Foreword
What makes this book different? It is a unique resource on an “untouchable” subject.
Compiling a book like this presented an interesting challenge. A disproportionate incidence of pathologies is found among homosexual men, lesbians, and bisexuals. Yet the general public is told very little, if anything, about the baneful nature of homosexuality and its associated addictions and behaviors. The popular culture tells us, “Look the other way; there’s nothing to see here.”
There is an enormous volume of information available, but it’s widely dispersed and often hard to find. We spent several years collecting and organizing it. This book provides detailed discussion of homosexual lifestyle issues, sexual practices, and their medical and psychological consequences. We include background information and historical context which may be new to many readers.
We present the material in terms the layman can understand, not as a morass of graphs and medical jargon. Chapters do not have to be read sequentially. Rather, sections can be read individually without missing anything. The book can be seen as an annotated bibliography, pulling together thousands of up-to-date sources into a single volume.
The medical community in the U.S. (and around the world) has done extensive study on homosexual health issues. This book cites that information, from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), medical professional associations, the American Psychological and Psychiatric Associations, the Gay & Lesbian Medical Association, the Fenway Institute, various LGBT-friendly clinical guides, and numerous research studies.
In addition, we document homosexual ideology, lifestyle, behaviors, and practices, referencing their public events, “gay pride” parades, videos, conferences, publications, and websites. (We also include a brief review of the transgender issue.) Some of the citations and images border on pornography, so reader beware! The vulgarity, however, exposes the very nature of homosexuality. It is one reason that homosexual health issues have not been presented truthfully to the public.
We also present critical viewpoints from outside the LGBT-affirming medical establishment for balance and context. For too long, honest discussion on this subject has been blocked by intimidation and even outright threats.
On most topics, several (or multiple) studies and sources are cited so the reader can see a breadth of perspectives and conclusions. Sources are meticulously documented with Internet links in 1,800 endnotes.
Does the book have a viewpoint? Yes: That too many of our fellow citizens, their family, and friends are suffering unnecessarily from the medical and psychological fallout of the homosexual or bisexual lifestyle. Homosexuality is not just a private personal issue; it is an important public health issue. We hope that the information in this book will encourage our society to take a step back, understand what the normalization of homosexuality has brought in its wake, and reconsider the course we’re on.
We hope you will read the information presented here with an open mind. Let the honest discussion begin!
– Brian Camenker
Executive Director, MassResistance
What makes this book different? It is a unique resource on an “untouchable” subject.
Compiling a book like this presented an interesting challenge. A disproportionate incidence of pathologies is found among homosexual men, lesbians, and bisexuals. Yet the general public is told very little, if anything, about the baneful nature of homosexuality and its associated addictions and behaviors. The popular culture tells us, “Look the other way; there’s nothing to see here.”
There is an enormous volume of information available, but it’s widely dispersed and often hard to find. We spent several years collecting and organizing it. This book provides detailed discussion of homosexual lifestyle issues, sexual practices, and their medical and psychological consequences. We include background information and historical context which may be new to many readers.
We present the material in terms the layman can understand, not as a morass of graphs and medical jargon. Chapters do not have to be read sequentially. Rather, sections can be read individually without missing anything. The book can be seen as an annotated bibliography, pulling together thousands of up-to-date sources into a single volume.
The medical community in the U.S. (and around the world) has done extensive study on homosexual health issues. This book cites that information, from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), medical professional associations, the American Psychological and Psychiatric Associations, the Gay & Lesbian Medical Association, the Fenway Institute, various LGBT-friendly clinical guides, and numerous research studies.
In addition, we document homosexual ideology, lifestyle, behaviors, and practices, referencing their public events, “gay pride” parades, videos, conferences, publications, and websites. (We also include a brief review of the transgender issue.) Some of the citations and images border on pornography, so reader beware! The vulgarity, however, exposes the very nature of homosexuality. It is one reason that homosexual health issues have not been presented truthfully to the public.
We also present critical viewpoints from outside the LGBT-affirming medical establishment for balance and context. For too long, honest discussion on this subject has been blocked by intimidation and even outright threats.
On most topics, several (or multiple) studies and sources are cited so the reader can see a breadth of perspectives and conclusions. Sources are meticulously documented with Internet links in 1,800 endnotes.
Does the book have a viewpoint? Yes: That too many of our fellow citizens, their family, and friends are suffering unnecessarily from the medical and psychological fallout of the homosexual or bisexual lifestyle. Homosexuality is not just a private personal issue; it is an important public health issue. We hope that the information in this book will encourage our society to take a step back, understand what the normalization of homosexuality has brought in its wake, and reconsider the course we’re on.
We hope you will read the information presented here with an open mind. Let the honest discussion begin!
– Brian Camenker
Executive Director, MassResistance
"Gay" activists' famous logo at the inception of the AIDS epidemic.
See its history at the ACT-UP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power) website.
Introduction (excerpts)
WHY BE CONCERNED about HOMOSEXUALITY?
The mainstreaming of homosexuality is a serious threat to the public health and to the health of individuals caught up in the homosexual lifestyle.
The American public is not being told how dangerous homosexuality is to the physical and mental health of its practitioners, as well as to our larger society. Rather, homosexuality is now generally presented as normal, respectable sexual expression which can be engaged in safely.
In fact, this normalization of sodomy and other dangerous practices requires our society to engage in mental gymnastics which severely distort our social, commercial, and legal interactions. Approval of homosexuality is a capitulation to irrationality which profoundly affects our society. Robert R. Reilly’s book, Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything (2014), explains that the “rationalization of sexual misbehavior” driving the “gay rights” movement “mentally transforms wrong into right” and is forcing “universal acceptance. In other words, we all must say that the bad is good.” ...
The Need to Address Homosexuality
As seen in the recent debates over “same-sex marriage” and homosexuals serving in the military, conservatives have lost the courage to address the true nature of homosexuality and its damage to the larger society.
The arguments for traditional marriage usually reference the Bible, morality, religious freedom, and the meme that “every child needs a mother and a father.” While all that is good and true, there is also need to discuss the perverted, depraved, and dangerous nature of homosexuality itself.
As the family has been destabilized by larger cultural forces, one result has been an increase in homosexuality that will in turn further weaken the family – the cornerstone of a stable and healthy society. As psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover explained in 1996:
America as a whole is now in the midst of [a] … downward spiral. The widely decried destruction of families – especially of fatherhood – increases the likelihood of all forms of sexual pathology – father problems especially causing an increase in male homosexuality; the increase in homosexuality in turn contributes to the destruction of families in the next generation.
Further damage follows the acceptance of demands for “non-discrimination” on the basis of “sexual orientation” (and “gender identity”). Non-discrimination policies in government agencies, locales, workplaces, or “public accommodations” have fostered demands in other settings and institutions (e.g., Boy Scouts, schools, the military, privately-owned businesses, etc.). Schools administrators have surrendered to the “anti-bullying” hysteria – a Trojan horse for LGBT indoctrination in the schools – and have allowed so-called “safe schools” programs to instruct children from the youngest ages that homosexuality (and transgenderism) are normal and healthy.
As Dr. Scott Lively has written, “An anti-discrimination law based upon sexual orientation is the seed that contains the entire tree of the homosexual agenda with all of its poisonous fruit.” Including GLB persons (via “sexual orientation”) as a “protected class” opened the door to all the attacks on individual freedoms and demands for special privileges we see today. For that reason alone, such laws, ordinances, and policies should be overturned.
On the Definition of “Sex”
To say men have “sex” with men (or women with women) is in itself a capitulation to the homosexual viewpoint. Is sodomy – anal intercourse (or other non-generative practices such as rimming, fisting, or “sex toy” use) – equivalent to male-female vaginal intercourse? It may be a perverted form of physical gratification, but “sex” of a wholly different sort. Using “sex” in this way would make sense only if the anus, rectum, and fist are considered sex organs – and sadomasochistic practices are considered “sex.”
But since all of the medical (and political) literature now use the word “sex” to include that twisted new meaning of perverted physical acts, we have no option but to do the same here.
Homosexual physician Stephen E. Goldstone wrote in the introduction to his 1999 book, The Ins and Outs of Gay Sex: “Day after day men come to my office and ask the same question: I have safe sex, so how did I get this [disease]?” But is “safe sex” ever achievable for “men who have sex with men”? (Are sadomasochistic acts ever safe?) If it were sex as intended by nature (and traditional morality), there should be no worries about the “safety” of sex.
Meanwhile, the medical establishment dispenses the concept that “safer sex” (or even “safe sex”) is possible for homosexual couples, no matter what practice is engaged in.
It’s Really about Sodomy
Sodomy was described by the 18th-centry English jurist, Sir William Blackstone:
… another offence, of a still deeper malignity [is] the infamous crime against nature, committed either with man or beast... But it is an offence of so dark a nature ... that the accusation should be clearly made out... our English law … treats it, in its very indictments, as a crime not fit to be named...
Blackstone’s language served as a model for our various states, including Massachusetts, which still refers to “the abominable and detestable crime against nature” in the General Laws of Massachusetts:
Chapter 272, Section 34. Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years.
Sodomy is most often applied to anal intercourse, though in its broader sense includes any sexual activity that is non-generative. The American Heritage New Dictionary gives three definitions for sodomy:
1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex
2. copulation with a member of the same sex
3. bestiality [intercourse with an animal]
Definition #1 includes non-generative heterosexual anal intercourse or oral sex. With origins in homosexual male practice, anal intercourse has become more common in recent years between men and women. Definition #2 can apply to “gay” men or lesbians where “copulation” is understood as “coupling” of any sort. Definition #3, bestiality, is rarely practiced (and mostly by males).
Sodomy and homosexuality defy nature. Human sexuality exists to perpetuate the species through heterosexual, vaginal intercourse. Societies have established marriage (consummated by penis-vagina intercourse) as a means of ensuring population growth, the proper nurturing of children, societal stability, and the physical and mental health of its individuals. Through thousands of years of human history, sodomy and other perverted, non-generative sexual practices have been reasonably condemned and scorned as unnatural, unhealthy, destabilizing, and – yes – disgusting.
Demands for “gay rights” or “LGBT rights” or “gay marriage” should be answered not only with arguments citing morality, religious freedom, and parenting standards, but by noting the unnatural, unhealthy, and repugnant character of GLB sexual practices and associated public behaviors.
The natural disgust most people feel when contemplating homosexual and lesbian practices is a legitimate response. Traditionally, that reaction (along with the morality underlying anti-sodomy laws) enforced the common-sense protective standards. Repulsion at the thought of feces fetish and the sexualization of excretory organs is now labeled anti-social bigotry in discrimination lawsuits, “gay marriage” laws, and court rulings.
Speaking in secular terms, the significant difference between an infertile man-woman marriage and a same-sex “marriage” is the “sex” acts themselves. In addition to the moral/religious arguments against homosexuality, conservatives should emphasize that normal heterosexual intercourse is legitimate because it is natural and healthy, while homosexual sexual practices are against nature and debilitating (physically and psychologically).
Homosexuality per se – sodomy – cannot be ignored if an unbreakable secular argument for man-woman marriage is to be made.
Indeed, traditional marriage proponents are stymied when confronted with the so-called “unbreakable infertility argument,” which Justice Scalia mentioned in his dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas. He observed that “the encouragement of procreation” could not constitute a “justification ... for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples,” pointing to the fact that “the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.” In other words, if the main (or only) argument for man-woman marriage is the potential for procreation, how is it that the marriage of an elderly or otherwise infertile couple (or a heterosexual couple not planning children) is justified, but “marriage” of a same-sex couple is not? Neither physical union is connected to procreation.
The cofounder of the National Organization for Marriage, Maggie Gallagher, was unable to respond to this very challenge in a forum at Boston College Law School in 2009. Nor is it answered convincingly in the recent book, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, which claims that male-female coitus and children are necessary attributes of “conjugal marriage,” yet avoids explaining why anal sodomy or other same-sex acts cannot also satisfy the requirement for a bodily union of two people.
There is also the reality of rampant, non-generative heterosexual sex (among both married and unmarried couples), which undermines the standard moral challenge on the legitimacy of homosexual sex. Conservative commentator Ramesh Ponnuru recognized this problem:
The logic of the argument against homosexuality now implicates the behavior of a lot of heterosexuals. If the argument is made openly, and cast as a case for traditional sexual morals in general, a large part of the public will flinch. If the argument is made so as to single out gays, the logic vanishes. Social conservatives begin to look as though they are motivated not by principle but by the desire to persecute a minority.
That is, given that many heterosexuals are so compromised today, moral condemnation of homosexuality is not enough to make the argument against “same-sex marriage,” “gay rights,” or even tolerance of homosexuality. And so conservatives are indeed “flinching” at the inadequacy of their own arguments – because they avoid discussion of a basic element: homosexuality (sodomy) itself.
Thus, without a straightforward condemnation of sodomy (and the lifestyle choices that go with it) based on natural law and public health, the argument against “gay rights” is lost.
As Justice Antonin Scalia said in 2003, the state does have an interest in “crafting and safeguarding of public morality … a legitimate government interest under rational basis scrutiny.” The state also has a legitimate interest in preserving the public health. There can be no dispute that the disproportionate physical illness and psychological dysfunction accompanying homosexuality are serious public health issues.
The “Culture of Death”
Sodomy and other same-sex practices belong to the culture of death: They cannot result in the creation of new life. They contradict nature. They invite or hasten death by resulting physical and mental disease.
Dennis Prager pointed to the equivalence of homosexuality and the sacrifice of babies (abortion) in that both deny life.
Dr. D. Paul Sullins explains:
Contraception, abortion, and sodomy are similar and related practices inimical to life, in that they all contravene the natural operation of the body ... Contraception-abortion, if practiced consistently, results in a family with no children; homosexual relations, if practiced universally, results in a society with no children. Relieved of the propagation of children, sexual expression has no necessary link to human sex differences. An appetite for the same sex, then, is the mirror image of a propensity to dispose of children.
Homosexual political commentator Andrew Sullivan even admitted that death is an integral part of the homosexual lifestyle: “… death is still a major concern for the homosexual. Death is intrinsic to the gay lifestyle. For gay men in America, death is less an event than an environment.”
Even the homosexual authors of After the Ball: How America will conquer its fear & hatred of Gays in the 90’s asked, “Is this a lifestyle to encourage?”
AIDS activists in the ACT UP group shouted in the 1980s, “Silence equals death!” What they demanded was research for a cure. And our health establishment has responded with enormous effort and funding to that end. While the cure has not been found, the “gay” partying continues.
The ACT UP slogan is timely, but to a different end. Now, we must renew the alert on the health hazards of homosexuality. The facts have been ignored for too long. Too many are suffering as a result.
WHY BE CONCERNED about HOMOSEXUALITY?
The mainstreaming of homosexuality is a serious threat to the public health and to the health of individuals caught up in the homosexual lifestyle.
The American public is not being told how dangerous homosexuality is to the physical and mental health of its practitioners, as well as to our larger society. Rather, homosexuality is now generally presented as normal, respectable sexual expression which can be engaged in safely.
In fact, this normalization of sodomy and other dangerous practices requires our society to engage in mental gymnastics which severely distort our social, commercial, and legal interactions. Approval of homosexuality is a capitulation to irrationality which profoundly affects our society. Robert R. Reilly’s book, Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything (2014), explains that the “rationalization of sexual misbehavior” driving the “gay rights” movement “mentally transforms wrong into right” and is forcing “universal acceptance. In other words, we all must say that the bad is good.” ...
The Need to Address Homosexuality
As seen in the recent debates over “same-sex marriage” and homosexuals serving in the military, conservatives have lost the courage to address the true nature of homosexuality and its damage to the larger society.
The arguments for traditional marriage usually reference the Bible, morality, religious freedom, and the meme that “every child needs a mother and a father.” While all that is good and true, there is also need to discuss the perverted, depraved, and dangerous nature of homosexuality itself.
As the family has been destabilized by larger cultural forces, one result has been an increase in homosexuality that will in turn further weaken the family – the cornerstone of a stable and healthy society. As psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover explained in 1996:
America as a whole is now in the midst of [a] … downward spiral. The widely decried destruction of families – especially of fatherhood – increases the likelihood of all forms of sexual pathology – father problems especially causing an increase in male homosexuality; the increase in homosexuality in turn contributes to the destruction of families in the next generation.
Further damage follows the acceptance of demands for “non-discrimination” on the basis of “sexual orientation” (and “gender identity”). Non-discrimination policies in government agencies, locales, workplaces, or “public accommodations” have fostered demands in other settings and institutions (e.g., Boy Scouts, schools, the military, privately-owned businesses, etc.). Schools administrators have surrendered to the “anti-bullying” hysteria – a Trojan horse for LGBT indoctrination in the schools – and have allowed so-called “safe schools” programs to instruct children from the youngest ages that homosexuality (and transgenderism) are normal and healthy.
As Dr. Scott Lively has written, “An anti-discrimination law based upon sexual orientation is the seed that contains the entire tree of the homosexual agenda with all of its poisonous fruit.” Including GLB persons (via “sexual orientation”) as a “protected class” opened the door to all the attacks on individual freedoms and demands for special privileges we see today. For that reason alone, such laws, ordinances, and policies should be overturned.
On the Definition of “Sex”
To say men have “sex” with men (or women with women) is in itself a capitulation to the homosexual viewpoint. Is sodomy – anal intercourse (or other non-generative practices such as rimming, fisting, or “sex toy” use) – equivalent to male-female vaginal intercourse? It may be a perverted form of physical gratification, but “sex” of a wholly different sort. Using “sex” in this way would make sense only if the anus, rectum, and fist are considered sex organs – and sadomasochistic practices are considered “sex.”
But since all of the medical (and political) literature now use the word “sex” to include that twisted new meaning of perverted physical acts, we have no option but to do the same here.
Homosexual physician Stephen E. Goldstone wrote in the introduction to his 1999 book, The Ins and Outs of Gay Sex: “Day after day men come to my office and ask the same question: I have safe sex, so how did I get this [disease]?” But is “safe sex” ever achievable for “men who have sex with men”? (Are sadomasochistic acts ever safe?) If it were sex as intended by nature (and traditional morality), there should be no worries about the “safety” of sex.
Meanwhile, the medical establishment dispenses the concept that “safer sex” (or even “safe sex”) is possible for homosexual couples, no matter what practice is engaged in.
It’s Really about Sodomy
Sodomy was described by the 18th-centry English jurist, Sir William Blackstone:
… another offence, of a still deeper malignity [is] the infamous crime against nature, committed either with man or beast... But it is an offence of so dark a nature ... that the accusation should be clearly made out... our English law … treats it, in its very indictments, as a crime not fit to be named...
Blackstone’s language served as a model for our various states, including Massachusetts, which still refers to “the abominable and detestable crime against nature” in the General Laws of Massachusetts:
Chapter 272, Section 34. Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years.
Sodomy is most often applied to anal intercourse, though in its broader sense includes any sexual activity that is non-generative. The American Heritage New Dictionary gives three definitions for sodomy:
1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex
2. copulation with a member of the same sex
3. bestiality [intercourse with an animal]
Definition #1 includes non-generative heterosexual anal intercourse or oral sex. With origins in homosexual male practice, anal intercourse has become more common in recent years between men and women. Definition #2 can apply to “gay” men or lesbians where “copulation” is understood as “coupling” of any sort. Definition #3, bestiality, is rarely practiced (and mostly by males).
Sodomy and homosexuality defy nature. Human sexuality exists to perpetuate the species through heterosexual, vaginal intercourse. Societies have established marriage (consummated by penis-vagina intercourse) as a means of ensuring population growth, the proper nurturing of children, societal stability, and the physical and mental health of its individuals. Through thousands of years of human history, sodomy and other perverted, non-generative sexual practices have been reasonably condemned and scorned as unnatural, unhealthy, destabilizing, and – yes – disgusting.
Demands for “gay rights” or “LGBT rights” or “gay marriage” should be answered not only with arguments citing morality, religious freedom, and parenting standards, but by noting the unnatural, unhealthy, and repugnant character of GLB sexual practices and associated public behaviors.
The natural disgust most people feel when contemplating homosexual and lesbian practices is a legitimate response. Traditionally, that reaction (along with the morality underlying anti-sodomy laws) enforced the common-sense protective standards. Repulsion at the thought of feces fetish and the sexualization of excretory organs is now labeled anti-social bigotry in discrimination lawsuits, “gay marriage” laws, and court rulings.
Speaking in secular terms, the significant difference between an infertile man-woman marriage and a same-sex “marriage” is the “sex” acts themselves. In addition to the moral/religious arguments against homosexuality, conservatives should emphasize that normal heterosexual intercourse is legitimate because it is natural and healthy, while homosexual sexual practices are against nature and debilitating (physically and psychologically).
Homosexuality per se – sodomy – cannot be ignored if an unbreakable secular argument for man-woman marriage is to be made.
Indeed, traditional marriage proponents are stymied when confronted with the so-called “unbreakable infertility argument,” which Justice Scalia mentioned in his dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas. He observed that “the encouragement of procreation” could not constitute a “justification ... for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples,” pointing to the fact that “the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.” In other words, if the main (or only) argument for man-woman marriage is the potential for procreation, how is it that the marriage of an elderly or otherwise infertile couple (or a heterosexual couple not planning children) is justified, but “marriage” of a same-sex couple is not? Neither physical union is connected to procreation.
The cofounder of the National Organization for Marriage, Maggie Gallagher, was unable to respond to this very challenge in a forum at Boston College Law School in 2009. Nor is it answered convincingly in the recent book, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, which claims that male-female coitus and children are necessary attributes of “conjugal marriage,” yet avoids explaining why anal sodomy or other same-sex acts cannot also satisfy the requirement for a bodily union of two people.
There is also the reality of rampant, non-generative heterosexual sex (among both married and unmarried couples), which undermines the standard moral challenge on the legitimacy of homosexual sex. Conservative commentator Ramesh Ponnuru recognized this problem:
The logic of the argument against homosexuality now implicates the behavior of a lot of heterosexuals. If the argument is made openly, and cast as a case for traditional sexual morals in general, a large part of the public will flinch. If the argument is made so as to single out gays, the logic vanishes. Social conservatives begin to look as though they are motivated not by principle but by the desire to persecute a minority.
That is, given that many heterosexuals are so compromised today, moral condemnation of homosexuality is not enough to make the argument against “same-sex marriage,” “gay rights,” or even tolerance of homosexuality. And so conservatives are indeed “flinching” at the inadequacy of their own arguments – because they avoid discussion of a basic element: homosexuality (sodomy) itself.
Thus, without a straightforward condemnation of sodomy (and the lifestyle choices that go with it) based on natural law and public health, the argument against “gay rights” is lost.
As Justice Antonin Scalia said in 2003, the state does have an interest in “crafting and safeguarding of public morality … a legitimate government interest under rational basis scrutiny.” The state also has a legitimate interest in preserving the public health. There can be no dispute that the disproportionate physical illness and psychological dysfunction accompanying homosexuality are serious public health issues.
The “Culture of Death”
Sodomy and other same-sex practices belong to the culture of death: They cannot result in the creation of new life. They contradict nature. They invite or hasten death by resulting physical and mental disease.
Dennis Prager pointed to the equivalence of homosexuality and the sacrifice of babies (abortion) in that both deny life.
Dr. D. Paul Sullins explains:
Contraception, abortion, and sodomy are similar and related practices inimical to life, in that they all contravene the natural operation of the body ... Contraception-abortion, if practiced consistently, results in a family with no children; homosexual relations, if practiced universally, results in a society with no children. Relieved of the propagation of children, sexual expression has no necessary link to human sex differences. An appetite for the same sex, then, is the mirror image of a propensity to dispose of children.
Homosexual political commentator Andrew Sullivan even admitted that death is an integral part of the homosexual lifestyle: “… death is still a major concern for the homosexual. Death is intrinsic to the gay lifestyle. For gay men in America, death is less an event than an environment.”
Even the homosexual authors of After the Ball: How America will conquer its fear & hatred of Gays in the 90’s asked, “Is this a lifestyle to encourage?”
AIDS activists in the ACT UP group shouted in the 1980s, “Silence equals death!” What they demanded was research for a cure. And our health establishment has responded with enormous effort and funding to that end. While the cure has not been found, the “gay” partying continues.
The ACT UP slogan is timely, but to a different end. Now, we must renew the alert on the health hazards of homosexuality. The facts have been ignored for too long. Too many are suffering as a result.
Above: BDSM couple at Boston Pride parade (in front of the Massachusetts State House).
Man on the leash smiles as he is lashed by the dominant partner.
The crowd seems to be enjoying the show.
But is this just harmless fun and games?
Or something seriously dysfunctional?
(MassResistance photo)
Man on the leash smiles as he is lashed by the dominant partner.
The crowd seems to be enjoying the show.
But is this just harmless fun and games?
Or something seriously dysfunctional?
(MassResistance photo)
For more on this subject and citations, purchase the book!