(It's More Than Merely Disgusting)

Throughout recorded history, all civilizations and major religions have discriminated against homosexuality.  Was such discrimination based upon reason or prejudice?

Gays claim that:

1) they are discriminated against solely because they are different,
2) these differences result in no rational set of harms, and therefore
3) society is acting prejudicially against them.

Discrimination against murderers and drug users is considered non-prejudicial because society is adversely affected by their acts.  How about homosexual behaviour - does it harm the actors and/or endanger the community?

Gay Sex Is Anti-Biologic Sex

The recent literature regarding homosexual activities are not only unsanitary and disgusting but monumental assaults on the human body.  Homosexuals admit to fellating almost every one of their sexual contacts (and ingesting semen from about half of these [16]).  Seminal fluid contains virtually every germ carried in the blood, thus gays are essentially consuming raw human blood with all its attendant medical risks.  Any, perhaps most [16], homosexual contacts involve kissing and consequent salivary exchange.  A very large fraction of both sexual and non-sexual diseases can be transmitted via saliva.  Since most homosexual exchange occurs between strangers, 70% of gays estimated that they had had sex only once with over half of their partners [17]), and gays average somewhere between 20 (Table 1) and 106 [16] different partners/year, the potential for infection and transmission is considerable.

The next-most common gay sex act is rectal intercourse.  It too is fraught with biologic danger.

First, the anus must be lubricated enough to allow penetration of the penis.  Often fingers and/or tongue are used to stretch and moisten the opening.  Saliva or an artificial lubricant is employed to make the event possible.  Saliva contains many germs and substances foreign to the rectum.  Artificial lubricants are easily contaminated and their long-term health effects on the rectum and in interaction with the blood are unknown.

Tearing or bruising of the anal wall (which is only one cell thick) during anal/penile sex is almost inevitable.  If 'toys' are employed (homosexual argot for various objects which are inserted into the rectum – sometimes bottles, carrots, light bulbs or especially designed devices) the risk for contamination is also considerable.


Gay Activities and Diseases (in %)

 1940s ever
 1977 ever
 83/84 ever
1983 last year
1984 last year
1983 last month
 oral/penile * 83 99 100/99  99 86  
anal/penile **  68 91 93/98  95 92  95
oral/anal **  59 83 92/92  63    69
 fist in rectum **   22 41/47  34    
urinating on/in each other  10 23  29/            
 sadomasochism ** 22 37  37/            
Other signs of dyshealth             
sexually transmitted disease    78  78/70       
 illegal drug use   64+   90 69  
 carrier of enteric parasites       25 59 39
travel to U.S. in previous year 
(average stay 5 weeks) 
With whom sex relations             
ever minors  37 >23  46/           
number of partners per year    >20 10/24    27  
ever do orgies (Y)  61   76 88/          
Where sex occurred             
 public restrooms 14 41 66/          
 gay baths   9 60 67/          
       * unhealthful with multiple partners
       ** unhealthful per se

Thus, via the anus 1) foreign saliva and its germs and/or some artificial lubricant, 2) the recipient’s own faeces, 3) whatever germs, infections or substances the penis has on it (often, it will have recently been in another mouth or anus) , and 4) the sperm and-seminal fluid of the inserter gain direct access to the blood stream.  Not before 1984 [15] was it discovered that sperm readily penetrate the anal wall and cause massive immunological damage to the body's T- and B- cell defensive systems (sperm cannot penetrate the multilayered vagina) and soon render the participant immunologically compromised - set up for a host of insidious infections.  Further, the penis of the inserter bears some risk of infection.  About half of all male syphilis is carried by gays as a rectal infection and the faecal material into which he is plunging can enter his body through his urethra.  Since gays masturbate about twice as much as heterosexuals [2] and many take drugs to prolong their erections, the penis is often bruised or cut before or during these activities, so infection via the mucous membrane and/or bruises or cuts is a considerable risk.  Over 90% of gays regularly participate in this bit of biological insanity.

While even a schoolboy knows not to eat human waste, about two-thirds of homosexuals regularly lick and/or insert their tongues into the anus of their 'lovers' and thus ingest biologically significant amounts of faeces, because they usually don't know where the penis they fellate has been recently, many of those fellators who don't participate in anal-Iicking unwittingly end up consuming faeces as well.  While the human body has defences against it, exposure to the faecal discharge of dozens of strangers is patently unhealthful and unwise.

As homosexuality has become more open, proliferation of anti-biologic activity has flourished.  By 1983 well over a third of gays admitted to participation in fisting (inserting the hand and arm, sometimes up to the armpit, into the rectum of sex-partners).  This absurdity was so rare in Kinsey's time he didn't even think to ask about it.  The rectum was not designed to accommodate the hand and arm – over time many of those that engage in this stupidity find their sphincter weakened to such a degree that they 'dribble' at inconvenient times.  The trend in Table 1 is fairly clear.  Urinating on and/or torturing 'lovers' for sexual sport appears to have at least doubled in incidence since the 1940's, and fisting has increased astronomically.  Further, the first random study of gay sexual practices (2) found 17% admitting to eating and/or rubbing themselves with the faeces of partners and an additional 12% reported giving and receiving enemas as part of sexual pleasure.

Although gay estimates of 'numbers of partners per year' might strike the average person as outrageous enough, the only study that had homosexuals keep a sexual diary suggests that the estimates are too low [16].  Whereas gays had estimated about 60 partners/year, the diaries suggested that the real figure was nearer to 100!  Some of this may relate to the use of the word “partner”.  To a heterosexual, “partner” usually means anyone with whom one has sexual relations – but many gays don't count bathroom, gloryhole (two adjoining booths with a small opening or “gloryhole” at genital level for the purpose of engaging in anonymous sexual activity) or peepshow 'tricks' since they often can't even see the person with whom they are having sex (sometimes they can't even see the organ).  Possibly the estimates in Table 1 should be doubled to accord with empirical reality.  Whatever the case, the diary study indicated that, on an average, gays: 

  • fellated 106 different men, and swallowed so of their seminal discharges,
  • experienced 72 penile penetrations of the anus, and
  • ingested the faecal material of 23 different men ... PER YEAR.

It is readily apparent why 7% acquired hepatitis A and 10% hepatitis B in the 6 month period of the study.

Gay activist and chairman of the American Psychological Association's ethics committee, Dr. Morin, reported that his study of 824 gays indicated that fear of AIDS had lowered their sex-rate from 70 different partners a year in 1982 to 50 by mid-1984.  [20] McKusick [21] reported declines from 76 to 47 in the same period.

This submission was written in 1990. It is since acknowledged that the use of gerbils described in the next paragraph is nothing more than folklore. The text content is retained for historical accuracy to the original document, but strikethrough is applied to indicate that it should no longer be relied upon.


In the past 3 years the practise of “gerbilising” has become increasingly popular (25).  “Gerbilising” is the abhorrent act of inserting a LIVE RODENT into the rectum for sexual 'fun'.  Occasionally the unfortunate creature dies before it can find its' way out and must be surgically removed.  It is amazing that there is not more of a public outcry from animal rights groups concerning this depraved behaviour.  One cannot help but wonder to what further depths homosexuals can sink.

Fresh Germs From Around The World

The garden variety sexual practices of homosexuals are a medical horror story - salivary exchange, seminal/blood exchange and mixing, faecal exchange, rectal trauma – with dozens of different men each year.  Worse, many, if not most of these encounters occur while the participants are drunk, high on drugs, and/or in an orgy setting.  Additionally, many of these sexual encounters occur in extremely unsanitary settings (bathrooms, gay baths, dirty peep shows).  As if this were not enough, notice the 1984 Denmark study column 5 in Table 1).  About a quarter of these homosexuals travelled internationally.  They shared their fresh Danish parasites with Australian gays and took home fresh pathogens.  (AIDS, of course went with them).  Foreign homosexuals visit Australia daily and mix their germs with our locals' supply (the AIDS cases in Europe appear to have been carried from the U.S. to them in just this way).  The rate of world-travelling, for American homosexuals is comparable.  The gay 'sex hunt' is growing and encompassing a greater variety of bodies.

Gays are an octopus of infection stretching across the world.  Fresh undiluted germs are its daily food and excrement.  Most gays are veritable Typhoid Marys, pursuing and being pursued by others as biologically lethal as themselves and having sex in settings unrivalled for stupidity and squalor.

Earning Their Infections

AIDS started receiving massive publicity in 1981.  What, aside from demanding government research and treatment money, has been the reaction of homosexuals?  Bear in mind that AIDS is one of, if not the, worst communicable diseases to get.  It can't be cured and victims die a miserable death soaked in fever and diarrhoea.  A smoker who ends up with lung cancer after 20 or 30 years of plying his habit is unfortunate, but he 'earned his disease'.  Everyone knows that smoking is injurious including the smoker.  Likewise with gay sexual practices – you'd have to have been raised in a jar not to know that promiscuous faecal/rectal/oral sex was bad for you.  Did homosexuals stop their odious sexual practices until they knew how AIDS was being transmitted?  It would have been the rational thing to do, of course, but could people with such a captivating set of bad habits stop?  Anyone who has worked with smokers or alcoholics knows the most likely answer is 'no' – and so it has been with homosexuals.  In 1978 1% of the gay blood tested in San Francisco evidenced infection with the putative AIDS retrovirus HTLV-111.  By 1980, 25% of gay blood showed infection with AIDS, and in 1984, three years after the alert and massive public health warnings - after the expenditure of millions and millions of tax dollars on 'educating the gay community' - after all this 65% of gays tested exhibited infection with the AIDS pathogen!  [13] [14] Our best information suggests that by 1985 two-thirds of the homosexuals in San Francisco had ·infected themselves with AIDS.  The proportions are likely to be as high in other gay centres and perhaps a little lower elsewhere.

The McKusick [21] study of 655 gays concluded that “knowledge of health guidelines was quite high, but this knowledge had no relation to sexual behaviour.”  Indeed.  Only 24% of his sample claimed to have been monogamous in the past year, and of these “gay good guys” 5% drank urine, 7% incorporated a fist up their rectum, 33% ingested faeces 53% swallowed semen, and 59% received semen in their rectum in the past month!  No wonder Dr. Hunter Handsfield, Director of the Sexually Transmitted Disease Control Program in Seattle, noted in December, 1985 that in the context of the severity of AIDS, these changes are almost ludicrous.” [22] To this stinging criticism, McKusick [23] replied that “the recommendation that gay men limit themselves to committed monogamy was discussed and found to lack creativity and to reflect the simple insensitivity of an outsider approaching the gay world.  Although most of our subjects have expressed a desire for more primary partnering in response to AIDS, there has been no significant increase in these bonds during the (three year) period of our investigation.”

What gays do sexually is unsanitary insanity.  The numbers with whom they perform their deeds is incredible.  In the face of perhaps the world's worst disease gays have continued their disgusting practices until perhaps half of them evidence infection with the AIDS virus.

Homosexuals have ridden into the dawn of sexual freedom and returned with a plague that gives every indication of destroying them and, perhaps, the rest of humanity.  Those who treat AIDS patients are at great risk (in just the last two years, at least 24 hospital employees in one hospital group have received needle-stick injuries while working with AIDS patients [10] – how many of these will come down with the disease will only be known some years from now, but from the apparent fact that one sex act [18] and possible one use of an infected needle can transmit AIDS, the odds are against them.

Sexological “Science” vs. Tradition

Kinsey and the bulk of modern sexologists argued loud and long that traditional treatment of homosexuality was antiquated.  “No harm, no fou” they claimed, “these people and their life-style must be accepted, ancient wisdom was little more than thinly-disguised prejudice”.  About a third of gays admit to minor/adult sex (Table 1).  Why would we want our precious children learning the 'positive aspects of the gay lifestyle' or experiencing it, any more than we would want to expose them to 'positive aspects of cocaine use'?

The Psychology of Homosexuality

Becoming a homosexual requires a tremendous amount of reverse socialisation.  While just about everyone in our society has been taught to avoide fecal contamination, gays eventually learn to immerse themselves in it.  Examine the results of the Kinsey Study [26] done in the 1940s and early 1950s, the Kinsey effort [27] in San Fransisco in 1970, and the Institute fo rthe Scientific Investigation of Sexuality [28] study in 1983.  (Table 2).  Obviously few children would be charmed by an adult who promised 'come with me and I will show you how to lick my anus — homosexuality begins in a less disgusting manner.  On an average (median), gays report having their genitals manipulated by another male at age 13.  It takes two more years before the first oral/genital contact; another two before it is licked or sucked for 'sexual fun' (lesbians lag 3 to 5 years behind in most of this biological insanity).  By age 21 most gays 'have come a long way'.  They have learned to enjoy activities that would have sickened them as children.  Some go on to even 'bigger things' like sadomasochism, fisting (arms and/or legs inserted in to the anus of 'lovers'), or by eating scat -- but once they have arrived at the stage where they can confuse faeces there are no limits.  They become exemplars of the adage 'you are what you eat'.  Genital stimulation becomes paramount: homosexuals masturbate about twice as much as heterosexuals [26, 27, 28] and are prodigous consumers of pornography [28] , sexual toys, and, always, other bodies.  Every public toilet is an opportunity, every park a possibility.  Life becomes tilted toward the hunt.


The Reverse Socialisation of Homosexuals (% ever participating)


  1940s  1970
genital manipulation by another  90  98  100
oral/genital contact 83 99 100/99 
anal/penile contact 68 91 93/98 
oral/anal 59 83 92/92 
sadomasochism   22 41/47 
fisting 10 23  29/      


z 1940s 1970 1983
genital manipulation by another 81 95 100
oral/genital contact 48 92  96
anal/penile contact - - 30
oral/anal 18 25 53
sadomasochism 15 9 9
fisting - - 8

The “Spoiled Child” Syndrome

Dr Bergler personally analysed over a thousand gays.  His considered opinion [31] is that the personality structure of homosexuals exhibits the following traits:

  • masochistic provocation and injustice-collecting,
  • defensive malice,
  • flippancy covering depression and guilt,
  • hypernarcissism and hypersuperciliousness,
  • refusal to acknowledge accepted standards in non-sexual matters, on the assumption that the right to cut moral corners is due homosexuals as compensation for their "suffering", and
  • general unreliability, also of a more or less psychopathic nature.

Dr Bieber [37], who performed one of the most intensive studies on homosexuals' personalities, characterised gays as 'angry, bitter people with low feelings of responsibility'.  Somerset Maugham (himself a homosexual) remarked that homosexuals possessed "... a narrower outlook on .the world ... a lack or deep seriousness ... inane flippancy ... and cynicism.”

Reversal of appropriate socialisation contributes to 'the spoiled child syndrome'.  Anti-social attitudes and behaviours flourish.  Individually gays are oppositional, collectively they form a whine-machine.  Others must be blamed for their condition and failures – society must pay.  (See Appendix 2)

As with other spoiled children, gay demands are insatiable.  Professional victims to the core, the more they get, the more they want.  Consider Table 2.  In the 1940's when homosexual activity was illegal everywhere in the US, homosexuals were promiscuous, but somewhat restrained.  By 1970 in-the rapidly 'liberalising' city of San Francisco the rate of slam/bam sex had increased dramatically tor both gays and lesbians.  And that was two decades ago, before the rash of media glorifications of homosexuality and 'gay rights' legislation.

Gays Want to Lower Society to Their Level

Psychologically, homosexuals are driven to lower society to their level.  Like alcoholics, homosexuals know that they do wrong and with effort they could quit (61% of the gays in [36] agreed that they 'could be changed to exclusive heterosexuality', 58% that 'people who are homosexual can be changed to heterosexuality if only they want to be').  To preserve any semblence of self-respect, homosexuals either have to convince others that what they do is right (hence 'gay pride' week and the like) or that they are not responsible for their perversity ('I was born that way').  All societies promote a sexual ideal which few attain but for which most strive.  Homosexuals are too debased to permit society to promote sexual standard higher than most achieve – they MUST mock and caricature anything noble and good.  Gays advocate elimination of such standards.  “Let it all hang out" they cry, “don't be phony”.  If all sex can be made tawdry, then gay sex is no worse; if all use the anus for sexual pleasure then homosexual sex is OK.  Where parents wish to shield children from the worst and to gradually introduce them to their sexuality, gay activists want even the youngest to be as sexually driven as they.  Gays revel in scandal and the warping of social convention.  In the guise of 'realism', homosexuals promote a society with only one standard -- that of the lowest common denominator – themselves .  The reason gays dress like clowns and act so silly in their demonstrations? – to show their contempt for society as a whole.

Gays Are Cheats

Those for whom the most intimate human relationship is trivialised by impersonality have little commitment to other social obligations.  Like all the spoilt, homosexuals are natural cheats.  They don't call normals “straights” for nothing.  About 60% of the homosexuals interviewed by Kinsey [26] said that they would not want a monogamous relationship.  Just as well, for their longest 'marriages' average.  2 or 3 years [26, 27, 28] (and knowing how meaningless such commitments are, most gays have begun cheating half way through the relationship [28] 305 of gays vs. 75 of exclusive heterosexuals admit to having committed a sex crime for which they had not been caught (for lesbians it was 13% vs. 0.6% of normal women) [28].  Similarly, homosexuals more frequently admit to shoplifting [28], illegal substance abuse [32, 28], and generally are more frequently associated with criminality.  [26, 27, 28, 29] (in the original Kinsey investigation [35], the general male prison population was over 4 times more apt to have extensive homosexual experience than the control group).

From betraying one's country [30], to receiving leas than honourable discharges [36], or exploiting social position for sexual advantage (gays are over 4 times more apt to engage in sexual harassment toward subordinates in [28]), homosexuals are disproportionately implicated.  To help justify their destruction of good social order, homosexuals collect 'injustices' [31].  To bear them tell it, the reason they cheat is because they were cheated.  Because of lack of dependants, homosexuals have more disposable income.  So when it comes tax time they cheat more frequently: 26% of gays and 12% of lesbians admitted to cheating on their income tax vs. 15% and 8% of heterosexuals.

Yet in their heart-of-hearts, gays know how personally and socially worthless their homosexual habits render them.  In candid moments they've admitted as much.  When asked 'if a teenager who was starting homosexual activity came to you and asked your advice, what would you tell them?' gays recommended cessation over continuation 4 to 1 [26].  About half of gays claim to regret their homosexual habits [26, 34] and half would 'become upset if their child became homosexual' [34].  About a quarter of homosexuals believe homosexuality is an emotional disorder [34] and in [36] 37% of the gays answered 'yes' to “do you think YOU are psychologically disturbed?”.

The Gay Life is a Sad Life

Averaging about half the number of genuine intimates as most folk [32], gays are less tied to life.  Not only are they apt to treat others' lives more casually (with about two-thirds of sexual mass murder victims dying at gay hands [33]), but their own is grasped less firmly.  Homosexuals much more frequently contemplate suicide (in [28] 27% of male heterosexuals vs. 46% of gays and 34% oof female normals vs 56% of lesbians reported contemplating suicide at least once).  As would be expected, homosexuals much more frequently attempt suicide [34, 29, 32].  (in [28] 5% of normal males vs 19% of gays and 10% of heterosexual females vs 21% of lesbians reported at least one suicide attempt).

Gays Need Help To Quit, Not Encouragement To Continue

People with an alcohol problem do not need more ready availability of drink, they need to learn to run dry.  Homosexuals, like alcoholics, are their own worst enemies.  With encouragement, both groups of unfortunates will do even more terrible things.  Look again at Table 1.  Just 40 years ago “fisting” was so rare that the pro-homosexual Kinsey didn't even think to ask about it.  It first appeared in the “Gay Report” in 1979 as something "only" 22% of gays had ever tried.  By 1983 the rate of ever having tried it was up to 41%.  These are disturbed people, pushing their bodies to and beyond the biological limit.  Examine Table 2: when given more freedom by San Francisco the gays pushed toward ever higher limits of promiscuity.  Now they are dying of AIDS at the rate of about 100/month.  Did San Francisco do them a favour?  “Gay Rights” is a sham – bad tor them and worse for us.

Medical Aspects of Homosexuality

What Homosexuals Do In Public is Offensive

What They Do In Private Is Deadly!

The medical problems associated with homosexuality impact upon all.  Since the diseases of one · · segment of society are often transmitted to others, it is in the collective interest to inhabit as disease-free a society as is possible.  Further, since the collectivity ends up paying for all disease in additional taxes and/or increased insurance premiums, and practices or life-styles that promote disease are reasonably discouraged.

Currently our society discriminates against tobacco smoking and smokers.  Limited public areas may be used by smokers to practice their habit and they have to pay higher 'life, health, and auto insurance premiums.  Smokers are not permitted to work at certain jobs, are denied some public accommodations, are segregated from others on many public transit systems unless they refrain, are excluded from renting in particular locations, and cannot use the airways to advertise for new recruits.  Such discrimination annoys many smokers and certainly limits their freedoms of expression, assembly, privacy, and right to work - but the social pressure exerted against them is accepted as reasonable and necessary in the interests of public health.  Smokers have a bad habit that, over the long haul and on average, shortens life by years.  We show our displeasure with the habit by actively discouraging youth from emulating smokers.  Our society operates by the principle that “public health is an overriding concern”.  We reason that “there are no rights if society is dead or dying” so all rights hinge upon the responsibility to not endanger the health and lives of others on one's actions.

Homosexual habits pose a much greater threat to public health than smoking.  Because homosexuality endangers not only its practitioners but the very existence of society it is reasonable and just to apply even more stringent discrimination against those practising homosexuality than
against those who smoke.

Diseases Disproportionately Experienced by Homosexuals

Not surprisingly for those whose sexual habits involve such extensive unsanitary contacts with excrement, homosexuals suffer a much higher proportion of minor-to-deadly diseases.

Gays compared to heterosexual males appear to be about:

  • 14 times more apt to have ever had syphilis
  • 3 times more apt to have ever had gonorrhoea
  • 3 times more apt to have ever had genital warts
  • 8 times more apt to have ever had hepatitis
  • 3 times more apt to have ever had lice
  • 5 times more apt to have ever had scabies
  • 30 times more apt to have ever had an infection from penile contact
  • Hundreds of times more apt to have had oral infection from penile contact
  • Over 5000 times more apt to have AIDS, the deadliest sexually transmitted disease of all.  [38] [40]

Lesbians compared to heterosexual women are about:

  • 19 times more apt to have ever had syphilis
  • 2 times more apt to have ever had genital warts
  • 4 times more apt to have ever had scabies
  • 7 times more apt to have ever had an infection from vaginal contact
  • 29 times more apt to have ever had an oral infection from vaginal contact
  • 12 times more apt to have ever had an oral infection from penile contact [40]

(A substantial proportion of homosexuals, give up the homosexual habit for heterosexuality and some of the 'peculiar' results above [e.g., some male heterosexuals reporting 'oral infection from penile contact'] are a result.)

How You and Yours Are Threatened by Homosexuals' Diseases

Three major modes of transmission of disease from homosexuals to those innocent of their practices are of note :

1) The most obvious direct sexual contact About 40% of homosexuals (a third or the gays, almost half of lesbians) were married [40] (apparently few of the spouses knew what was going-on).  Further, some homosexuals engage in heterosexual sex either regularly or episodically (in the largest random study on this issue [40], 66% of male and 87% of female practitioners reported one or more life-time heterosexual partners (a median of 4 for gays, 6 for lesbians).  Studies of homosexual volunteers [47] [48] [49] have reported similar findings.  So any sexual contact (including kissing) with someone you don’t lknow VERY well may be putting you at hazard of infection by a homosexual.  Since homosexuals admit to more than triple the rate of deliberately infecting 'lovers' with a sexually transmitted disease [40], considerable caution would be prudent.

2) Direct transmission via contacting bodily secretions, excretions, or mucosa.  Kissing a friend or family member who practices homosexuality or shaking hands and then happening to touch your eye, nose or mouth or any break in your skin could result in your infection with any of the host of
homosexual diseases.  While adults may have developed a habit of washing their hands after such encounters, small children are notorious for putting their hands into their mouths, noses or eyes without warning (even tiny breaks in the oral mucosa have been implicated in some cases of hepatitis B (HBV) infection [42]).  If your nurse, physician or dentist practices homosexuality, a needle stick while they are operating on or administering medications to you could result in the mingling of your blood and result in your infection [46].  Dentists, oral surgeons and other physicians have infected their patients with in just this fashion [42].

3) Indirect transmission.  A number of diseases that homosexuals carry can be transmitted in relatively subtle ways.  Toilet seats and washbasins, either moist or dry have some capacity to infect through minor skin abrasions or breaks.  Hepatitis A (and even typhoid fever [43]) can be transmitted via food handling (especially cold food or drinks).  Towelling and general living around a homosexual with AIDS appears to have infected some [44].  And there are many modes of transmission that science is just beginning to understand.  Every flush of a toilet discharges small amounts of faecal material and E. coli into the air with unknown medical consequences.  [45] “Theoretically, even hepatitis B is transmittable as an air-borne aerosol [45] [46] so that hairdressers, fellow-workers, or food servers might infect you.  Because HBV is quite stable, transmission by contaminated surfaces which contact mucous membranes or skin breaks through toothbrushes, razors, or eating utensils [42] is possible.  Since many surfaces in common use get contaminated by sneezes or coughs much less by spitting), the danger to adults and especially to small children is large indeed.  There is probably appreciable medical risk associated with living in group quarters with homosexuals because of such contacts.

One cannot be very optimistic knowing that some gay leaders, aware that AIDS could contaminate and destroy the nation's blood supply, have seriously discussed whether to employ “blood terrorism” [50] (i.e., threaten to have masses of gays with AIDS 'donate' blood unless their demands are met).  Optimism about any 'community responsibility' cools even firther in light of the recent statement of gay spkesmen that 'in 1981 we drew back and became more sexually conservative because of fear of the AIDS epidemic.

The U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) has adopted the twin policies of: l) requesting “sexually active homosexual and bisexual men with multiple sex partners” to forgo selling or donating blood AND 2) attempting to convince the public that the “fact that a group is considered at high risk for AIDS should not be an excuse for discrimination”.  [51] This emphasis upon “protecting gays' feelings” has led the Centres of Disease control (CDC)" to suspend normal tracking systems for individuals infected with communicable disease.  (Earlier, Dr. Allen of the AIDS Task Force said, “We hope this [tracking] will allow us to keep tabs on individual cases.  Because many of these patients are highly mobile, the CDC needs identifying information on cases so as to avoid duplicate reporting ... [and to track] down mortality and the sequences of infections.” By compromising normal tracking at the demand of the National Gay Task Force (“studies of this type will definitely be held up” stated Dr. Allen [52]), our lives are being endangered to placate gay feelings.  By using the phrase “with multiple sex partners” the PHS gave the impression that only the “wild ones” are to blame for AIDS.  Very few gays are monogamous to a lifetime (we could not find one in the literature) - “monogamy” among gays teens means serial monogamy at best (in [39] the monogamy lasted for between 9 to 60 months), further, the evidence presented in [39] indicated that monogamous gays are about as apt to develop AIDS as “wild ones” since penile/rectal contact is particularly implicated.

The U.S. PHS bas apparently decided it is better that a few innocents die of AIDS than gays be embarrassed by forbidding them to sell or donate blood.  This peculiar policy is implicated in the recent banning of U.S. blood products from a number of European countries.  “Most donations are channelled into component production; hence, more than one recipient is exposed to each donation" [53] the U.S.'s health is being jeopardised not only by homosexual activity but by public health officials who desire to make a political statement in favour of gay rights”.  The same health service that condemns smoking is soft on homosexuality.

AIDS is a perfect example of how sexual acts done in private come to haunt us all.  If you wanted to devise a sexual life-style which would assure that almost every disease that exists or could exist through mutation would enter and threaten every community, homosexuality “fits the bill.” If society somehow survives the homosexual 'gift' of AIDS, gay sexual practices assure us of a nevet ending string of 'Andromeda Strains.'

Gays are a festering Andromeda society.  Theirs is the perfect host for any pathogen seeking a population in which to mutate and wreck havoc.  Whether modern medicine can keep up the multitude of diseases homosexuality can spawn and spread is a question upon which all of our lives depend.

Smoking tobacco is a bad habit – over time it can kill you, and it may somewhat injure others around the smoker.  Homosexuality threatens everyone with incalculable public health horrors.

Do we need this grief?  Are our children to be sacrificed to accommodate gay play?  Must we risk extinction so that sexual deviates may feed their bad habit?

No.  Enough.  The time has come to make 'gay rights' a dead issue.  Homosexual activity must be vigorously suppressed with all deliberate speed – the very life of our civilisation is at stake.


[1]  Jaffe HW et al National case-control study of Kaposi's sarcoma and Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia in homosexual men: part 1; epidemiologic results “Annuals Internal Medicine” 1983 99 145-151

[2]  ISIS national random sexuality survey (conducted in 5 metropolitan areas, L.A., Denver, Omaha, Louisville, Washington, D.C.) involving 4,340 adults in 1983: 842 in Dallas in 1984.  An extensive (over 550 items) questionnaire was answered by each respondent anonymously.  See Cameron et al, “Nebraska Med Journal” 1985.  70, 292 – 299

[3]  Schechter MT et al Changes in sexual behaviour and fear of AIDS “Lancet” June 9, 1984, 1293

[4]  Biggar RJ Low T-lymphocyte ratios in homosexual men “J American Med Assn” 1984 251 1441 - 1446

[5]  Quinn TC et al The polymicrobial origin of intestinal infection in homosexual men “New England Med” 1983 309 576 - 582 .

[6]  Gebhard PH & Johnson AB “The Kinsey data: marginal tabulations of the 1938-63 interviews conducted by the institute for Sex Researc" NY: Saunders 1979

[7]  Jay K & Young A “The gay report” NY: Summit, 1979

[10]  Wormser GP et al Needle-stick injuries during care of patients with AIDS “New England J Med” 1984 310 1464

[11]  Karlen A ”Sexuality and homosexuality” NY: Norton, 1971.

[13]  Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Centres for Disease Control, July 13, 1984

[14]  Perlman D 2 AIDS viruses' may be the same “San Francisco Chronicle” July 13, 1984

[15]  Manliqit GW et al Chronic immune stimulation by sperm alloantigens “J American Med Assn” 1984 251 (2) 237 - 438

[16]  Correy L & Holmes KK Sexual transmission of Hepatitis A in homosexual men “New England J Med” 1980 302 435 -438

[17]  Bell Ap & Weinberg MS “Homosexualities: a study of diversity among men and women” NY: Simon & Schuster, 1978

[18]  Cabane J et al AIDS in an apparently risk-free woman “Lancet” July 14, 1984 105

[19]  Pines by “Back to Basics” NY: Morrow, 1982 p.211

[20]  Stewart SA “USA Today” Nov 21, 1984

[21]  Mckusick L et al AIDS and sexual behaviour reported by gay men in San Francisco, “Am.  J Pub Health”, 1985, 75, 493-96.  Also Agnost v. Owen Sp. Ct. CA (No. 830-321), Oct 10, 1984

[22], [23]  Letters to Editor, “Am J Pub Health”, Dec 1985, 75, 1449-50

[24]  Quoted in “Executive Intelligence Report”, Oct 18, 1985

[25]  From 1987 conversation with American lecturer Kay Arthur and Australian Director of Youth With A Mission, Tom Hallas.

[26]  Gebhard PH and Johnson AB "The Kinsey Data: marginal tabulation of the 1938-1963 interviews conducted by the Institute for Sex Research" NY: Saunder, 1979

[27]  Bell AP, Weinberg MS & Hammersmith SK “Sexual Preference: statistical appendix” Bloomington: Indiana U Press, 1981

[28]  4,340 adults were sampled via area cluster methods in LA, Denver, Omaha, Louisville & Washington DC in 1983; 842 in Dallas in 1984.  An extensive (over 550 items) questionnaire was answered by each respondent anonymously.

[29]  Saghir MT & Robins E “Male and Female Homosexuality: a comprehensive investigation” Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1973

[30]  Noebel DA "The Homosexual Revolution: a look at the preachers and politicians behind it” Manitou Springs, CO: Summit, 3rd edition, 1984

[31]  Bergler, E.  “Homosexuality: disease or way of life?” NY: Macmillan, 1956

[32]  Cameron P & Ross KP “Social psychological aspects of the Judeo-Christian stance toward homosexuality “J Psychol & Theol” 1981 9 40-57

[33]  Cameron P Is murder disproportionately associated with homosexuality?  Paper presented at Midwestern Psychol Assn, Chicago, May 1983.

[34]  Bell AP & Weinberg MS “Homosexualities: a study of diversity among men and women” NY: Simon & Schuster 1978

[35]  Gebhard PH, Gagnon JH, Pomeroy WB & Christenson CV “Sex offenders: an analysis of types” NY: Harper & Row, 1965

[36]  Williams CJ & Weinberg MS “Homosexuals and the Military” NY: Harper & Row 1971

[37]  Bieber, I.  “Homosexuality: a psychoanalytic study” NY: Basic Books 1962

[38]  Jaffe H, Keewhan C et al National case-control study of Kaposi's Sarcoma "Pneumocystis carinii” pneumonia in homosexual men: part 1, epidermiologic results.  “Annals Internal Med” 1983 99 (2) 145 - 157.

[39]  Manligit G M, Talpaz M at al, Chronic immune stimulation by sperm alloantigens.  "J Amer Med Assn" 1984 251 (2) 237 – 241.

[40]  ISIS national random sexuality survey (conducted in 5 metropolitan areas, L.A., Denver, Omaha, Louisville, Washington, D.C.) involving 4,340 adults in 1983

[41]  Quinn TC, Stam W E et al The polymicrobial origin of intestinal infections in homosexual men “New England J Med” 1983 309 576 - 582.

[42]  Robinson WS Hepatitis B virus in Mandell GL, Douglas RG, & Bennet JE “Principles and practice of infectious diseases”.  NY: Wiley, 1979, 1388 - 1417.

[43]  Dritz S & Braff EH Sexually transmitted typhoid fever “New England J Med” 1977 296 (23) 1359-60.

[44]  Pitschenik AE, Fishi MA & Spira TJ Acquired immune deficiency syndrome in low-risk patients.  “J Amer Med Assn” 1983 250 (10) 1310 – 1312.

[45]  Spendlove JC & Fennin KF Source, significance and control of indoor microbial aerosols: human health aspects.  “Public health Rpts” 1983 98 (3) 229 – 244.

[46]  Gurevich I Precautions "Amer J Nursing” 1983 83 572 -86

[47]  Jay K & Young A.  “The gay report” NY: Summit, 1979.

[48]  Bell Ap & Weinberg MS “Homosexualities: a study of diversity among men and women” NY: Simon & Schuster, 1978

[49]  Gebhard P & Johnson A The Kinsey data: marginal tabulations of the 1938 -63 interviews conducted by the institute for sex research.” NY: Saunders, 1979

[50]  Robert Schwab, President of Texas Human Rights Foundation, himself dying of AIDS said “...  there has come the idea that if research money is not forthcoming at a certain level by a certain date, that all gay males should give blood.  ...  If it takes threatening and perhaps giving blood to get us the money ...  whatever action is required to get national attention is valid.  If that includes blood terrorism, so be it.  “Dallas Gay News”, May 20, 1983.

[51]  U.S. Public Health Service, “Facts about AIDS”, released December 1983,

[52]  Maverick C Medical News “J Amer Med Assn” 1983 250 (15) 1945 – 46.

[53]  Bove JR Transfusion-associated AIDS - a cause for concern.  “New England J Med" 1984 310 (2) 115-116.

[54]  U.S. Press Jetf Botkin reporter, personal communications May 31 - June 2, 1984.  Dr McLeod will be presenting her scientific paper on September 19, 1984 at the International Symposium on Tropical Medicine.

[55]  Public Broadcasting Service, various times during the last week of May, 1984.

ISIS Position Paper on Homosexuality

Viable societies are organised to sustain themselves by producing and educating succeeding generations.  Each child is expected to repay society for all he has inheirited by creating and nurturing a new generation.  In Western society, workers generally receive sufficient income to both sustain themselves and raise a family.  Parents particularly satisfy their debts by teaching their children that soon it will be their turn to repay.

Homosexuals renounce their societal obligation and slavishly devote themselves to self-aggrandisement.  They rob society to pleasure themselves.  Money remaining after their basic requirements are met is regarded as additional opportunity for personal pleasure rather than a loan to be put in to the service of societal betterment.  Getting more by doing less, homosexuals soon come to regard special treatment as their inherent right.  Those who are rewarded for leeching soon come to regard society with contempt, deserving destruction.

Homosexuals often spend their “extra” disposable income roaming the world in search of sexual adventure.  Because of their promiscuity and incredibly unsanitary sexual practises, pathogens once localised to a given geographic region are rapidly being spread throughout the world.  AIDS is a first fruit of this process and many more plagues stemming from homosexual behaviour are bound to occur.  Homosexuals have already compromised the nation's blood supply and are straining the resources of the medical community.  Homosexual activity combined with modern modes of transportation assures that the world's medical problems become both out risk and our financial burden.

Like any interest group, homosexuals construct a philosophy of life from their circumstances, associates and regular activities.  They attempt to validate their lives by getting others to share in their practices and world-view.  Having acquired a monstrous habit, they cannot feel good about themselves until everyone is driven by sexual release.  Tortured by their own lack of productivity they cannot rest until the lives of others are as trivial as their own.  The only way that they can assure that unfavourable comparisons cannot be made is to persuade heterosexuality to become as empty and mean as homosexuality.  That is why homosexuals are such ardent champions of the right to enjoy pornography, adultery, divorce, abortion and sex with children.  In every significant respect, homosexuality is a personal tragedy and a societal calamity.

Drug addicts endanger themselves and others, but knowing they they do wrong the skulk in the dark or pretend that they are not captives to their vice.  They ply their habit to escape the world.  Of all the vices, only homosexuality constitutes a conspiracy against society.  “In the closet” homosexuals thumb their nose at society by having sex in public rest rooms and parks, seducing our children, and exploiting positions of trust for sexual advantage.  “Out of the closet” homosexuals go still further and demand that society confirm to their own sorry image.  Filled with contemptuous amazement that society would grant them standing, they have become even more outrageous with their demands.  Homosexuals demand to have “equal time” to persuade our children in school, to parade on main street, to fill the airways with their defective perspective on life.  Unable, because of their vice, to live genuinely constructive lives, they offer aesthetics instead of moral rectitude, dancing instead of building, “sensitivity” instead of purposeful contribution.

Under no circumstances ought homosexua1ity to be regarded as other than a destructive habit-system.  Those who recognise homosexua1ity as a legitimate life-style are being manifestly unkind because they refuse hope and motivation to those homosexually involved and are adding to the sexual difficulties of our civilisation.  Homosexuals should be encouraged to abandon their unfortunate habit as have millions before them.  Those who turn from homosexua1ity to productive chastity or responsible heterosexuality should be forgiven and welcomed.

Copyright 1986 Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality

About A.F.F.

We have been full time lobbyists for Aussie families since 1983.  AFF is dedicated to upholding Biblical family values, promoting a Biblical Christian worldview, and educating and mobilising concerned individuals to positively affect their homes, communities, country and world.

We not only encourage Christians to be "salt" and "light", but provide credible strategies for doing so.  One of our specific goals is the removal of pornography from the family marketplace where children have access.

Contact A.F.F.

Australian Federation for the Family
c/o Grove Post Office
TAS 7109

Email Us

Come and Join Us

Back to top