THE CASE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE IN NEW YORK 2011!

(For another perspective, see the FRC’s “Ten Arguments from Social Science Against Same-Sex Marriage”)

REASON 1: AMERICA ... AND NEW YORK ... WILL REASSESS THE EVIDENCE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY & TRANSGENDERISM
Dr Paul McHugh: “Surgical Sex”
http://www.policystudies.ca/documents/Surgical_Sex_Change.pdf
Paul McHugh is University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Hospital.

“.....We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than
trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it….”

REASON 2: AMERICA WILL REJECT THE EFFORT BY A COMPLICIT MEDIA TO SWAMP THEM WITH DISINFORMATION!
Lawyer and author Roger J. Magnuson ... on Gay America’s determination with hijacking Black America’s struggle!
(“Are Gay Rights Right?: Making Sense of the Controversy”; Multnomah Press; 1992; Portland, Oregon 97266).
The excerpt below is taken from his arguments at pgs. 67-107, specifically p. 82-89):

“... As we have already seen, proponents of gay rights laws rely heavily on an analogy to other human rights legislation. If human rights laws
have provided protection to other minorities, why should society not add one more group to those protected from discrimination? Hitching
their wagon to the broadly based support Americans have traditionally given civil rights laws, gay rights advocates have made surprising
progress in the past decade.

The human rights analogy, though popular and politically understandable, cannot withstand careful analysis. Adding homosexual behaviour
to a list of classes that includes racial and religious minorities makes no sense. The tenuous balance of social interests represented by these
laws is reflected in the few, and carefully chosen, classes they protect. Relief has been given only in extraordinary circumstances.

To add another protected class, at least five requirements have had to be shown:

(1) A demonstrable pattern of discrimination …

(2) … based on criteria that are arbitrary and irrational …
(3) … causing substantial injury …
(4) … to a class of people with an unchangeable or immutable status …
(5) … which has no element of moral fault....”

REASON 3: AMERICA ... AND NEW YORK ... WILL AGAIN REJECT GAY-MILITANT INTIMIDATION!
“Matt Gurney: California's gay marriage vote sparks retribution”
Posted: November 14, 2008, 1:00 PM by Kelly McParland
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/11/14/matt-gurney-california-s-gay-marriage-vote-sparks-retribution.aspx

“….Democracy requires voters to sometimes decide painful, contentious issues. An absolute prerequisite to that is being able to rest assured
that one may cast their vote – and yes, donate their money – safe in the knowledge that their legally-discharged democratic duty will not
expose them to vigilante retribution or political intimidation.

Eckern chose to step aside without a fight, and seems genuinely mortified to have caused offence. I cannot help but wonder, though, what would
have happened if he'd stuck by his guns and simply stated that how he spent his money was his business? Would the California Musical
Theater have championed their employee's right to vote his conscience, or would they have exercised political censorship by finding some way to turf
him for supporting Yes on 8?

Scott Eckern is an accidental symbol, a man thrust into the spotlight by the vagaries of chance and the realities of instant electronic communication. But
there are thousands of others like him who have been left equally exposed to revenge or social stigmatization for disagreeing with another person's
opinion. Democracy cuts both ways, and financial supporters of gay marriage are just as vulnerable to retaliation as those who opposed it.
The aftermath of this campaign has already turned ugly, and if the situation deteriorates further, lives could well be endangered.

When contacted for comment, Andrew Pugno, a spokesman for the Yes on 8 Campaign, wrote, "It is unlike anything I have ever seen before. It is
scary. And notable that law enforcement and government leaders stand by silently." California's choice to publish the names, addresses, and
occupations of those who donate large sums to political causes is not only dangerous politically, but could quickly become dangerous in the most literal
sense possible. With tempers running hot, the shaming of Scott Eckern and his resignation might strike some as a victory. Those who would celebrate
should be mindful, however, of the potential ramifications of having opened this particular Pandora's Box. Indeed, opponents of Proposition 8
might soon rue the day that in their earnest and understandable haste to drive the government out of their bedrooms, they pushed
themselves into another citizen's voting booth….”

REASON 4: AMERICANS ... AND NEW YORKERS ... WILL AGAIN REJECT GAY-MILITANT PSYCHO-VIOLENCE
“Prop. 8 supporters suffer vandalism, violence”
Associated Press - 11/3/2008 7:15:00 AM
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=308506

SAN DIEGO - A pastor leading efforts to pass a ballot initiative that would end same-sex "marriage" in California says the campaign has become the
target of vandalism and violence.

“... Rev. Jim Garlow says signs urging a "Yes" vote on Proposition 8 are being stolen, churches have been pelted with eggs, cars have been
parked outside the homes of supporters bearing the message "Bigots live here," and some supporters have been physically assaulted.
Garlow says a pastor even had the windows of his car shot out because he was displaying a "Yes on 8" sticker. "One man in Modesto was
beaten as he was handing out 'Yes on 8' signs, and had stitches in his eye," he adds.

"We have boys dying...protecting our freedom in Iraq, while we have our freedom being taken as people rip signs out and destroy them and
deface them," says Pastor Garlow. "It's quite an amazing venue to find ourselves in [here] in America."

Proposition 8 would amend the state constitution to say, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The measure
is supported by evangelical Christian, Roman Catholic, and Mormon groups. It is opposed by Unitarians and Episcopalians ...”
 REASON 5: AMERICANS WILL HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT …
"Homosexuality is not a Civil Right"
by Robert Regier and Daniel Garcia ( www.crrange.com/wall34.html ):

“…. When protecting one’s inalienable and civil rights, the government must discern between liberty and license. This requires that rights
attach to persons because of their humanity, not because of their behaviors, and certainly not those behaviors that Western legal and moral
tradition has regarded as inimical to the "Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God," as stated in the Declaration.

Yet, today some advocate granting "rights" to behaviors hostile to the most fundamental forms of self-government—family, church, and
community. This is especially the case with homosexual activists, who ironically seek to hijack the moral capital of the civil rights
movement….”

REASON 6: AMERICA WILL AGAIN REJECT A HOAX THAT IGNORES THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
"The Removal of Homosexuality from the Psychiatric Manual"
by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi
( http://www.catholicsocialscientists.org/Symposium2--Nicolosi--mss.htm )

“…. All three great pioneers of psychiatry--Freud, Jung and Adler--saw homosexuality as disordered. Yet today, homosexuality is not to be
found in the psychiatric manual of mental disorders. Were these three great pioneers just reflecting the ignorance and prejudice of their
times? Is this radical shift due to our modern-day enlightened, sophisticated attitude? Has there been any new research to account for this
shift of opinion? I submit that no new psychological or sociological research justifies this shift. Research did not settle the question.
Research simply stopped, and it is politics that has silenced the professional dialogue. Now, the only studies on homosexuality are from an
advocacy perspective.

Militant gay advocates working in a small but forceful network have caused apathy and confusion within our society. They insist that
acceptance of the homosexual as a person cannot occur without endorsement of the homosexual condition. Intellectual circles too--who are
self-conscious about sounding intolerant--proclaim homosexuality as normal, yet it is still not so for the average person for whom it "just
doesn't seem right…. Yet in the history of psychiatry, has a heterosexual ever sought treatment for distress about his heterosexuality and
wished to become homosexual? When I put that question in correspondence to the chairman of the DSM Nomenclature Committee, Robert L.
Spitzer, he replied: "the answer, as you suspected, is no". Why does the profession no longer consider homosexuality a problem? .... ”

REASON 7: AMERICA WILL AGAIN REJECT A HOAX THAT IGNORES THE PSYCHO-SEXUAL ... AND POLICE ... EVIDENCE!
The law review “Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth”, by Dr. Judith Reisman,
14 REGENT U. L. REV. 283, 326 (2002); http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Reisman.doc ; pp 9-11 of 60)

C. Hiding Dirty Laundry

“... The biases of the media are revealed as much by what is not reported as what is reported.

Homosexual authors David Island and Patrick Letellier attempt to expose inter-gay violence in their book,Men Who Beat the Men Who Love
Them, estimating that up to "650,000 gay men" are annually battered; "a gay man is [domestically] abused . . . every 90 seconds."

How many of these battered men die at the hands of other homosexuals?

There were 3327 cases of gay-on-gay "domestic violence" reported by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs in 1997 — three
times the number of "anti-gay" "intimidation" or assaults alleged upon homosexuals that same year.

Island and Letellier document inter-gay battery as the primary homosexual health problem after 1) AIDS (males), Cancer (females) and 2) drug
abuse.

They write, "The Director of the Gay Men’s Domestic Violence Project . . . in San Francisco stated that domestic violence may affect and
poison as many as fifty percent of gay male couples." "We believe that far too many [heterosexual] husbands . . . are violent, but that their
proportion is closer to twenty percent." "Domestic violence is acknowledged, talked about, and dealt with more in straight relationships than
in gay male relationships."

Approximately 21,000 Americans are murdered every year, an average of 58 each day, compared to two killings allegedly based on "sexual
orientation" in 1996. These hard data find "gay" men to be at far greater risk of harm from other gay men and from outraged, often former
boy abuse victims, than from homophobic rednecks.

Yet Island and Letellier find establishment media and the homosexual media will not print the truth about inter-gay violence. Why?

It "would be just plain bad press for gays and . . . all bad news needs to be suppressed. . . . [G]ay men truly . . . . have a proportionate share of
violent individuals in their midst who bash other gay men [and boys] in startlingly high numbers." "The gay community needs to recognize
that wealthy, white, educated, ‘politically correct’ gay men batter their lovers."

The Advocate, the premier magazine for homosexual readers, reports that a minimum of seventy-five percent of its readers admit to engaging
in violent sex; twenty percent engaged in sadistic "bondage and discipline"; and fifty-five percent engaged in other sex acts using painful
objects.

Compared to heterosexual distrust or dislike, the rare assault inflicted on someone at a bar and the singular, although horrible, aberrant
murder, it is fair to say that the on-going, most significant "hate crimes" against homosexuals are, as Kirk and Madsen noted, inflicted by
homosexuals.

In 1987, "the San Francisco police responded to no fewer than 100 calls per month for gay and lesbian domestic violence. . . . [T]here are
thousands upon thousands of victims of gay men’s domestic violence in the United States each month."

In 1981, the homosexual press reported that about ten percent of San Francisco’s homicides resulted from homosexual sadomasochistic
abuse, a finding that would be in keeping with the Reisman & Johnson data (discussed hereinafter), and that of several homophile
researchers who cited self-confessed sadism among upscale homosexual Advocate readers...."
What, exactly, are the facts for New York ... and America ... today?

Does the dearth of reportage on the issues above mean that the “social revolution” caused by “gay rights” is deliberately masking ... or
hiding ... an underbelly of psychosocial, psychosexual, criminal, medical and psychiatric chaos? When will it implode?

REASON 8: AMERICA WILL REJECT THE MEDIA’S ... AND HOLLYWOOD’S ... EFFORT TO BULLY AND FOOL THEM!
Lawyer and author Roger J. Magnuson
(“Are Gay Rights Right?: Making Sense of the Controversy”; Multnomah Press; 1992; Portland, Oregon 97266).
The excerpt below is taken from his arguments at pg. 137)

Let’s see how New York’s pro-gay-marriage politicians and media stand up to this indictment! Listen carefully to their arguments!

Lawyer Roger J. Magnuson who makes the point at page 137 that gay militants typically use a fourfold tactical plan in their initiatives at deception:

a) They avoid, whenever possible, serious public debate over gay rights measures,
b) If debate is imminent, they seek to intimidate opposing voices into silence.
c) If debate occurs, they use ad hominem arguments; label opponents as superstituous, insensitive and ignorant.
d) If the debate goes beyond ad hominem labelling, they avoid at all costs discussion of homosexual behaviour, and keep the discussion as
abstract as possible - civil rights, discrimination, minority status.

REASON 9: AMERICA WILL ASK ... WHAT ELSE DO WE KNOW ABOUT THIS PSYCHOSEXUAL DISORDER?
A psychosexual or mental disorder, when given the space to consider itself “normal”, will always seek to impose its madness on society!

Dr. Steve Baldwin’s law review “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement” (http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Baldwin.doc
) 14 REGENT U.L. REV. 267 2002) illustrates the imperative that should guide entire national policies:

“... Unfortunately, the truth is stranger than fiction. Research confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than
heterosexuals, and the mainstream homosexual culture commonly promotes sex with children. Homosexual leaders repeatedly argue for the
freedom to engage in consensual sex with children, and blind surveys reveal a shockingly high number of homosexuals admit to sexual
contact with minors. Indeed, the homosexual community is driving the worldwide campaign to lower the age of consent ...”

(See W.D. Erickson et al, Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters, 17 ARCHIVES SEXUAL BEHAV. I, 83 [1988] and numerous other references on
page 2 of 16 in Dr. Baldwin’s review)

REASON 10: AMERICA WILL ASK ... WHY ARE WE PREOCCUPIED WITH IGNORING THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE?
Does this explain why gay militancy will ALWAYS seek to control the health sector in activist states?

Their position is perplexing given the hard medical evidence:

"...The Surgeon General has said, "Condoms provide some protection, but anal intercourse is simply too dangerous a practice...." ("Condoms
and sexually transmitted diseases, especially AIDS": Article 7, FDA document 90-4239).

David Ostrow et al have gone to great lengths to explain why the Surgeon General has adopted this position, and it bears repeating at this stage:

"... The physiology of the rectum makes it clear that sodomy is unnatural. The inward expansion of the rectum during anal intercourse
frequently tears the rectal lining, resulting in spasms, colitis, cramps, and a variety of other physical responses. Furthermore, sperm can
readily penetrate the rectal wall (the vagina cannot be so readily penetrated) and do massive immunological damage, leaving the body
vulnerable to a bewildering variety of opportunistic infections...." (David Ostrow et al, eds., “Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Homosexual Men”,
New York, Plenum Medical Book Co., 1982 … in the article “Hemorrhoids, Anal Fissure and Condylomata Acuminata”; G. Manligit et al., “Chronic
Immune Stimulation by Sperm Alloantigens,” in the Journal of the American Medical Association 251, 1984 … 237-241; See also J. Richards et al.,
“Rectal Insemination Modifies Immune Responses in Rabbits,” Science 224 … 1984 … 390-392; G. Shearer and A. Rabson, “Semen and Aids,” Nature
308 … 1984:230). (These and other citations in Roger Magnuson's "Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy"; Multhnomah Press:)

… and to the extent that the homosexual population in the USA circa 1987 (1 to 5% of the total population) was responsible for more than 50% of the
national cases of syphilis and gonorrhoea, New Yorkers will not wilfully ignore the fact that we can expect a similarly dramatic and disproportionate
effect in the contracting and spread of rectal gonorrhoea, gonorrhoea of the throat, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, herpes, CMV, urethritis,
pediculosis, scabies, venereal warts and intestinal parasites in addition to the incidence of HIV. (Source: Kate Leishman, “AIDS and Syplillis”,
The Atlantic Monthly. January 1988, 20, 21; E. Rowe, “Homosexual Politics”, CLA, 1984, , 17; P. Buchanan and J. Muir, “Gay Times and Diseases,” The
American Spectator, August 1984, 15-18; L. Corey and A. Holmes, “Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men”, New England Journal Of
Medicine 302 1980 435-8; Gerald Mandell et al., eds., Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases, 3rd ed., New York, John Wiley 1990, 2280-84; J.
Kassler, “Gay Men’s Health”, New York, Harper & Row, 1983, 38;) as cited by Roger J Magnuson …

What are the current medical facts for New York and the USA?
How much more of a strain will outbreaks be on city/state/national budgets?
And then, again, there is MRSA ... with an aggressiveness of infection 19 times more for homosexual populations.

REASON 11: AMERICA ... AND NEW YORK ... WILL ASK ... HAS THE MEDICAL DATA REMAINED CONSISTENT OVER 10 YEARS?
“Prevalence of HIV Infection in the United States, 1984 to 1992”
John M. Karon, Ph.D., et al;
Journal of the American Medical Association, July 10, 1996, Table 4.

“... Males who have sex with males account for over half of all HIV infections in the United States, the mid-range estimate being approximately 450,000
cases out of a total of 750,000....”

This for 4% of the population!

Again, does this explain why, without exception, gay-activism will always seek to control the health sector in activist states?
 REASON 12: AMERICA ... AND NEW YORK ... WILL ASK ... HAS THE MEDICAL DATA REMAINED CONSISTENT OVER 20 YEARS?
CDC Report for 2004 on HIV Statistics Internationally
(see also http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#international)

“The estimated number of diagnoses of AIDS through 2002 in the United States is 886,575. Adult and adolescent AIDS cases total 877,275 with
718,002 cases in males and 159,271 cases in females. Through the same time period, 9,300 AIDS cases were estimated in children under age 13.
Estimated number of deaths of persons with AIDS is 501,669, including 496,354 adults and adolescents, and 5,315 children under age 15. Following
is the distribution of the estimated number of diagnoses of AIDS among adults and adolescents by exposure category. A breakdown by sex is provided
where appropriate.”

Exposure Category Male Female Total

Male-to-male sexual contact 420,790 - 420,790
Injection Drug Use 172,351 67,917 240,268
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 59,719 - 59,719
Heterosexual contact 50,793 84,835 135,628
Other* 14,350 6,519 20,869
• Includes hemophilia, blood transfusion, perinatal, and risk not reported or not identified.

REASON 13: AMERICA ... AND NEW YORK ... WILL ASK ... HAS THE MEDICAL DATA REMAINED CONSISTENT OVER 23 YEARS?
September 2010: CDC Fact Sheet: HIV and AIDS Among Day and Bisexual Men
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf

A Snapshot (CDC surveillance systems refers to men who have sex with men as “MSM”):
► MSM account for nearly half of the more than one million people living with HIV in the U.S. (48%, or an estimated 532,000 total persons).
► MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year (53%, or an estimated 28,700 infections).
► While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses
among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522–989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men).
► MSM are the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing. While new infections have declined among both heterosexuals
and injection drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among MSM has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s.

Where has the science changed? On what basis, exactly, are Cuomo and Bloomberg basing their public-policy approach on this issue?
Given the facts, why institutionalize ... through ‘marriage” ... a behaviour with obvious/significant personal and social consequences?

After Justice Kirby, good law should be based on good data, and the very least that legislators can do is to familiarize themselves with the details!

REASON 14: AMERICA ... AND NEW YORK ... WILL ASK ... WHY ARE WE PREOCCUPIED WITH IGNORING THE OBVIOUS?

New York’s education in this regard should begin by noting the words of homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen outlined in the law
review “Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth”, by Judith Reisman, 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 283, 326 (2002)
( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Reisman.doc ;

"... According to Kirk and Madsen, "AIDS gives us a chance, however brief, to establish ourselves as a victimized minority...."

Dr. Reisman goes on …

“... To hide the fact that most AIDS children appear to be infected by bi/homosexuals, the "World AIDS Day" artfully reports that "16% of
adolescents with AIDS, aged 13 through 19 . . . have been infected through heterosexual contact,” rather than that 84% of AIDS children are
infected by male bi/homosexual sex abuse ..." … which words, inter alia, would drive one of our contributors below to make the following point:

"... The political proposals advanced by an increasingly aggressive group of gay activists ... merit and demand serious discussion and
rational analysis. Unfortunately, gay rights proposals have often received neither. The seriousness of the issues has not been matched by a
seriousness of analysis. There has been a curious inversion: a high level of public policy interest; a low level of public policy debate ..."
(Magnuson, p. 137; “Are Gay Rights Right?: Making Sense of the Controversy” )

Now read “How Britain is turning Christianity into a Crime" by Melanie Phillips ( http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=447 )
Now read Paul Clement’s resignation from the law firm King & Spalding on DOMA ( http://www.politico.com/static/PPM153_clement.html )
ow read the Wall Street Journal’s “Knave & Spalding” on the clear and present danger of gay-activist extremism in intimidating businesses:

“... The likely story here is that King and Spalding began to fear a political backlash after activists at the Human Rights Campaign launched
a campaign to "educate" (read: intimidate) the firm's clients about "King and Spalding's decision to promote discrimination." Clients include
Coca-Cola and other Fortune 500 giants that prefer to avoid hot-button social issues.

That's fair enough, but once a firm takes on a client it is the firmest of legal obligations to see a case through save for a clear conflict of
interest. To drop a case under political pressure is especially unethical. Imagine the outcry if a firm of similar standing stopped defending
Guantanamo detainees? Whatever one thinks of Doma, it passed both houses of Congress with huge majorities, and Vice President Joe
Biden was among 85 Senators who voted "aye." The law defines marriage as between a man and a woman and says states aren't obliged
to honor gay marriages recognized in other states.

Social mores have changed in 15 years, but not so much that gay marriage should be imposed by judicial fiat in a way that further inflames
the culture war. The Human Rights Campaign has every right to challenge Doma in court, but it does itself no honor by trying to deny that
same right to Doma's supporters by harassing their legal counsel. As for King and Spalding, better not turn your back on its lawyers in a
firefight….”
 REASON 15: AMERICA ... AND NEW YORK ... WILL ASK ... HOW DOES CUOMO SEE ALL OF THE ABOVE AS ‘GOOD’ PUBLIC POLICY?

So, how does any legislator justify “institutionalizing” through “marriage” a verifiably disordered behaviour that sees as its necessary and logical end the
destruction of fundamental creation-structures dear to the Judeo-Christian ethic: manhood, womanhood, family, sex, marriage!

Which playbook are they reading from? Was “gay-rights” ... and thereby “gay-marriage” ... based on a denial of the evidence of stupendous proportions?

First read the 2002 law–review “Gay Orthodoxy and Academic Heresy”
Now read Kathleen Melonakos’ “Why Isn’t Homosexuality Considered a Disorder on the Basis of Its Medical Consequences?”
Thereafter read Dr. Joseph Nicolosi’s “The Removal of Homosexuality from the Psychiatric Manual”
Then read “From Playboy to Pedophilia: How Adult Sexual Liberation Leads to Child Sexual Exploitation”
Finally read “Studies of Homosexual Parenting: A Critical Review”, by George Rekers & Mark Kilgus.

Now Robert H. Knight! Talk about unnerving predictive accuracy...

SEXUAL REVOLUTIONS: A WAR ON FAMILIES …

“The American Sex Revolution”; By Ptirim Sorokin, Porter Sargent Publishers, Boston, 1956

“... As the research of the late Harvard sociologist Ptirim Sorokin reveals, no society has loosened sexual morality outside of
marriage and survived. Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousand years on several continents, Sorokin found that virtually
all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by sexual revolutions in which marriage and family were no
longer accorded premiere status. To put it another way, as marriage and family ties disintegrated, the social restraints learned in families
also disintegrated. Societal chaos ushers in tyrants who promise to restore order by any means.

Self-governing people require a robust culture founded on marriage and family, which nurture the qualities that permit self-rule:
deferred gratification, self-sacrifice, respect for kinship and law, and property rights. These qualities are founded upon sexual
restraint, which permits people to pursue long-term interests, such as procreating and raising the next generation, and securing
benefits for one’s children...” (“Quoted in “Hawaii’s Assault On Matrimony”; By Robert H. Knight )

REASON 16: AMERICA ... AND NEW YORK ... WILL ASK ... HOW BAD DOES IT GET AFTER THIS?
EXACTLY HOW GUILTY ... AND IRRESPONSIBLY ACTIVIST ... IS THE APA?

Justice Scalia offered in his read/written dissent in Lawrence vs. Texas:

“... This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even
a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws can survive rational-basis review...”

Thereafter. consider the implications for public/social/government policy! “The A.P.A. Normalization of Homosexuality, and the Research Study of
Irving Bieber´, found at http://www.narth.com/docs/normalization.html concludes with the following astonishing speculation which illustrates what
happens when science is replaced by “human rights” arguments:

“...Dr. Bieber pointed out that there were several other conditions in the DSM-II that did not fulfill the ‘distress and social disability´
criteria: voyeurism, fetishism, sexual sadism, and masochism. A.P.A’s Dr. Spitzer replied that these conditions should perhaps also
be removed from the DSM-II ² and that if the sadists and fetishists were to organize as did the gay activists, they, too, might find their
conditions normalized...”

Finally consider the de-facto indictment of the APA in 2002 in the law review “Gay Orthodoxy and Academic Heresy”, by Ty Clevenger:

“... At a recent meeting of the American Psychological Association (APA), for example, former APA President Robert Perloff
denounced the organization as ³too politically correct´ and beholden to special interests. He noted that the organization had tried to
prevent research into ³conversion therapy´ (therapy to change one¶s sexual orientation) and had tried to label it ³unethical´ a priori,
even when the patient wants conversion therapy.

The APA blocked presentations from researchers on whether sexual orientation can be changed through counseling and therapy, yet
it published controversial research suggesting that sex between children and adults may not be harmful and then styled itself a
defender of academic freedom (prompting both houses of Congress to take the unusual step of passing a unanimous resolution of
condemnation...”.

Now read the 2002 online law review "Why Narth? The American Psychological Association's Destructive and Blind Pursuit of Political
Correctness” (http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2kaufman.doc )

REASON 17: AMERICA ... AND NEW YORK ... WILL ASK ... WHY DENY THAT MEDICAL/SPIRITUAL REMEDY IS AVAILABLE?

Dr. Jeffrey Satinover (“Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth”) offers at chapters 11 and 12 the evidence that remedies to same-sex-attraction-
disorders are not uncommon!

He also alludes in Table 7 to fifteen Outcome Studies that have recorded varying degrees of success (some as high as 82%) with the correction of
same-sex-attraction-disorders!

Why is Cuomo Ignoring the Evidence Against “Gay Marriage”?