1. COMMENT 2. Text of what I passed out 3. What I Should have said....
February 16, 2003
1. COMMENT: I spent a few hours today at the Virginia legislature, testifying in favor of a bill which would mandate that the home studies done for adoptions would include information about whether the adopting couple or person was engaged in homosexual behavior or living with someone not their spouse or blood kin.
The point of the bill was to make sure that the moral and other contextual items of the family were clearly investigated. The billed was voted not to pass out of committee by 4 (maybe 5) to 2. Several of the senators who were "on our side" failed to show up for the vote. I was told by one observer that that was almost for sure to avoid the ire of "liberal" folks back home in the voting ranks. Maybe so. I do not know the persons involved, so cannot say. But I would not be surprised.
The biggest failure is almost always with the "conservatives" who do not know how to marshal evidence or go for the jugular vein of the opposition's argument -- in this case, homosexual behavior.
I intended to get the material below into the record, but was warmed by by my conservative friends that I should not talk graphically about homosexual behavior because there were senators who were on the edge who would be offended. And then we were limited to three minutes. So I cut the paragraph naming and describing the behavior below, plus a lot more. I think I got the behavior notion across nevertheless. I passed out copies of the material below to the senators and to the press.
The "other side", however, did talk about the behavior briefly, and I regretted omitting the relevant paragraph. I should have focused specifically on that issue, asking specifically whether those supporting homosexuality agreed with the list, and if so, why they thought these behavior, with the horrendous consequences, should be approved.
It is nonsense to let the timidity of some senators frighten our side into speaking less than the truth. People who do not want you to speak clearly will never be on the side of truth, and will only work to compromise your efforts. They are not your friends. We must learn to speak the truth at any cost to ourselves -- gracefully, but the truth. Winning the next election does not set us free. Only the truth sets us free. We had better be willing to risk our popularity for the truth, or we will be little use to the Kingdom of God and little threat to the kingdom of Satan.
The saddest part of the day was the clear incompetence of the conservative side to conserve anything. The first principle of debate is surely to clarify the issues at stake. For four decades now, homosexuality has been endlessly debated and explored and dialogued to death (or to life), but never in any sustained public forum has there been a clear definition of what homosexuality is. We had a chance today, and blew it. So the bill died in committee. It might have died anyhow, with our best efforts. But a forcing clarity on the behavior issue would have sent a shot across their bow that the battle has taken a different turn.
The opposition had no facts by which to confront our case, only innuendo, carping, and getting the discussion off on rabbit trails. But that can be dealt with IF we are trained and prepared.
I am resolved (barring a direct word to the contrary from God) not to attend any more such meetings unless there is an agreement on strategy among the conservatives engaged to force a clarification on what homosexual behavior is. Until we do that, we will continue to be run in circles, and can plan on continuing to lose this debate when we should be winning it. When I get out to California, I hope to find people who want to be trained to do what is necessary. We need teams, not soloists. There are several universities near by which will make fertile testing grounds, and good places to help raise up a new Gideon army.
All the evidence is on our side, all of it. There is not a teaspoon of evidence to show that the homosexual lifestyle is either approved by God or a healthy way to live. It is a compulsive, lethal addiction. We have no excuse for continuing to lose this debate. We need to say that out loud and defend our case with grace and truth.
And to begin that, we must force defenders of the homosexual lifestyle to state clearly the specific behaviors which they want the public to approve. If we do that, it will be the beginning of the end of the homosexual agenda.
2. Text of what I passed out
February 16, 2003
To the Virginia Legislative Committee Members investigating homosexual adoption:
I am delighted to speak at this committee meeting on the issue of homosexual persons adopting children. My wife and I raised two adopted children and one born to us. Both adopted children were of mixed race, but chose to identify with the Black community. They are now in their thirties raising their own families.
I am an Episcopal priest, a trained counselor, and have been working since 1989 with Exodus, a ministry helping persons exit the homosexual lifestyle who wish to do so. I have been deeply involved in researching the nature of the homosexual lifestyle, and have read and written on the matter extensively.
The question any parent, or any person making law governing the raising of children, should ask is: "What is best for the child?" One the must thus ask whether there are factors in a homosexual coupling which are detrimental to child raising.
Homosexuality is two things: (1) It is a condition -- being sexually attracted to persons of the same sex. And (2), it is behavior -- a well defined and researched set of behaviors.
Amidst the noise and clamor, there is a growing understanding of the causality of same-sex attraction. We know from such research as the "twin studies" that same-sex attraction cannot be caused genetically or biologically in any determinative sense. It must therefore be caused by environmental factors such as parenting, peer relations, a sense of having (or not having) healthy relations with authority and nurturing figures and peers of the same and opposite genders.
Only a small percentage of persons consciously choose to adopt the homosexual lifestyle, so the condition must come primarily from a rather complex network of environmental factors and personal decisions which result in that condition.
Behaviorally, there is only a limited number of ways in which persons can engage sexually with persons of the same sex.
The following figures are taken from one of the largest (850 pp.) studies on this subject, "The Gay Report" (1979), by two homosexual researchers, Karla Jay and Allen Young, who received responses from over five thousand homosexual persons. (Used copies are still available on Amazon.) The authors and their respondents are quite candid. According to their research:
Around 99% of homosexual males engage in oral sex; 91% engage in anal sex; 82% engage in "rimming", touching the anus of one's partner with one's tongue and inserting the tongue into the anus; 22% engage in "fisting", inserting one's fist into the rectum of the partner; 23% engage in "golden showers", urinating on each other; 4% engage in "scat", the eating of feces, and in "mud rolling", rolling on the floor where feces have been deposited.
Furthermore, the rate of promiscuity goes far beyond that of the general population. And the lifestyle is heavily involved in alcohol and drugs.
Some of these sexual behaviors are already being taught in public schools where the homosexual agenda has gained acceptance.
Not surprisingly, homosexual persons contract diseases (often lethal), including AIDS, at a rate far above average. Behavior which involves contact with one's own or one's partners waste is not health-promoting. Practicing homosexual persons on average lose from 30% to 40% of their lifespan, typically not living into their fifties in a society where we average into the mid or high 70's.
Despite being warned of the dangers, homosexual persons typically continue to engage in such unsafe, often lethal, activity. Such self-destructive behavior is evidence of a compulsive and addictive condition.
Why focus on behavior which one would not normally discuss publicly? The answer is simple and compelling: This behavior is precisely that for which public approval is sought. It is impossible to have reasonable and helpful discussion if the primary issue is not clearly on the table, as unpleasant as it may be. Any behavior which cannot be publicly discussed ought never receive public approval.
Supporters of homosexual child-adoption are thus obligated to show evidence that either the above listed behaviors are not typical of the homosexual lifestyle, and to provide their own more accurate list, or to show that those behaviors, even in the promiscuous homosexual community, ought to be considered normal and healthy as a context for raising children.
Only the truth can set us free. We are obligated to respect
all persons as persons. But we are not obligated to respect all behavior. And
there is no respect, compassion, or love apart from truth. Persons caught in
such a condition, more than anyone else, need open, truthful discussion for
their own welfare and safety. That is the loving and compassionate thing to do.
I hope, as a parent of adopted children, that the Virginia legislature will
insist on just such an inquiry into this matter, and vote accordingly.
The following two articles supply evidence that homosexual parenting has quite different results from heterosexual parenting, and that homosexual persons engage in child molestation at a rate far greater than heterosexual persons. They are from the Family Research Institute:
"Children of Homosexual Parents Report Childhood Difficulties"
Summary: Referenced as both supporting and weakening the case for parenting by homosexuals, 57 life-story narratives of children with homosexual parents published by Rafkin in 1990 and Saffron in 1996 were subjected to content analysis. Children mentioned one or more problems/concerns in 48 (92%) of 52 families. Of the 213 scored problems, 201 (94%) were attributed to the homosexual parent(s). Older daughters in at least 8 (27%) of 30families and older sons in at least 2 (20%) of 10 families described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. These findings are inconsistent with propositions that children of homosexuals do not differ appreciably from those who live with married parents or that children of homosexuals are not more apt to engage in homosexuality.
Full article at: http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_SpecialReports.html
"Homosexual Rape and Murder of Children" at: http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_03_02.html
3. What I Should have said....
I was asked to testify because we had raised adopted children, but did not exercise my imagination very well prior to the event. Legislative hearings are set up to the disadvantage of those giving testimony, and the attitude of legislators often tends to be dismissive and demeaning (Make it short because you are interrupting my day!). I should have planned my approach very differently, going on the attack, not trying to be "polite" in that self-demeaning sense of the word. By "attack", I do not mean other than graceful, but I do mean to force the other side to respond honestly to me rather than meekly trying to get them to believe me. I am more interested in honest dialogue than in "winning". When truth wins, everybody wins.
My aim is to get the other side to be clear about what they
really want approved -- homosexual behavior. However, the chairman had
made it clear that "he asked the questions", not the speaker at the podium, and
limited us to three minutes. I could nevertheless have address rhetorical
questions, carrying out a pretend dialogue with the panel. As
"If I were in a situation where I knew that my children would be adopted (if I were about to die with no living relatives, etc.) and if I were given the opportunity to choose what kind of family to which they would be sent, I would ask myself some serious questions. You are a committee making decisions for how people such as myself will live our lives, so I invite you to ask these questions with me.
"I would ask myself whether I would specify a heterosexual couple, or allow a homosexual couple, to adopt my children. I have learned the following from homosexual authors themselves -- their own testimony, not that of right wing, homophobic extremists. This is a picture of the "gay" lifestyle by the "gays" themselves.
"The following figures are taken from one of the largest (850 pp.) studies on this subject, "The Gay Report" (1979), by two homosexual researchers, Karla Jay and Allen Young. They received responses from over five thousand homosexual persons who in very candid and graphic detail describe their activities and their feelings about those activities. (Used copies may be still available on Amazon.)
Summarizing the two authors' research:
"Around 99% of homosexual males engage in oral sex; 91% engage in anal sex; 82% engage in "rimming", touching the anus of one's partner with one's tongue and inserting the tongue into the anus; 22% engage in "fisting", inserting one's fist into the rectum of the partner; 23% engage in "golden showers", urinating on each other; 4% engage in "scat", the eating of feces, and in "mud rolling", rolling on the floor where feces have been deposited.
"So I would ask myself (and I invite you to ask yourselves) whether I would want my children raised in a home where these kinds of behaviors would likely be practiced, behaviors which almost inevitably involve contact with human waste, and all of which are disease causing.
"The human race has accomplished much of its increasing longevity by learning to isolate ourselves from our own waste. We use toilets. We do not fertilize our gardens with our waste, or throw buckets of slop into the street. We wash our hands. Cleanliness is a primary strategy for living longer. That has made an enormous difference. So, it would seem that such behavior would be reversing several centuries of health and longevity progress.
"I would ask myself whether I would want my child kissing or being kissed by someone who engaged in rimming, or falling in love with someone who engaged in fisting, both activities which homosexual adopting parents might well be sharing with each other. Fisting is being taught to school children as young as 14 in Massachusetts schools today, so it is not a merely academic and abstract question. Every school system in America is targeted by the homosexual agenda. So, I ask you on the committee to ask these questions along with me.
"I would ask myself, as a parent who loves my children and wishes and prays for the best for them, whether I thought that the enormous promiscuity of the homosexual community would affect my child. And I would wonder whether the fact that homosexual unions have a very, very short average lifespan would affect the stability of my children's progress into stable adulthood.
"I could not help wondering also about the far greater percentage of homosexual (over heterosexual) persons who sexually abuse children. Would my children be safe?
"I discovered from reading Karla Jay and Allen Young that you enter a very different world when you enter the homosexual community, a world without emotional limits (or, limited only by one's imagination and stamina), without moral boundaries, a world obsessed with good feelings, a quest, as it were, for the eternal orgasm, even at the expense of good relationships. Like a runaway train with no breaks. It speeds up and speeds up -- until..... I wonder if I would want my children entering such a world.
"In over fifteen years of ministering to persons who wanted to exit the homosexual lifestyle, I have met many in that way of life. I have discovered that there are many kinds of homosexual persons. Some are heavily engaged in "the lifestyle", others are not. Many wish they could get out, and some take the trouble to do so. Many more would if they understood that there is a way out, and that, for example, that Christians loved them and churches want to help. Sadly, Christians do not do a good job at communicating that.
"I have been brought up short by those people whom I have served as counselor and pastor, and, by homosexual persons who did not wish for my help. I would engage those who objected to what I was doing in conversation, literally on the sidewalk front lines. I learned that I had to change my own attitude, that I tended to see homosexual persons as a problem and a threat rather than as persons. But we always parted shaking hands.
"I wish to treat every human being with love and respect for their personhood. That requires a deep insistence on truth in all regards, an insistence on being a truth-seeker and a truth-speaker. It requires a quest for righteousness, the capacity to distinguish between life-promoting and life-compromising behavior. And it requires a desire to do these things with a loving spirit.
"But, respect for all personhood does not mandate respect for all behavior. Precisely the contrary. Self-destructive behavior is not to be defended or respected because it destroys persons. So I would want for my children adoptive parents who promoted life-giving, not life-compromising, behavior. I would choose for my children a family which honored these desires.
"It may be that I do not have my facts straight. That has happened before. I want to be correctible. If I am wrong, I want to know. That is what honest dialogue is about, open testing to see whose view is right. I would hope that you on the committee who are on the other side of this fence would want to know also if you were wrong -- precisely because you also have respect for other persons and would not want to mislead them. And I would hope that the committee would conduct its research into this issue both with complete candor on viewpoints and with respect for each participant. When truth wins, everybody wins."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Go to: => TOP Page; => Homosexuality Library; => Politics Library; => ROAD MAP