Home | Contact Us | Newsletters

Marriage between a man and a woman   improves life expectancy for both, but  "married"  homosexuals, both gays and lesbians, live about 24 years less than their married heterosexual counterparts  according to Dr. Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute, a Colorado-based think tank. 

Paul Cameron, Ph.D. & Kirk Cameron, Ph.D., presented "Federal Distortion Of The Homosexual Footprint"  at the Eastern Psychological Association's annual convention in March this year.  Paul Cameron, a reviewer for the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal, and the Postgraduate Medical Journal, has published over 40 scientific articles on homosexuality. The EPA is the oldest regional Psychological Association in the USA. 

In Denmark, the country with the longest history of gay marriage, for 1990-2002, married heterosexual men died at a median age of 74, while the 561 partnered gays died at an average age of 51. 

In Norway, married heterosexual men died at an average age of 77 years,  the 31 gays at 52. The lifespan of same-sex married lesbians was 20+ years shorter than the lifespan of married heterosexual women. In Denmark, married heterosexual women died at an average age of 78 years as compared to 56 years for the 91 same-sex married lesbians; in Norway, married heterosexual women died at an average age of 81 v. 56 for the 6 same-sex married lesbians. 

"These are the ages of death as reported by the census bureaus of Norway and Denmark," said Dr. Paul Cameron. "While the internet is filled with debate about our previous findings  -  largely based on obituaries  -  these deaths were recorded by governments. 

"The obituaries we assembled over the same time period in the US were similar: an average  lifespan of 52 for 710  gays who ostensibly did not die of AIDS, 42 years for those 1,476 who supposedly did; and 55 years for 143 lesbians. So the findings from Scandinavia are not much  different from figures derived  from U.S. obituaries." 

The  reasons for lowered life expectancy of homosexuals  given  by those who subscribe to the cult of victimhood is discrimination or "homophobia", but Cameron's analysis shows that  life expectancy is similarly lowered even  in countries where there is no discrimination and little homophobia.  

Possible causes of death (other than AIDS) include Hepatitis A, B and C, anal cancer, a wide range of gastro-intestinal infections, alcoholism, "recreational" drugs, and suicide. For lesbians early death  causes would include a higher incidence of breast cancer, alcoholism and drug use.   

Lifesite News reports that studies have shown that years of smoking shortens the lifespan of the smoker from 1 to 7 years, but the analysis of the age of death in Norway and Denmark for gays who are legally married suggests that engaging in homosexual behavior reduces lifespan by 24 years. 

Dr. Cameron asks:  "What justification is there for condemning smoking and endorsing homosexuality?"   All across the Western world, school children are being taught the  acceptability of homosexuality and the wrongness of smoking.  Given the greatly reduced lifespan for homosexuals, school children should be strongly and consistently warned about the  dangers of homosexuality even more so than smoking. Those school districts which are  introducing pro-gay curricula need to rethink their priorities." 

Implications for Adoption

Dr.  Cameron  warned that the shortened lifespan of homosexuals has profound implications for adoption.  The chances that a homosexual-adopted child will lose one or both parents before graduating from high school are much  greater than they would be with a married man and woman." 

"A  gay couple of 35 is, roughly speaking, as close to death as a married heterosexual couple of 55. Divorce is twice as frequent among married homosexuals in Norway and Denmark (even more frequent if kids are involved). It doesn't make much sense to take vulnerable children and  place them in the risky situation generated by homosexual couples" 

Dangers for school students  

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth warns that under the guise of promoting "tolerance", homosexually-tempted teenagers are  being told that they are “superstars” and that “being queer is a gift”.  And they  are being coached on how to “safely” perform sodomitic sex acts, yet they are NOT told how deadly these  homosexual behaviours can be. 

LaBarbera says "It's time to face the reality of homosexual perversions being promoted by gay activist adults to impressionable children....Parents simply have no clue as to what lies behind that lavender curtain of tolerance and the dangers that lurk there.  Depraved homosexual  acts that were once taboo and unspeakable among adults are now being taught and promoted openly to kids. 

"GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, should be banned from  schools.....I have seen firsthand how recklessly homosexual activists  promote their destructive lifestyle to minors. Such corruption of youth is unconscionable, but it serves the needs of the hyper-sexualized “gay” adult male subculture." 

The information provided by Dr. Cameron and LaBarbera is  very relevant to Australia where there is  much euphoric promotion of "same-sex registers" and proposals that three-year-olds be taught a homosexual lifestyle. 

But a question for our  State Ministers for Health and their Departments:  When the dangers of smoking are so energetically publicised and little  "tolerance" is permitted, why are the  health dangers and lowered life expectancy of  homosexual lifestyles never mentioned? 

FDA Still Bans Homosexual men from  Donating Blood

Lifesite News reports that despite attempts by pro-homosexual advocates to paint the homosexual lifestyle as just another, normal, and healthy lifestyle choice, the US  Food & Drug Administration has renewed its 1983 policy that homosexual  men cannot donate blood, due to the high-risk nature of living an active homosexual lifestyle. 

The FDA stated that, despite mounting opposition to the policy, it will for medical reasons continue to uphold its ban on men who live or who have lived an active homosexual life from donating blood.  According to the FDA, the ban is in place because, “A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.” 

The FDA policy relating to homosexual men is unique in its severity. While there is a lengthy list of criteria by which a potential donor may be deferred from donating blood (such as visiting particular African countries), such bans usually expire after a certain period of time. The ban on homosexual men, however, applies to any man who has ever had sex with another man, even once, subsequent to 1977. 

The FDA however, argues that the strictness of the ban is justified, pointing out that the “policy is intended to protect all people who receive blood transfusions from an increased risk of exposure to potentially infected blood and blood products.”   

Some, however, are arguing that the FDA’s policy is discriminatory against homosexual men. Arthur Caplan, in an editorial for NBC6 argues that new testing technologies alleviate any fear that patients may contract AIDS by receiving a tainted transfusion. “At one time, long ago, the gay-blood ban may have made sense. But it no longer does,” he said. 

“If a man has sex with a high risk woman, he’s allowed back into the donation pool after 12 months,” complained Joel Ginsberg, the executive director of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association. “If he has safe sex with another man, he’s banned for life.” 

Recognizing that the area of homosexuality is a controversial realm, however, with pro-homosexual activists on the watch for any signs of discrimination, the FDA responded to accusations of discrimination in its updated official policy in the matter. The “deferral policy is based on the documented increased risk of certain transfusion transmissible infections, such as HIV, associated with male-to-male sex and is not based on any judgment concerning the donor's sexual orientation,” reads the FDA's policy. 

“Surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that men who have sex with men and would be likely to donate have a HIV prevalence that is at present over 15 fold higher than the general population, and over 2000 fold higher than current repeat blood donors (i.e., those who have been negatively screened and tested) in the USA.” 

Dr. Robertson Davenport, who is an associate professor of pathology at the University of Michigan Hospital, agrees with the decision of the FDA. “The data are clear that men who engage in sexual contact with other men, as a whole, have a significantly higher risk of HIV,” he said. “Given our testing is not perfect, we will increase the risk to patients.” 

A number of European countries have similar bans pertaining to homosexual man. Canada also forbids homosexual men from donating blood, due to similar concerns. 

Same-sex Unions

Progressive activists in the United States have argued strenuously in recent years that giving homosexuals the legal right to marry will improve life for homosexual couples and will consequently benefit society as a whole.  A new study of same-sex "marriage" in Scandinavia, however, casts serious doubt on such assertions.  For, as it turns out, relatively few homosexual couples avail themselves of this revolutionary right. And a surprisingly high percentage of those who do so end up in divorce court. 

To analyze the demographics of homosexual [”marriages,”] a team of German and Norwegian scholars recently examined data collected in Norway and Sweden since these bellwether countries discarded centuries of legal tradition by authorizing homosexual unions (in 1993 in Norway and in 1995 in Sweden).  Both countries have thus now enacted laws granting homosexuals “the legal right to registered partnerships, a civil status that [the researchers believe], in practice does not deviate much from the concept of marriage.”  The legal equivalence of homosexual unions to heterosexual marriage indeed largely explains why the researchers use “the terms registered partnerships and same-sex marriage interchangeably.”   Similarly, the researchers “use the term divorce to refer to [homosexual] partnership dissolution because the divorce procedures of the marriage act [in both countries] apply to registered [homosexual] [”marriages”] as well.” 

As the German and Norwegian scholars survey the available data for homosexual unions, they cannot avoid one obvious reality: “the incidence of same-sex marriage in Norway and Sweden is not particularly impressive.”  Between 1993 and 2001, while Norway recorded 196,000 heterosexual marriages, the country witnessed the legal registration of only 1,293 homosexual partnerships.  Similarly, while Sweden recorded 280,000 heterosexual marriages between 1995-2002, the country saw the formation of only 1,526 registered homosexual partnerships.  The researchers accordingly calculate “a ratio of around 7 same-sex 'marriages' to every 1,000 new opposite-sex marriages” in Norway and a comparable “ratio of 5 new partnerships to every 1,000 new opposite-sex marriages" in Sweden.  The researchers remark that the numbers of same-sex "marriages" have run “considerably lower” than might have been expected by those relying on recent surveys of sexual behavior.  These surveys have indicated that “well over 1%” of women and between 1 and 3% of men have had a same-sex partner during the last year, with between 4 and 9% of men and approximately 4% of women reporting that they have had a same-sex partner at some time during their lives.  (The authors of the new study are too well informed to rehash the now discredited absurdity—promulgated by Alfred Kinsey—that fully ten percent of the adult male population is homosexual. [Note: see Judith Reisman's website for more good information on Kinsey and his fraudulent research.] 

The data for same-sex unions in Norway and Sweden indicate, however, not only that such unions are relatively rare, but also that they are remarkably fragile, ending in divorce significantly more often than do the heterosexual marriages of peers.  The statistics indeed reveal “that the divorce risk for partnerships of men is 50% higher than the corresponding risk for heterosexual marriages and that the divorce risk for partnerships of women is about double (2.67) that for men (1.50).”   The researchers then re-examine the data in statistical models that take into account age, education, and other background characteristics, but these multi-variable models “do not alter the basic relation between divorce risks in different family types.”

The German and Norwegian scholars acknowledge that “divorce-risk levels that are considerably higher in same-sex marriages” than in heterosexual marriages would hardly have been predicted by those who have supposed that “the symbolic meaning of partnership formation for a group that has just acquired the right to marry [would have been] related to a higher commitment to this civil status and to lower divorce risk.”  On the other hand, homosexual couples’ distinctively high propensity to break apart would not have surprised those who recognize “the group’s lower exposure to normative pressure to maintain lifelong unions.”  Among homosexuals, the researchers predict, “past relationship experience” is likely to cause “lesbians and gay men…to have lower expectations of relationship duration than will heterosexual couples.” 

In their concluding comment on their groundbreaking study—the first such study of “an unambiguously defined population of gay and lesbian couples”—the researchers emphasize the applicability of their findings well beyond Norway and Sweden.  “Many of the demographic characteristics of our Scandinavian couples,” they remark, “resemble those found for other populations of same-sex couples, such as same-sex co-residents in the United States….  Evidently, some aspects of gay and lesbian lifestyles are common for different countries.” 

Before American [and Australian] jurists and lawmakers press ahead with the dubious project of granting homosexuals a legal right to marriage or marriage-like civil unions, they should ponder this new study and its conclusions.  For the revolutionaries who congratulate themselves on having smashed centuries of tradition may soon realize that they have wrought this destruction for the benefit of very few couples, a high proportion of whom are soon separated.

(Source: Gunnar Andersson et al., “The Demographics of Same-Sex Marriage in Norway and Sweden,” Demography 43 [2006]: 79-98,  reported in  the Howard Center’s ”Family in America” newsletter “New Research,” December 2006) 

California State Senate Passes Transsexual-Bisexual-Homosexual Curriculum Bill

Christian Newswire reports that  SB 777, passed May 24,  turns "every government school into a sexual indoctrination center".   Radical legislation mandating that schoolchildren as young as kindergarten learn about and support transsexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality has passed the California State Senate.  SB 777 requires textbooks, instructional materials, and school-sponsored activities to positively portray cross-dressing, sex-change operations, homosexual "marriages," and all aspects of homosexuality and bisexuality, including so- called "gay history." Silence on these sexual lifestyles will not be allowed. 

"Parents are angry at the Democrats for passing this school sexual indoctrination bill and frustrated that Republicans did little to fight it," said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families (CCF), a leading California-based pro-family organization. "We call on Arnold Schwarzenegger to pledge that he will respect parents, protect children, and veto this bad bill, just like he did last year." 

"The notion of forcing children to support controversial sexual lifestyles is shocking and appalling to millions of fathers and mothers,"  RandyThomasson said. "Parents don't want their children taught to become homosexual or bisexual or to wonder whether they need a sex-change operation. SB 777 will shatter the academic purpose of education by turning every government school into a sexual indoctrination center."      

Authored by lesbian Senator Sheila Kuehl, SB 777 adds an unnatural definition of "gender" to the Education Code: "Gender" means sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth. 

SB 777 also deletes the true definition of "sex" from the Education Code, which currently reads: "Sex" means the biological condition or quality of being a male or female human being. And because of the bill's wide-open definition of "sexual orientation," homosexual "marriages" and all aspects of homosexuality and bisexuality would be positively portrayed to children as young as kindergarten. SB 777 will teach these highly-controversial sexual subjects without parental permission. The new mandate would be enforced by  attorneys of the California Department of Education, which would sue school districts that don't comply. 

SB 777 is a   serious assault on religious freedom in schools and is  “designed to transform our public schools into institutions that disregard all notions of the traditional family unit," said Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute.   SB 777 not only affects textbooks and instructional materials for kindergarten and grades 1-12, it also affects all  other school-sponsored activities.