Category archives: Human Sexuality

For once and for all, I am telling you: “Sex” means “transgender,” and it also means “gender identity.”

by Travis Weber

August 20, 2014

You had better get with it. I’m not sure why people continue to insist that your “sex” is something integral to your created being, a function of your unique biological identity and who you were born to be — what an anachronistic concept. So says the Department of Labor (DOL), in a recent directive stating that the Department will now interpret “sex discrimination” to also include discrimination on the basis of “gender identity” and “transgender” status. The DOL relies on a 2012 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) decision stating as much, along with other “case law principles” which supposedly support this reasoning.

One theory on which the government relies here is based on “sex stereotyping” as a form of “sex discrimination” — because a male chooses to identify as female, the theory goes, discriminating against them constitutes a form of stereotyping how males are supposed to act, and thus constitutes “sex discrimination.” Such thinking is far-fetched to begin with, but even the legal issues are not as clear cut as the government would have us believe. For while other protected classes are clearly rooted in easily-identifiable inborn characteristics, “sex stereotyping” is based on one’s actions — thus individuals are not protected based on any “gender identity” status alone if they can’t show they were stereotyped, according to this theory.

In addition, the DOL points to the EEOC’s argument that “treating a person differently because the person is transgender is by definition sex discrimination because it is ‘related to the sex of the victim.’” But a person “is transgender” based on a choice not a biological reality, unless someone is prepared to introduce a new biological third category of sex, beyond male and female. Absent such a creation, being “transgender” is still only “related” to sex as an action taken with regard to one’s sexuality.

Ultimately, it doesn’t really matter even if the “case law principles,” (as the EEOC refers to them), support the government’s wishful thinking on human sexuality here. A person’s sex is not determined on our own, but by God who crafted us distinctly as men and women. We must recognize this truth and submit our sexuality to God for the purposes and ends for which he designed it. Anything else will only produce misery for us, for our society, and for our entire human race.

Robin Williams, Rehab, and Reorientation

by Peter Sprigg

August 18, 2014

Robin Williams, the brilliantly talented comedian and actor, was found dead in his California home on August 11, the victim of an apparent suicide.

News coverage of his death reviewed his eclectic career, from the 1970’s TV hit Mork and Mindy to his Oscar for Good Will Hunting.

However, the media also reviewed his long history of drug and alcohol abuse. That began during his early days of television stardom. Williams reportedly gave up cocaine and alcohol, though, after his friend John Belushi died of an overdose and Williams became a father.

Williams spoke candidly about his addictions in a 2010 interview with the British newspaper The Guardian while on a publicity tour for his film World’s Greatest Dad (in which, ironically, he played a writer who fakes a suicide note and journal and attributes them to his late son).

Apparently, Williams quit alcohol and drugs cold turkey in the early ‘80’s, without any professional therapeutic intervention. He reported that he stayed sober for twenty years, but then began drinking again while working on location in a remote town in Alaska. After three years of drinking, a “family intervention” persuaded Williams to enter “rehab” (residential drug and alcohol rehabilitation) at the Hazelden Addiction Treatment Center near Newberg, Oregon, where he stayed for two months. After that, Williams told The Guardian, he continued to attend meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous every week.

Then just last month, news broke that Williams had again returned to rehab, this time at a Hazelden center in Minnesota. A spokesman for Williams said that he had not relapsed into substance abuse, but was “simply taking the opportunity to fine-tune and focus on his continued commitment [to sobriety], of which he remains extremely proud.” That was on July 1 — but six weeks later, he was dead.

In the wake of Williams’ suicide, many TV commentators and friends of the late star talked about the challenges of mental illness (Williams suffered from depression), addictions — and rehab. I saw comedian Andy Dick say, “I’ve been to rehab seventeen times.”

In light of this history, I have only one question for socially liberal political activists — why aren’t you trying to outlaw rehab?

I ask the question because such activists are trying to ban a form of mental health treatment — not drug and alcohol rehabilitation, but “sexual orientation change efforts” (“SOCE”), also known as “sexual reorientation therapy.” Such therapy involves assisting people with unwanted same-sex attractions to overcome them.

Why would someone want to change their sexual orientation? Some such individuals are simply disillusioned by their experiences in homosexual relationships. Some have legitimate concern about the well-documented health problems associated with homosexual conduct (especially among men), such as high rates of sexually transmitted diseases, of which HIV/AIDS is only one example. Others may seek help in conforming their behavior and lifestyle to the teaching of the religious faith to which they are committed. Some may aspire to a traditional family life, raising children in a home with both their mother and father present.

Whatever the motivation, there are those who have simply made a choice to walk away from the homosexual lifestyle, without clinical help — much like how Robin Williams simply stopped using drugs and alcohol in the 1980’s. Others have sought professional help, perhaps at the urging of family members, in the form of “sexual reorientation therapy” — much like when Williams entered a formal alcohol rehab program in 2006. Whether simply through personal development, religious counseling, or with the help of a licensed or unlicensed counselor, thousands (if not millions) of people have experienced significant changes in one or more of the elements of their sexual orientation (attractions, behavior, or self-identification).

Homosexual groups, however, have successfully pressured professional organizations such as the American Psychological Association to discourage such therapy. More recently, following an example set in California, legislators in several states have introduced bills to forbid licensed mental health counselors from engaging in SOCE with minors at all. Meanwhile in New Jersey (which already passed such a ban), the Southern Poverty Law Center has sued even unlicensed SOCE providers, charging them with “consumer fraud.”

Critics of reorientation therapy make two charges — that it is ineffective, and that it is harmful. But they support these charges only by holding such therapies to a standard of “effectiveness” and “safety” that is impossible for any mental health treatment to meet.

Some (but not all) clients of reorientation therapy testify to a complete transformation from homosexual to heterosexual, experiencing a change in their identity, behavior, and attractions. Others may change their identity, control their behavior, and begin to experience heterosexual attractions, but still experience occasional homosexual attractions as well. Still others may change identity and behavior, but continue to struggle with primarily homosexual attractions. Some clients change little with respect to their sexuality, but still find the therapy beneficial in exploring their feelings, family dynamics, etc. Some may seem to achieve significant changes for a period of time, but then suffer relapse. And finally, a few may simply experience little substantial change.

This range of outcomes is no different from any other form of mental health treatment — such as drug and alcohol rehabilitation. Yet critics of reorientation therapy claim that “it doesn’t work” because the proportion of clients who achieve complete transformation on a permanent basis is less than 100%. Can rehab live up to this standard?

There is actually no scientific evidence that reorientation therapy is more harmful than helpful. There are, however, anecdotal accounts of people who claim they found it harmful, or who had negative experiences after such therapy, such as depression or even suicide. However, mere chronological correlation is not scientific proof of causation — any more than Robin Williams’ suicide was “caused” by his recent return to rehab.

The real reason why homosexual activists object to reorientation therapy has nothing to do with science or mental health. Instead, it has everything to do with politics and ideology. If it is tolerable for some people to try to change from “gay” to straight — and for others to help them with the process — that might imply that it is tolerable to believe that there is something wrong with homosexuality itself. For ideological reasons, that is a belief that homosexual activists want stamped out at all costs.

If we were to apply the same standards to drug and alcohol rehabilitation that the homosexual activists want to apply to reorientation therapy, why not ban rehab? After all, since some people go to rehab and still suffer relapses afterwards, rehab is clearly “ineffective.” Robin Williams actually went to rehab, and shortly thereafter took his own life. Does that not clearly indicate that rehab is not only ineffective, but downright harmful? In addition, there are surely people who consume alcohol or use illicit drugs but are still able to function and make productive contributions to society — so there is obviously nothing inherently wrong with alcohol or drugs. Allowing people who struggle with their alcohol or drug use to seek professional help to discontinue them implies there is something wrong with them — thus reinforcing the unfair social stigma which attaches to people who use alcohol and drugs. And surely “family intervention” to force someone into rehab is a violation of their personal autonomy. In light of all these concerns, how can we allow the fraud of “rehab” to continue?

This kind of reasoning, of course, would be clearly absurd. There is no kind of mental health counseling that can guarantee it will substantially change the lives of 100% of its clients for the better. Those who do experience improvement may still struggle with temptation (hence the weekly AA meetings for support). Even among those who succeed in rehab, there can be no guarantee that none of them will, at some time in the future, relapse into the problems which caused them to enter treatment in the first place. Furthermore, the fact that a negative outcome (like suicide) follows a treatment like rehab chronologically does not mean that the treatment caused the negative outcome. It is far more likely that an underlying pathology (in Robin Williams’ case, depression) was the cause of both his substance abuse (which led him to rehab) and his suicide.

It would be absurd to ban rehab because it doesn’t work for everyone; doesn’t work 100% by eliminating all temptation; isn’t always permanent; is sometimes undertaken because of family pressure; or because bad things may happen afterwards. It would be equally absurd to ban rehab in order to protect the self-esteem of people who do not consider their alcohol or drug use to be a problem.

But the argument that we should ban sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) is equally absurd — because it relies on all the same fallacious arguments.

We Are Not All the Same Inside

by Rachel del Guidice

July 21, 2014

Reducing the unique beauty and mystery of the male and female human person to a hamburger. Believe it or not, that’s what Burger King just did in their recent gay pride celebration stunt, “We Are All The Same Inside”.

Without disclosing the contents of their new product, the “Proud Burger” was advertised to customers and packaged in flashy rainbow wrapping. When opened, the inside wrapper read, “We Are All the Same Inside.” Nothing about the burger was different. The goal of this effort by Burger King was to communicate to all their clientele that, regardless of our sexual orientation, we are all the same.

While it is true that humans are the same in that we each have a heart and soul that is built for God (Ephesians 3:17), we are not exclusively the same. We are not a cookie cutter commodity void of differences evident in our bodies that define us as male or female. Rather, “God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27). There simply is no “grey area” to cause any doubt. The verse clearly states “male and female,” not female and female, male and male, or male and female at the same time.

Because we live in a broken and sinful world, there will be times when we face doubts about who we are, human persons, and why we were put on this earth. However, we must never disregard the fact that we were created as males or females, and this is a blessing, not a curse. Why is it dangerous to accept the “anything goes” attitude that the gay agenda propagates? Not only is this philosophy morally wrong, but it is simply dangerous for the wellbeing of this nation and future generations.

We were created with our differences for a reason. As men and women, we are built to complement each other. It is our challenge to witness to the world the blessings of our uniqueness as image bearers of God. Rather than likening humanity to a hamburger to illustrate our supposed “sameness,” we must understand that we are each a gift to this world with a distinctive mission and purpose. It is in our unique and divine differences that we are blessed.

Strong Opposition to DC Ex-Gay Therapy Ban Voiced at Hearing

by Peter Sprigg

July 1, 2014

On Friday, June 27, it was my privilege to join a number of former homosexuals and other “everstraight” allies like me in testifying against a bill to ban sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) for minors in the District of Columbia.

The politically correct mental health establishment turned out in force, with representatives of a variety of professional organizations voicing support for the bill, which would actually function by denying licensing as a mental health provider to anyone who helps minors overcome unwanted same-sex attractions. And all but one of the thirteen members of DC’s City Council has co-sponsored Bill 20-501, so it might seem as though the bill would be sure to pass.

Advocates of the measure who assumed it was on a fast track may have to think again after Friday’s hearing, though. Although defenders of therapeutic freedom were in the minority, we did bring forward eleven strong witnesses — eight of whom are themselves ex-gays, therapists, or clients who are currently in the change process. It takes great courage for such people to “out” themselves as ex-gay, given that typical reactions rage from skepticism to incredulity to outright vilification. Few things can challenge the unfounded conviction that “people are born gay and can never change” better than a face-to-face encounter with someone who has changed.

In contrast to the eight first-person testimonies against the bill, bill supporters had only one witness who claimed to have personally experienced (unsuccessful) reorientation therapy — Sam Wolfe of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a wealthy leftist political organization best known for slandering conservative organizations as “hate groups.” (Floyd Corkins, who came to Family Research Council headquarters on August 15, 2012 intent on mass murder and shot and seriously wounded my colleague Leo Johnson, told the FBI that he chose FRC and other targets by looking at the “hate map” on the SPLC website.)

Wolfe reported going “undercover” at a seminar sponsored by the International Healing Foundation — whose director, ex-gay Christopher Doyle, was in the audience as a witness against the bill. (Later in the hearing, Wolfe was scolded to his face by an ex-gay witness, Chuck, for having violated confidences by writing publicly about private and personal conversations he had with him at the conference.)

Encouraging, in a back-handed sort of way, was the apparent disinterest of the DC Council members in this topic. The Committee on Health has five members, but only the chairman, Yvette Alexander, was present for the whole hearing. Even the sponsor of the bill, Mary Cheh, failed to make an appearance — not even to give a three-minute testimony like the rest of us (Cheh is not a member of the Health Committee, and she did have a staffer present to monitor the entire hearing.) It appeared one other member sent a staffer for only part of the hearing. Local media also ignored the hearing with only the “gay” media and a crew from CBN News showing up.

The only other actual Councilmember to show up at all was the openly “gay” David Catania, who is currently an Independent candidate waging a long-shot campaign for mayor. Catania only stayed for about ten minutes, but that was plenty of time for him to make a negative impression.

One point that many advocates made is that SOCE is based on the premise that homosexuality is a mental illness — a position that was abandoned by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973, in response to a campaign of intellectual terrorism undertaken by a small but zealous band of homosexual activists within the organization. Strictly speaking, however, this claim by SOCE critics is untrue. The more fundamental premise of SOCE is the undeniable and observable fact that some people who experience same-sex attractions experience them as something unwanted.

Therefore, no premise is needed to justify SOCE beyond the long-established ethical principle in counseling that the client — not the therapist — has the right to establish the goals for therapy.

While none of the witnesses against the proposed ban claimed that all homosexuals are mentally ill, Councilman Catania did not hesitate to declare that all of us — therapy clients and straight allies alike — are mentally ill.

Those with same-sex attractions who seek sexual reorientation therapy to overcome those attractions are, according to Catania (who is not a mental health professional), suffering from the “illness” of “internalized hatred,” a condition which causes them to “deny who they are” and “seek to be something they are not.”

Heterosexuals who support the freedom of homosexuals to choose to seek change, on the other hand, suffer from the “illness” of “internalized superiority.” This condition causes them to believe “they are superior to us who are LGBTQ.” In a remarkable display of unqualified psychotherapy of people he has never met, Catania declared, “If you take that superiority away from them, what is left? An emptiness, a void, a profound sadness.”

The low point of Catania’s shameful performance, however, came when he decided to browbeat one of the youngest witnesses at the hearing, a man in his mid-20’s named Nathan who is a current client of IHF. Nathan did not claim to be “cured” of homosexuality, admitting honestly that he is a “work in progress.” Catania wanted to know if Nathan felt “shame, guilty, inadequacy, and inferiority as a teenager, and asked, “What other than self-hate makes you want to change?”

Catania appeared to be fishing for an answer related to religion, family shaming, or a belief that homosexuality is a mental illness, in order to mount an attack. Nathan, however, did not take the bait, insisting calmly that “personal dissatisfaction with two years in the gay lifestyle” was the only reason he made the free choice to seek therapy. At one point Christopher Doyle of IHF became so disgusted that he interrupted Catania’s interrogation saying, “I find this whole line of questioning offensive;” whereupon Catania snapped, “We ask the questions!” Catania left shortly thereafter, without asking any questions of any of the professional therapists opposing the bill.

Chairman Alexander is a co-sponsor of the therapy ban, but in her questioning of the witnesses she betrayed such a naïve ignorance of the entire subject that she ended up playing devil’s advocate toward both sides. For example, the bill bars SOCE for anyone under age 18, but Alexander asked more than once how that could be squared with the fact that the legal “age of consent” for sexual relations is only 16. Advocates of the bill stammered to find an answer. She also reacted to the testimony by several of the ex-gay witnesses that they had been sexually abused as children, voicing the politically incorrect speculation that for those people, at least, homosexuality might not be biologically determined.

David Pickup, an ex-gay who is a licensed therapist, spoke of having been sexually abused at the age of five, and warned that the bill would make it illegal to help a heterosexual boy reduce homosexual feelings perpetrated by sexual abuse. This left the mental health representatives who support the bill scrambling to explain that it would not prevent therapy for sexual abuse, while failing to explain how the therapist would dance around the question of whether such abuse contributed to same-sex attractions.

In my own testimony, I focused on research by the nation’s leading expert on homosexual teenagers showing how fluid teen sexuality can be. In one major survey, of the adolescent boys who identified themselves as exclusively homosexual one year, only 11% continued to identify as exclusively homosexual just one year later, and nearly half had become exclusively heterosexual.

During questioning, I also had the opportunity to clarify some misunderstood points about SOCE. One involved the terminology itself — “sexual orientation change efforts” is the broadest term, including religious interventions as well as professional therapy; “sexual reorientation therapy” is a general term for a variety of therapies; and “reparative therapy” is actually a particular therapeutic approach (most closely associated with Dr. Joseph Nicolosi). “Reparative therapy,” in turn, is not based on the theory that homosexuals are “broken” and must be “repaired,” as most assume. It is based instead on a belief that homosexuality itself is a “reparative” drive which springs from other underlying hurts. If those underlying issues (not directly related to “sexual orientation”) can be relieved by other means in therapy, then the “need” for homosexuality goes away, and with it the same-sex attractions.

I also emphasized how unprecedented it is until now for any form of mental health treatment to be forbidden by law merely because of the goal toward which the treatment is directed (as opposed to the particular technique). This is a direct violation of the ethical principle of the client’s autonomy to determine the goal of therapy.

Notwithstanding the large number of co-sponsors for the DC bill, it is to be hoped that the strong showing by opponents of the measure will lead it to die a quiet death — like in most of the other states where such bills have been introduced in the last year.

What Judge McShane thinks he knows — but is unknowable

by Peter Sprigg

June 3, 2014

Earlier, I wrote a blog post about the May 19, 2014 decision by U. S. District Court Judge Michael J. McShane (Geiger v. Kitzhaber), striking down Oregon’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman — one of a series of such decisions in recent months.

Those interested in why these judges, in general terms, have it wrong should refer to the recent FRC paper, Marriage on Trial: State Laws Defining Marriage as the Union of One Man and One Woman Are Valid under the Constitution of the United States.

I noted that one maddening aspect of the Geiger decision in particular was Judge McShane’s sense of certainty in asserting things which are either a) blatantly false, or b) inherently unknowable.

In the former category (blatantly false) is virtually everything McShane says about the research on children raised by homosexual parents, including his declaration that “children fare the same whether raised by opposite-gender or same-gender couples.”

On the issue of homosexual parenting, however, McShane has a body of methodologically flawed and biased research that tends to support his view, as well as a collection of ideologically-driven policy statements by large professional organizations.

Even less defensible, however, are the blanket statements he made about the impact redefining marriage would have on the institution of marriage in the future — or rather, the lack of impact it would have.

For example, McShane declared:

Opposite-sex couples will continue to choose to have children responsibly or not, and those considerations are not impacted in any way by whether same-gender couples are allowed to marry.”

Quoting another judge on the next page, McShane added:

Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages.”

To both of these statements, my response is: “How can you possibly know?”

Decisions about public policy issues (which are actually not the purview of judges — but that’s for another piece) must, of course, rest on at least some informed predictions of what the consequences of a particular course of action will be. 

I made my own set of predictions about the consequences of redefining marriage in a 2011 FRC booklet, The Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex “Marriage.” My predictions directly contradicted those made by Judge McShane, and included these points:

  • Fewer people would marry
  • Fewer people would remain married for a lifetime
  • Fewer children would be raised by a married mother and father
  • More children would grow up fatherless; and
  • Birth rates would fall.

However, there are two key differences between my predictions and McShane’s. I, at least, qualified them with the statement that they were “ways in which society could be harmed by legalizing same-sex ‘marriage’” (emphasis added), whereas McShane declared dogmatically what “will” and “will not” take place. In addition, he did so in the absence of any supporting evidence, whereas I offered specific, tangible evidence in support of my predictions.

Let me offer an updated overview of at least one of these issues, perhaps the most fundamental one. McShane declares, “Opposite-sex couples will continue to choose to have children . . .”

Will they? Of course, we may assume that some will continue to do so, but birth rates in many countries have been falling, with negative consequences already evident or easy to anticipate. (See, for instance, the books The Empty Cradle by Philip Longman, and What to Expect When No One’s Expecting by Jonathan V. Last.)

Would same-sex “marriage” result in lower birth rates? It is too early to identify a causal relationship between the two. It may be that a retreat from a procreative view of marriage contributes to both declining birth rates and the redefinition of marriage to include intrinsically non-procreative relationships. Yet while there are multiple confounding factors at work, there is evidence of at least a correlation between redefining marriage to include homosexual couples and lower birth and fertility rates.

For example, early this year, I researched the latest state-by-state data in the U.S. regarding three key measures of what we might call “reproductivity.” The “birth rate” as such represents the number of annual births per 1,000 total population. The “general fertility rate” is the number of annual births per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years (a general estimate of the childbearing years). Finally, the “total fertility rate” represents the “estimated number of births over a woman’s lifetime” (per 1,000 women).

The most recent national data available, published in December 2013, was a final report for 2012. I took the state data reported and listed the states in rank order for each of the three measures. I then compared these lists with the list of U.S. states that had authorized the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Omitting states with recent (2014) court rulings, but including Illinois (which did not issue such licenses until this week but whose legislature authorized the change last year), there were seventeen states that had redefined marriage. Here is how they stacked up, compared to those states retaining a one-man-one-woman definition.

With respect to the birth rate:

  • All of the bottom 6 states in birth rate have same-sex “marriage” (SSM)
  • None of the top 9 states in birth rate have SSM
  • 8 of the bottom 15 states in birth rate have SSM
  • Only 2 of the top 15 states have SSM
  • Average rank of SSM states in birth rate: 32nd

With respect to the general fertility rate:

  • All of the bottom 6 states in general fertility rate have same-sex “marriage”
  • None of the top 7 states have SSM
  • 10 of the bottom 15 states have SSM
  • Only 2 of the top 15 states have SSM
  • Average rank of states with SSM in general fertility rate: 34th

With respect to the total fertility rate:

  • All of the bottom 6 states in total fertility rate have same-sex “marriage”
  • None of the top 7 states have SSM
  • 8 of the bottom 12 states have SSM
  • Only 1 of the top 12 states has SSM
  • 12 of the 17 SSM states are below the national average
  • Only 5 of the 17 SSM states are above the national average
  • Average rank of states with SSM: 33rd

Overall:

  • There are 12 states which rank in the top 15 in all three categories; only 1 of them has same-sex “marriage” (Hawaii)
  • There are 8 states which rank in the bottom 10 in all three categories; 6 of the 8 (the 6 New England states) have SSM

Judge McShane should re-think his certainty that redefining marriage would have no impact on the larger institution.

Why avoid sexual risk?

by Elizabeth Folger

June 3, 2014

Living in today’s culture, it seems as if one can’t escape the constant exposure to the world’s many sensual messages. One such message that has permeated almost every aspect of influence (our churches, schools, TV programs, etc.) is that sex before marriage is OK. Not just OK, but desirable. Today’s younger members of society — particularly teenagers — have been exposed to this message since they were children. Therefore, they are the most susceptible to its influence. After all, it’s just sex, right? How bad could it really be?

What my generation might not realize is that there actually are harmful (and sometimes devastating) consequences for choosing to have sex before marriage. However, today’s society goes so far as to glorify it. TV shows like 16 and Pregnant, Teen Mom 2, and Pregnant and Dating would like to tell me and my peers that there are few (or no) negative consequences for sex outside of marriage. It could serve to get you a glamorous spot on TV!

In a depraved and confused world that glorifies sex before marriage, is there really even still a place for sexual risk avoidance, aka abstinence? I believe there is. I think we can and should applaud the reality that young women are choosing to carry their pregnancy to term, rather than choosing an abortion. However, we do our sisters, daughters, and friends a disservice if we pretend that sex outside of marriage is the same as sex inside marriage.

I realize that not everyone reading this post is a teenager facing the pressure of having sex before marriage, but more than likely most everyone reading at least knows a teenager who is. Either directly or indirectly, most people are, in some way, affected by the choice to avoid the risk of extra-marital sex.

So my next question is, why choose abstinence?

One practical reason for choosing abstinence is the decreased risk of receiving a STD/STI. According to the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, “Nearly half of all STIs (48%) occur in youth 15 to 24 years of age. Human Papillomavirus accounts for half of STI infections among adolescents.” One plausible explanation is that this particular age group is the most susceptible to participating in “casual sex” — and should, therefore, be made aware of the risks of sex before marriage.

Another practical reason to abstain from premarital sex is the reality that there is no guarantee that “protection” that is used will actually work. No protective measure has a 100% guarantee, so if you don’t want to risk having to deal with the consequences of the activity, don’t engage in the activity to begin with. Plain and simple.

However, there aren’t just “practical” reasons for choosing abstinence. While most people may not realize this, there are also psychological effects associated with engaging in premarital sex. According to Arina Grossu’s online publication “Sexual Risk-Avoidance Education,” “[s]exually active teenagers are more likely to be depressed and attempt suicide.” In the same article, Grossu cites a study that reveals the increase in negative psychological effects as the number of sexual partners also increases. In essence, those who engage in premarital sex are decreasing­ — not increasing — their likely overall happiness and well-being. Sure, random hook-ups may seem enjoyable in the moment, but the long-term effects far outweigh the temporary pleasure that is received.

Christians have even deeper, more compelling reasons to encourage sexual risk avoidance. More importantly than the practical and even the psychological reasons for choosing abstinence, there are spiritual reasons as well. What does God have to say about premarital sex? Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 6:18-20, “Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body” (English Standard Version). So, in the end, “choosing” abstinence isn’t a morally neutral choice: you either sin by having premarital sex, or you avoid sin by abstaining. Not only that, but God also indicates that sexual impurity isn’t simply a sin against any other person but, also a sin against one’s self… and fundamentally against God.

So, the question remains relevant: why choose abstinence? Not only do the physical and psychological health benefits of abstinence outweigh the “benefits” of premarital sex, but abstinence from sex outside of marriage is also a way to honor and obey the God who created sex in the first place. Our culture may turn sex upside down, but God promises to honor those who honor him.

Obama Milks Homosexual Support

by Peter Sprigg

May 27, 2014

The White House announced that on May 22, 2014, it would unveil a new postage stamp honoring Harvey Milk — the openly homosexual San Francisco Supervisor who was assassinated in 1978.

Milk is an icon to the homosexual political movement. When Obama, in his first year in office, granted Milk a posthumous Presidential Medal of Freedom, I researched his life. I’ve linked to that research here, as published by WorldNetDaily:

A presidential medal based on a sex life

When President Obama today awards a posthumous Presidential Medal of Freedom to Harvey Milk, it may mark the first time in history that the nation’s highest civilian award has been granted primarily on the basis of someone’s sex life.

As the White House announcement explained, “Harvey Milk became the first openly gay elected official from a major city in the United States when he was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977.” Yet Milk served in that office for less than a year, so that hardly qualifies him for the Medal of Freedom. Milk was also assassinated in November of 1978. But that cannot qualify him for this award, either – San Francisco Mayor George Moscone was killed by the same assassin the same day, but he will receive no Medal of Freedom. At least lesbian Billie Jean King, who will also be honored by Obama, was a genuine tennis star.

But Milk is famous only for winning one election, being murdered – and having sex with men. In his “gay rights” stump speech, Milk once said, “Like every other group, we must be judged by our leaders and by those who are themselves gay.” What can we conclude about the homosexual movement in America based on the life of Harvey Milk? I recently decided to find out by reading “gay journalist” Randy Shilts’ 1982 biography of Milk, “The Mayor of Castro Street.”

To read the rest of the article, click here.

Five Anti-Trafficking Bills Clear the House

by Leanna Baumer

May 20, 2014

Today, the House of Representatives passed five bipartisan bills strengthening our national response to the growing crisis of human trafficking. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte summed up the issue clearly on the House floor during legislative debate. He stated that the House has undertaken this policy discussion in order to address the reality that our society allows the “rape of children by adults for profit” to go unpunished. Adults too are caught in the slavery of sexual exploitation, and the measures considered today emphasize that the coercion of either children or adults for economic gain is a fundamental assault on human rights and human dignity.

The five bills approved this evening address various aspects of this crisis, advancing reforms to our foster care system, encouraging greater federal and state coordination and partnerships in programs to provide intervention and after care for victims, giving new tools to law enforcement, and focusing on treating those trapped in commercial sexual activity as victims. These efforts are important and needed, and the bills’ sponsors, including Congresswoman Ann Wagner of Missouri, Congressman Ted Poe of Texas, Congressman Eric Paulsen of Minnesota, Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey, and Congressman Dave Reichert of Washington, are to be commended for their work to craft legislative responses to problems in our justice system.

However, in the ongoing discussion about increasing penalties for pimps and predators, we cannot lose sight of the prevailing individual and cultural belief that “anything goes” and sexual fulfillment and pleasure are to be pursued at any cost. Such beliefs contribute to the rising national consumption of pornography, a product increasingly dependent on the labor of trafficked women and children. Our society by and large continues to turn a blind eye to an industry built upon the exploitation of human beings for profit because we are uncomfortable confronting the reality that our own addiction to sexual entertainment makes us culpable in this national crisis.

Fortunately, law plays a role in shaping cultural values, and today’s proposed changes to federal law clearly convey the House’s firm belief that the dehumanization of women and children through trafficking cannot ever be justified or defended. That’s a message we need to repeat over and over again. For more information about how trafficking affects your community, download FRC’s brochure “Modern Slavery: How to Fight Human Trafficking in Your Community.”

Do Pro-Homosexual Policies Promote Economic Growth? In a Word — No.

by Peter Sprigg

May 8, 2014

Activists use a number of arguments in support of the homosexual political agenda (that is, the push for things like a redefinition of marriage to include homosexual couples, or the inclusion of “sexual orientation” as a protected category in civil rights laws). One of the more ridiculous arguments is the claim that such measures would actually improve the economy of a state.

I was in Indiana earlier this year when that state’s legislature was debating a state constitutional amendment, like those already adopted in thirty other states, to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Homosexual activists (and their fellow travelers in some large corporations) asserted that preserving the existing definition of marriage would make it hard to recruit employees. (Legislators ended up trying to have it both ways — passing an amendment but watering it down in a way that prevented it from going to voters for approval this year.)

Then just last week, a group calling itself “Business Leaders for Michigan” endorsed a statewide homosexual rights bill, declaring as part of its “Michigan Turnaround Plan” that the state should “prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation for employment just like we do for race, color, religion, sex, national origin or disability,” in order to “make Michigan an aspirational destination by being a welcoming place to all.”

Fortunately, these claims readily lend themselves to empirical evaluation. The website of Business Leaders for Michigan says right at the top that the group is “dedicated to making Michigan a ‘Top Ten’ state for jobs, personal income and a healthy economy.” When interviewed on a local NPR station, Doug Rothwell, the group’s President and CEO, added another goal, declaring, “We want to make sure that we can grow our population. Population growth strongly correlates to economic growth.”

So, you want to be a “Top Ten” state in “jobs,” “personal income,” and “population growth?” Well, it’s easy enough to find data on which states are currently in the “Top Ten” in those areas. Then we can see if there is a correlation between that status and the presence of homosexual rights laws or same-sex “marriage” (or actions to prevent it).

In the following lists, a state which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (as is being proposed in Michigan) is marked with an asterisk (*). A state which issues civil marriage licenses to same-sex couples is in italics. A state whose voters have amended their state constitution to protect the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, on the other hand (as is being proposed in Indiana) appears in bold.

Here is a list of the “10 States With [the] Biggest Rate of Job Growth in 2013,” as projected by Kiplinger in March of 2013:

1. Utah

2. Nevada*

3. Hawaii*

4. South Carolina

5. Colorado*

6. Idaho

7. Florida

8. Texas

9. North Carolina

10. Arizona

Here is a list of the “Top 10 fastest-growing states” in population, as compiled by CBS MoneyWatch on January 18, 2014:

1. North Dakota

2. Utah

3. Colorado*

4. Texas

5. Nevada*

6. South Dakota

7. Florida

8. Arizona

9. Washington*

10. South Carolina

Finally, here is a list of the top ten states in personal income growth from 2012 to 2013, as reported by the Department of Commerce on March 25, 2014:

1. North Dakota

2. Utah

3. Idaho

4. Texas

5. Oregon*

6. Colorado*

7. Oklahoma

8. Washington*

9. Iowa*

10. Nebraska

Nationwide, there are 21 states (42% of the fifty states) which treat “sexual orientation” as a protected category in civil rights laws. Among the fastest growing states in job growth, only three (30%) have such laws; among the fastest growing in population, only three (30% have such laws); and among the fastest growing in personal income, only four (40%) have such laws. Combining these lists, 17 states appear at least once; of these, only six (35%) have protected “sexual orientation.” There is simply no strong correlation between the existence of such laws and economic growth — if anything, the fast-growing states are slightly less likely to have embraced special employment protections for homosexuals.

On the marriage issue, the results are more clear-cut — and show the opposite of what the homosexual activists claim. Nationwide, there are 31 states (62% of the fifty states) where voters have amended their state constitutions to prevent the redefinition of marriage. In all but one of those, the amendment fixed the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. (In Hawaii, the amendment reserved to the legislature the power to define marriage, taking the issue out of the hands of judges, but the legislature recently voted to allow “marriages” of same-sex couples.) There are 17 states (34%) that have redefined “marriage” to authorize the issuance of civil marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

But when it comes to the top states in job growth, all ten are states where voters adopted marriage amendments of some type; in only one (10%) are marriage licenses issued to homosexual couples (see note on Hawaii above). Among the top states in population growth, nine (90%) have marriage amendments, while only one (Washington) has redefined marriage. Finally, among the top states in personal income growth, only two (Washington and Iowa) allow same-sex “marriages,” while the other eight (80%) all have marriage amendments. (Iowa never adopted a marriage amendment, but its voters did remove from office three of the state Supreme Court justices who redefined marriage in a court decision). In total only three of the seventeen states on any of these lists (18%) has same-sex “marriage,” while voters in fifteen (88%) took some action to prevent the redefining of marriage. If anything, there appears to be a fairly significant correlation between economic growth and the defense of the natural, one-man-one-woman definition of marriage — not the abandonment of that definition.

It’s time to drop the nonsense about the homosexual agenda promoting economic growth once and for all.

Archives