 2002, January 17; Counterfeit Marriage: How ‘civil partnerships’ devalue the currency of marriage. 91. Satinover, Jeffrey; Testimony on Homosexuality Massachusetts; 2003, April 28.

______