A BLOG BY ALAN CHAMBERS

Will July 4th be the Next Anniversary Hijacked by the Gay Political Elite?

Forgive me if that question offends you, but after watching the over coverage of the Massachusetts same-sex marriage battle and the under coverage of the 50th anniversary of a true American hallmark, the Brown vs. the Board of Education victory, I believe no holiday is safe from being usurped.

Fifty years ago, on May 17, 1954, this country witnessed the end of segregation in our nation’s public schools with the renowned court case Brown vs. the Board of Education. You’d think there would have been more media fanfare of this important milestone. Black Americans, both those who led the courageous fight to see racial oppression and inequality end and those that today benefit from that liberation, deserved better. Unfortunately, there wasn’t much reported on the anniversary of Brown vs. the Board of Education on the nations airwaves because members of the Gay Elite hijacked a legitimate civil rights triumph with their battle for same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and trumped Black Americans for coverage.

Hijacking has become commonplace for members of the Gay Elite. For instance, in the 1950’s ‘gay’ was a term commonly used to describe happiness and joy. In the late 1960’s homosexual activists stole the word from the American language and today ‘gay’ is synonymous with the word homosexual. It may seem insignificant to you, but I assure you commandeering a word meaning ‘happiness’ was extremely calculated and helped to begin the watering down process of how our society views homosexuality and those who identify as homosexual.

Another example of this hijacking involved the rainbow. Once a secular and Christian symbol for promise and hope, today the only rainbow stickers, signs and flags you’ll find are on the bumpers, porches and t-shirts of those who identify as ‘gay’. Indeed, there is no mistaking the move towards equating the rainbow’s message of hope and promise with the gayness of homosexuality. In the early 1990’s when I was living as a self-identified homosexual man, the ‘gay’ community co-opted another term; this time it was one that carried far more weight and had much greater worth: the word family. In my ‘gay’ days we began to identify our own as ‘family’.

The polls in America are clear: black, white and Hispanic, Republican and Democrat, male and female Americans overwhelmingly support marriage as the union involving one man and one woman for one lifetime. Yesterday, however, homosexuals became beneficiaries of an incredibly successful and well fought campaign to overhaul the way America views them. Fifteen short years ago homosexuality was a moral taboo, an inappropriate topic of conversation on sitcoms, in the news, at the dinner table and in public. Today, same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts and on its way to your state, town and neighborhood, like it or not. The incredibly organized, politically powerful and well-funded Gay Elite have won this battle that will redefine the foundation of what every society since the beginning of time has held dear: marriage. The amount of opposition homosexuals felt as they fought to redefine marriage felt about as powerful as a strong breeze on a warm day at Disney—you know, the home of the annual ‘Gay Days’ event that draws tens of thousands of ‘gays’ to Orlando on the first Saturday of June.

I believe we have only ourselves to blame. While a faithful few have been battling to preserve marriage by trying to rally the troops at great personal cost, unfortunately the majority of conservative Americans, politicians and even Christians have seemingly sat idly by and done nothing. Many Americans were content to watch this on the news and chose not to stand up for what they believe. Honestly, I believe that a great number of Americans are apathetic, inwardly focused, embroiled in their own perversions or so passive that it would take a catastrophe to move them. If you do not know what to do, ask those of us who are on the forefront of this battle and we will gladly put you to work!

It’s not too late. I believe that our only hope is for the Church to rise up, put its hand up to the advancement of immorality, inside and outside the Church, and its hand out for those needing to be liberated from the captivity of sexual sin. Hero Martin Luther King, Jr. said it best: “The Church is neither the master of the state nor the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state.” I am praying that America’s conscience is restored and that the Church is victorious.

Exodus is Influencing

Last week I continued my work with the Marriage Amendment Project in Washington, DC. The MAP is a diverse coalition of leaders from around the nation dedicated to preserving marriage as it was intended: one man and one woman for one lifetime. For more information on the MAP: Protect Marriage and For Marriage

While in DC, Leslie and I had the incredible opportunity to attend a number of events commemorating The National Day of Prayer, including a small gathering at the White House where President Bush spoke about prayer and its importance.

Below are some fun photos with new and old friends including: Lt. Colonel Oliver North, Vonette Bright (Co-Founder of Campus Crusade for Christ), Dennis and Melinda Jernigan and one of President Bush praying.

Jesus' Word on Homosexuality

Recently Orlando Sentinel columnist Mike Thomas stated that, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, which isn’t necessarily the truth. More accurately, the Bible doesn’t have a record of Jesus speaking out for or against homosexuality; then again, the Bible wasn’t a complete transcript of Jesus’ 33-year life.

Jesus' recorded words were originally spoken to people that already knew that homosexuality was a sin; the truths that Jesus spoke of and the laws that he lived by were reflective of both God's creative intent for humanity and the man made laws of the time. Homosexuality was not only one of eight abominable practices in God's eyes and an absolute misuse of His design for physical, emotional and sexual expression, but it was also a crime under the Jewish and Roman laws of the time. Jesus did not need to mention this act specifically as he did not mention incest, bestiality, drug abuse or domestic violence; these acts were well understood and accepted prohibitions.

Jesus did, however, make it abundantly clear what He was for. He said in Matthew 5:17 that he, did not come to destroy the law (the Old Testament) but rather to fulfill it. He also affirmed God's best for sexual and relational intimacy in Matthew 19 where he spoke of marriage in the only form that has ever been acceptable to God: between one man and one woman for one lifetime. Jesus may not have literally spoken about the issue of homosexuality, but the Bible clearly does both in the Old and New Testaments. In II Timothy 3:16 it boldly states, All scripture is God-breathed. God is clear about what He is for and about what He is against and it is clear that the Bible is His written word to His creation; God never changes His moral standards.

Suffice it to say, I do not have a problem with anyone exercising their right to believe or to speak about their beliefs, but one should not presume to speak for Jesus when the Bible does so without error.

American College of Pediatrics: 'Irresponsible to Change the Age-Old Prohibition on Homosexual Parenting'

Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time For Change?

Are children reared by two individuals of the same gender as well adjusted as children reared in families with a mother and a father? Until recently the unequivocal answer to this question was "no." Policymakers, social scientists, the media, and even physician organizations1, however, are now asserting that prohibitions on parenting by homosexual couples should be lifted. In making such far-reaching, generation-changing assertions, any responsible advocate would rely upon supporting evidence that is comprehensive and conclusive. Not only is this not the situation, but also there is sound evidence that children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle may be at increased risk for emotional, mental, and even physical harm.

Research data

Heterosexual parenting is the normative model upon which most comprehensive longitudinal research on childrearing has been based. Data on long-term outcomes for children placed in homosexual households are very limited and the available evidence reveals grave concerns. Those current studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable results from homosexual parenting have critical flaws such as non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, and failure to account for confounding variables.2,3,4 Childrearing studies have consistently indicated that children are more likely to thrive emotionally, mentally, and physically in a home with two heterosexual parents versus a home with a single parent. 5,6,7,8,9 Therefore, the burden is on the proponents of homosexual parenting to prove that moving further away from the heterosexual parenting model is appropriate and safe for children.

Risks of Homosexual Lifestyle to Children

Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples. 10,11,12,13,14 Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years. 15,16,17 Homosexual men and women are reported to be inordinately promiscuous involving serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed "committed relationships." 18,19,20,21,22 Individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness,23,24,25 substance abuse,26 suicidal tendencies,27,28 and shortened life spans.29 Although some would claim that these dysfunctions are a result of societal pressures in America, the same dysfunctions exist at inordinately high levels among homosexuals in cultures were the practice is more widely accepted.30 Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation. 31,32,33,34,35 Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.36

Conclusion

The research literature on childrearing by homosexual parents is limited. The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.

January 22, 2004

The American College of Pediatricians is a national medical association of licensed physicians and healthcare professionals who specialize in the care of infants, children, and adolescents. The mission of the College is "to enable all children to reach their optimal, physical and emotional health and well-being." We promote "a society where all children from the moment of their conception are valued unselfishly." The College further notes, "that children are the future of our nation and society. As such, they deserve to be reared in the best possible family environment and supported by physicians committed to ensuring their optimal health and well-being."

ENDNOTES

1 American Academy of Pediatrics, “Co parent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents,” Pediatrics. 109(2002): 339-340.

2 Robert Lerner, Ph.D., Althea Nagai, Ph.D. No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell Us About Same Sex Parenting, Washington DC; Marriage Law Project/Ethics and Public Policy Center, 2001.

3 P. Morgan, Children as Trophies? Examining the Evidence on Same-sex Parenting, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; Christian Institute, 2002.

4 J. Paul Guiliani and Dwight G. Duncan, "Brief of Amici Curiae Massachusetts Family Institute and National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality," Appeal to the Supreme Court of Vermont, Docket No. S1009-97CnC.

5 Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandfeur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), p. 45

6 Sotirios Sarantakos, "Children in Three Contexts: Family, Education, and Social Development," Children Australia, vol. 21 (1996): 23-31.

7 Jeanne M. Hilton and Esther L. Devall, "Comparison of Parenting and Children’s Behavior in Single-Mother, Single-Father, and Intact Families," Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 29 (1998): 23-54.

8 Elizabeth Thomson et al., "Family Structure and Child Well-Being: Economic Resources vs. Parental Behaviors," Social Forces 73 (1994): 221-42.

9 David Popenoe, Life Without Father (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996), pp. 144, 146.

10 Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41-59.

11 D. Island and P. Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence (New York: Haworth Press, 1991), p. 14.

12 Lettie L. Lockhart et al., "Letting out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships," Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9 (1994): 469-492.

13 "Violence Between Intimates," Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings, November 1994, p. 2.

14 Health Implications Associated With Homosexuality (Austin: The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, 1999), p. 79.

15 David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1984), pp. 252, 253.

16 M. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality (Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1973), p. 225; L. A. Peplau and H. Amaro, "Understanding Lesbian Relationships," in Homosexuality: Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues, ed. J. Weinrich and W. Paul (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982).

17 M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster (New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985), pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991), pp. 124, 125.

18 A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 309; See also A. P. Bell, M. S. Weinberg, and S. K. Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).

19 Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354.

20 A. A. Deenen, "Intimacy and Sexuality in Gay Male Couples," Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23 (1994): 421-431.

21 "Sex Survey Results," Genre (October 1996), quoted in "Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners," Lambda Report, January 1998, p. 20.

22 Maria Xiridoui, et al., “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 17 (2003): 1029-1038. [Note: one of the findings of this recent study is that those classified as being in “steady relationships” reported an average of 8 casual partners a year in addition to their partner (p. 1032)]

23 J. Bradford et al., "National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62 (1994): 239, cited in Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, p. 81.

24 Theo G. M. Sandfort, et al., "Same-sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders," Archives of General Psychiatry 58 (January 2001): 85-91.

25 Bailey, J.M. Commentary: Homosexuality and mental illness. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 56 (1999): 876-880. Author states, "These studies contain arguably the best published data on the association between homosexuality and psychopathology, and both converge on the same unhappy conclusion: homosexual people are at substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression, and anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, and nicotine dependence...."

26 Joanne Hall, "Lesbians Recovering from Alcoholic Problems: An Ethnographic Study of Health Care Expectations," Nursing Research 43 (1994): 238-244

27 R. Herrell et al., "Sexual Orientation and Suicidality, Co-twin Study in Adult Men," Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 867-874.

28 Vickie M. Mays, et al., "Risk of Psychiatric Disorders among Individuals Reporting Same-sex Sexual Partners in the National Comorbidity Survey," American Journal of Public Health, vol. 91 (June 2001): 933-939.

29 Robert S. Hogg et al., "Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men," International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997): 657.

30 Sandfort, T.G.M.; de Graaf, R.; Bijl, R.V.; Schnabel. Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 58 (2001): 85-91.

31 F. Tasker and S. Golombok, "Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families," American Journal of Orthopsychiatric Association, 65 (1995): 213.

32 J. Michael Bailey et al., "Sexual Orientation of Adult Sons of Gay Fathers," Developmental Psychology 31 (1995): 124-129

33 Ibid., pp. 127, 128.

34 F. Tasker and S. Golombok, "Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children?" Developmental Psychology 32 (1996): 7.

35 Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter," American Sociological Review 66 (2001): 174, 179.

36 D. Fergusson et al., "Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People?" Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (October 1999).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACPeds.org Copyright©2002
American College of Pediatricians®
PO Box 667, Blountville, Tennessee 37617
Voice: 423.990.2419 Fax: 423.990.2417
ACPeds Recommends Interactive Contact
Privacy Policy & Safety of Information Apply

Shame on ABC World News Tonight

My letter to ABC World News Tonight:

Dear ABC:

I was outraged that your coverage of the anarchy related to same-sex marriage in San Francisco included footage of gay men and lesbian women kissing passionately.

ABC World News Tonight isn't a Rated R show that kids can't get into, nor is it on HBO or Cinemax that one has to subscribe to; ABC World News Tonight is on during times when kids are at home, sitting in the den or at the table watching TV.

You have offended my wife and me, put parents all over the country in a compromising situation and alienated your viewers.

If ABC World News Tonight is going to be a program that exposes children to things that they don't need to know about, needs an R rating and promotes controversial (at very best) sexuality on it's show then maybe you should move it to a midnight time slot.

No wonder so many people are turning ABC off.

Alan Chambers

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, M.D. Floor Statements on Same-Sex Marriage

The Massachusetts Legislature is today wrestling with how to respond to their Supreme Court, which has made same-sex marriage the law of that state.

Even if the Massachusetts legislature is successful in passing a constitutional amendment to block same-sex marriage, it won’t come before voters for ratification for another for two years. And beginning on May 17, the state will begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Once these same-sex couples sue for recognition in their home states, the wildfire will begin. Same-sex marriage is likely to spread to all 50 states in the coming years. So regardless of what Massachusetts does today, it is becoming clear that the Congress must act, and act soon. And the Senate will begin working on the issue in the weeks ahead.

We didn’t seek this fight, and we don’t relish it. But the courts have brought it to us, and the people will respond. We will not let activist judges redefine marriage for our entire society. We reject intolerance, we reject hatred. We must treat all our fellow citizens with kindness and civility.

But marriage should remain what it has always been in our nation: the union of a man and a woman. It is my hope that Massachusetts Legislature will act today.

Massachusetts Marriage Affirmation & Protection Amendment

Alan Chambers Testifies Before the Massachusetts Judiciary Committee

Honorable Co-Chairs and Members of the Massachusetts Judiciary Committee:

My name is Alan Chambers. I am an independence loving and voting citizen of the United States of America. I am a lover of freedom and a defender to the death of every person's God created right to choose for themselves what kind of life they desire to lead, liberties they strive to take and happiness's they yearn to pursue. It is every individual's right to govern themselves in a manner in which they best see fit. Making right and wrong choices is a developmental part of becoming a responsible adult able to think for oneself.

A wise friend once said that rules are for babies; mature adults are able to moderate themselves. The United States of America is becoming a nation of court mandated do's and don'ts. Our culture is redefining right and wrong based on these new directives. As we come to rely on and live by these new rules, Americans are digressing in their maturity and ability to assume personal responsibility. Forcing every big and small battle into the courts is creating an increasingly childish society dependent on the court to parent us. We are signing away our God given freedom to choose, a right that our forefathers died to give us. Maturity is most tangibly seen when, although we have been empowered by God with the freedom to choose to do anything we please, we live by a code of self-governed restraint.

As you all know, Goodridge v. the Massachusetts Department of Public Health is a case before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in which 7 same sex couples are demanding marriage licenses. That court's response to this case will either continue to whittle away our freedoms or strengthen them; contribute to our cultural need for a baby sitter or empower us to live within the already sufficient set of boundaries that has defined marriage since the beginning of time. I hope that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will deny these 7 couples marriage licenses thus guarding this state, and quite possibly our entire nation, against frivolous lawsuits, which ultimately restrict our overall freedoms. These couples have every right to be together, but their behavioral, not genetic, choices should not be allowed to infringe on society as a whole.

Today, I exhort you: vote in favor of the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment; reaffirm what every culture in history has held sacred: marriage between one man and one woman. A vote in favor of this amendment is a public declaration in support of the bedrock of this great nation. A vote against this amendment is a bullet fired at the family. Corporately, you have the ability to head off a decision that could forever negatively alter the hallowed and deified uniting of one man and one woman by redefining holy matrimony. I urge you to uphold what is moral, legal and right and what honors those leaders who have gone before you.

Finally, having grown up with a homosexual orientation, having lived as an openly gay man, I once dreamed of living in a monogamous same sex marriage relationship. Today, having experienced sexual reorientation, now living a heterosexual lifestyle for the past 11 years and enjoying the bonds of heterosexual marriage for over 5 years, I can attest firsthand to the fact that same-sex marriage is not needed. I can also attest to the fact that same-sex marriage is not what those seeking it are ultimately after. I implore you all to ask yourselves the question, "What's next?" If marriage is redefined to include homosexuals, then what will the next battle be? I guarantee this is only the beginning of wide sweeping legislation changes that seek to limit the freedoms of many in the name of expanding the freedoms of a few. No other behaviorally defined group in history has sought to redefine our culture like the Gay and Lesbian Elite. Re-affirm today that our current freedoms are sufficient for all, that Gay and Lesbian people already have the God created right to choose for themselves what kind of life they desire to lead, liberties they strive to take and happiness's they yearn to pursue. Re-affirm that more rules are not necessary and that the morality of a few is not enough to redefine morality for us all.

Vote yes to protecting the children of today. Vote yes to protecting children of tomorrow. Vote yes to protecting the family. Vote yes on the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment.

Liberty Counsel Release on Massachussetts Judicial Tyranny Related to Same-Sex Marriage

Massachusetts Court Says Legislature May Not Adopt Civil Unions As A Substitute For Same-Sex Marriage – The Majority of States Are Rejecting The Liberal Court Ruling

Orlando, FL – Today, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a 4-3 opinion stating that a proposed Senate bill creating civil unions for same-sex couples does not comply with its decision last year in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, which ruled that withholding civil marriage from same-sex couples violates the Massachusetts Constitution. Mathew D. Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel, an international religious freedom education and litigation organization, stated that the Massachusetts legislature may now have the ammunition amend its constitutional to preserve marriage between one man and one woman.

On November 18, 2003, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a 4-3 decison stating that forbidding same-sex marriage violates the Massachusetts Constitution. The court gave the legislature 180 days to respond to the decision. Following the Goodridge ruling, the Massachusetts Senate on December 11, 2003, to the state Supreme Court Justices posing the question whether Senate No. 2175, entitled “An Act Relative To Civil Unions”, would be a permissible substitute for same-sex marriage:

"Does the Senate, No. 2175, which prohibits same-sex couples from entering into marriage but allows them to form civil unions with all ‘benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities’ of marriage, complied with the equal protection and due process requirements of the Constitution of the Commonwealth in articles 1,6,7,10,12 and 16 of the Declaration of Rights?"

Today four Justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court wrote that civil unions for same-sex couples still violates the state constitution. Three same three Justices who dissented in Goodridge again argued that the matter of same-sex marriage should be left to the legislature.

Staver noted, “Today’s decision requires the state legislature and the citizens of Massachusetts to confront same-sex marriage head-on. Civil unions are a compromise. Now that the Massachusetts Court ruled it will not accept anything less than same-sex marriage, the line has been drawn in the sand. The vast majority of Americans continue to believe that marriage between one man and one woman is an institution that must be preserved. The Massachusetts decision spawned a huge backlash throughout the country. At least 14 states (GA, IL, KS, KY, MD, MA, MI, MS, MO, NM, OK, UT, and WI) have filed legislation to ban same-sex marriage through a state constitutional amendment. Three other states are soon to follow (FL, MN and TX). Ohio will now become the 38th state to expressly ban same-sex marriage. Only 38 states are necessary to amend the U.S. Constitution, an effort that gained momentum since the Goodridge decision. Liberty Counsel supports such an amendment (see our statement on the Federal Marriage Amendment at www.lc.org). As I predicted last year, the sleeping giant of the majority of Americans who believe in traditional family is awakening, and the Massachusetts decision has served only to energize this pro-family movement.”

SIGN THE PETITION FOR A FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT

Mathew D. Staver, Esq.
Liberty Counsel
PO Box 540774
Orlando, FL 32854
800-671-1776
www.lc.org

Letter to The Boston Globe

Dear Ms. Chinlund (Ombusdman for The Boston Globe):

My name is Alan Chambers and I used to be gay. It is because of my great interest in the education of young people on the subject of healthy sexuality that I am writing you today regarding the article 'HOPE FOR THE FUTURE' WITH THE RIGHT TO MARRY IN THE BALANCE, GAY TEENS DREAM OF A WEDDING DAY. Within the article there were many factual discrepensies that I would like for you and the Globe to address.

First of all, I find it incredible that the Boston Globe is promoting teenage marriage. A 16 year old boy is barely able to committ to Friday night plans let alone a life partner. I highly doubt that this subject would have been broached if Patrick was interested in marrying a 16 year old girl. No one in their right mind would encourage high school students to marry at such a young, emotional and underdeveloped age. However, there is a double standard when it comes to the relentless promotion of all things homosexual. Because Patrick wants to marry another boy marriage is all of a sudden okay for those underage. How can the Globe logically argue in favor of high school students getting married? Why not encourage post high-school education, continued physical and emotional maturation, settling into a career and other life skills that will encourage healthy personal and societal growth? Don’t you know that those who marry in high school are less likely to finish their education, almost guaranteed not to go to college and more apt to ask society to foot their bill via welfare programs? Don’t you know that those who marry very young are at greater risk for divorce because they were too young to make an informed decision?

As for the fact that this was a pro-homosexual marriage piece, I found the article devoid of responsibility and wise counsel for young people in need of life-giving advice and direction. The statistics are alarming: the number one killer of gay men is still AIDS related illness. One of the highest rates of HIV infection is in gay young men between the ages of 16 – 25. With monogamous gay relationships lasting, on average, 2 months you have just encouraged two minors to marry one another when they will likely be divorced within a year only to repeat the viscious and emotionally destructive cycle again.

The Boston Globe has a responsibility to print the facts and this article was seriously lacking where facts are concerned. How about reporting that no study has ever been successful in linking homosexuality to genetic or biological factors. How about quoting Dr. Dean Hamer, a gay researcher, who conducted the infamous study on chromosomes and later stated that it was his finding that female homoxexuality was 100% developmental and that it was his belief that this would be proven to be the case with male homosexuality, as well. How about promoting more study, research and open dialogue concerning the emotional, medical and psychological facts concerning homosexuality. How about presenting the truth that tens of thousands of men and women have successfully changed their sexual orientation and that teaching any thing less than further education and sexual maturity among teenagers is wreckless and life threatening.

Don’t make furthering a politcal agenda more important than the lives of young people.

Sincerely,

Alan Chambers

Michaelangelo Signorile

For those of you who missed it, I was a guest on Michaelangelo Signorile's radio show this afternoon. I found Mr. Signorile intolerant of my views and unwilling to allow healthy conversation and debate. Like many pro-gay talk shows the agenda was more important than the guest. Below are some of the points that Mr. Signorile brought up that I didn't have time to affirm or comment on:

1). That the Christian community has made out homosexuality to be an issue and a sin that is worse than other issues or sins.

The word that comes to mind is hypocritical. For many years the Church has been hypocritical when it comes to condemning one sin and overlooking another. Homosexuality conjures up more anger and offense in some people than other sins do and that ought not be. Homosexuality is but one of many sexual sins running rampant in our world (and Church) today. God does not favor one sin over another nor would He have kept Jesus from dying for our sins if there hadn't ever been a homosexual. Jesus would have had to die anyway. It is true, there is sin in the Church and it needs to be addressed.

2). Exodus founders fell in love, left Exodus and are still together.

Two men who were apart of the original Exodus conference, one as a volunteer and the other as a true founder of what would become Exodus did meet, have an affair and leave their wives. They were together until one of them died of AIDS in the 1980's.

3). Exodus' forces it's opinion on people and that is hateful and causing people to kill themselves.

I was one of those gay teens who contemplated and attempted suicide on a number of occasions. I wanted to die after I was told that I had to be gay and that there was no alternative. Having no choices made me want to die. I wanted to change.

I hear people tell me all the time that I shouldn't be so hateful by saying that homosexuality is a sin. Well, then that means that I should not quote the Bible when it references such. And, if I shouldn't quote that part of the Bible then I shouldn't quote any of the Bible. Follow it to their logical conclusion and there is no basis for the Bible or Christianity or even God.

Truth hurts. No child wants to be told that they are in the wrong or that the shouldn't do something because it is wrong. There are many people who kill themselves because they just don't believe they can do whatever it is they think they should do (ie: lose weight, stop drinking or doing drugs, make good grades, etc.) But, does that mean that we should stop talking about the risks of obesity or alcoholism or drug addiction or that we should let our kids fail out of school? NO. We must always promote the highest standard and do so in the most truthful and loving ways.

Conclusion
Many homosexual people are bitter, angry and intolerant of Christians because they have been hurt, sometimes devastated, by them. More than ever before we, the Church, need to be quick to apologize for areas where we have fallen short, while standing firm on the word of God.

As I said above, truth hurts. Homosexuality is a sin and that truth needs to be told---but homosexuality does not deserve more condemnation than other sins. Most of all, we as Christians need to be promoting what God is for more than what He is against. If we spend all of our time talking about what is bad then what is good gets lost.