************************************
Mr. Wappel's numbers are as follows:

Ottawa Office
Tel: 613-995-0284
Fax: 613-996-6309

Constituency Office
Tel: 416-261-8613
Fax: 416-261-5268
************************************

COMMUNIQUE
TOM WAPPEL, M.P.
SCARBOROUGH WEST
Wappel Releases Discussion Paper on "Sexual Orientation"

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NOVEMBER 16, 1994

OTTAWA: Tom Wappel, Member of Parliament for Scarborough West,
today released a Discussion Paper entitled "Sexual Orientation;
Issues to Consider" .

"It is my sincere hope that the Paper will be read objectively,
resulting in rational debate. We have had entirely too much false
propaganda, pejorative put-downs, and attempts to segregate and
marginalize those who express their deeply held beliefs" said
Wappel.

The first part of Mr. Wappel's Paper outlines the need to legally
define the phrase "sexual orientation". The second part explains
Wappel's reasons for opposing the inclusion of sexual
orientation, howsoever defined, as a prohibited ground of
discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act and why any such
legislation must be subject to a free vote.

"While there will be those who criticize, I challenge readers who
may disagree with my views, to refrain from childish
name-calling, and to respond with facts and rational argument"
concluded Wappel.

Copies of the Paper are available by calling (613) 995-0284 or
(416) 261-8613

-30 -




TO: Liberal Members of Parliament and Senators
FROM: Tom Wappel, M.P.
RE: "Sexual Orientation", Bill C-41, Canadian Human Rights Act
DATE: Wednesday, November 16, 1994

Dear Colleagues,

Attached is a Discussion Paper I have prepared concerning the
above noted subjects. I beseech you to spend the approximately
twenty minutes necessary to read the Paper. I further request
that you earnestly consider the issues raised in it, remembering
that what we, as lawmakers and temporary custodians of the best
interests of society, do today will have consequences for many
years to come.

I have released a public version of this Paper. It is identical
to yours, except that it does not contain page 16 of your copy,
"Response to Talking Points on Sexual Orientation", as I consider
this page to represent debate "within the family".

When considering the issues raised in this Paper, please remember
that the best of intentions can and do sometimes result in
totally unintended and regretted consequences.

Yours very truly,

TOM WAPPEL M.P.,
Scarborough West

P.S. La copie en franais de ce document sera disponible trs
bientt. Veuillez contacter mon bureau pour en obtenir une copie.



"SEXUAL ORIENTATION"

Issues to Consider

TOM WAPPEL, M.P. Scarborough West Room 115, East Block House of
Commons November 16, 1994



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part A

Introduction 1

The Need to Define "Sexual Orientation" 2

Paedophilia 6

Bill C-41 7

Part B

Introduction 8

The Canadian Human Rights Act 9

Current Impact on Society of the Seemingly Harmless Amendments to
Provincial Human Rights Codes 11

Potential Consequences if the Canadian Human Rights Act is
Amended to Include"sexual orientation" 12

Politics 13

Morality 15

Response to "Talking Points" on sexual orientation issues 16

Homosexuality 17




Part A

This portion of my paper states my basic premise: that the
legally undefined term "sexual orientation" must be defined by
Parliament in order to provide legal certainty, concrete
instructions to courts and tribunals, and to ensure that future
judicial interpretations will not change the definition to
include matters not originally intended by Parliament.



THE NEED TO DEFINE "SEXUAL ORIENTATION"

"It is because of the problem of the definition of those words
[sexual orientation] that we do not think they should be in the
constitution. Do not ask me today to tell you what it is, because
those concepts are diff cult to interpret, to define and that is
why we do not want them in the constitution. "

Jean Chrétien, while Justice Minister, before the Special Joint
Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the Constitution
of Canada, 1981

PREMISE:

"Sexual orientation" must be defined.

REASONS:

If Members of Parliament do not speak out on the undefined phrase
now, then it will be difficult to demand a debate on its meaning,
or need for a definition, in the future.

If the undefined phrase "sexual orientation" is passed in Bill
C-41, it will be proposed as a prohibited ground of
discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

"Sexual Orientation" is an ambiguous phrase. In the absence of a
clear definition, no one can say, unequivocally, what it means
today, or what it will mean tomorrow.

A recent University of Chicago Study (see page 17) did not
provide an expanded definition of "sexual orientation", rather
the index refers the reader to "attitudes toward sex" where
"sexual preference" is listed.

There is no definition of "sexual orientation" in any dictionary.

Laws based on court interpretations are in constant flux and are
never immune from challenges and change.

The Association of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Liberals, in a
letter dated October 19, 1994, to some Members of Parliament
wrote that "'sexual orientation' has a clear and unambiguous
meaning in society and the law", yet no where in the letter did
the Association of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Liberals provide a
definition which has been propounded by the Supreme Court of
Canada, the only court whose decisions bind all lower courts.
This is because there is no such definition!



If the following jurisdictions legally define "sexual
orientation" and similar terms, which, after all is a basic legal
principle: define your terms, why is Canada not doing the same?

The State of Wisconsin's Employment Relation Act defines "sexual
orientation" as meaning:

(13m) "...having a preference for heterosexuality, homosexuality,
or bisexuality, having a history of such a preference or being
identified with such a preference"

New South Wales in Australia, in its Anti-Discrimination Act,
1977 says: "unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of
homosexuality in the areas... " (my emphasis)

South Australia, in its Equal Opportunity Act, 1986 states that
it is unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of "sexuality".
"sexuality" is defined as meaning heterosexuality, homosexuality,
bisexuality or transexuality.

-Australian Institute of Criminology
"Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice"
-Dr. Paul Wilson, Editor, January 1991, No. 29



If "sexual orientation" is not specifically defined so as to
exclude certain sexual practices, will the following be the
future interpretations of the phrase?

"Heterosexuality, homosexuality, scopophilia, pedophilia -
they're all just different orientations and an individual may
have a number of them."

Dr. David Greenberg - psychiatrist with the Sexual Behaviour
Clinic Hospital at the Royal Ottawa Hospital
-Ottawa Sun, July 17, 1994

"There are treatments for paedophiles. There is a common
perception that there's no cure. Well, I suppose that's true to
the extent that paedophilia is not a disease, it's sexual
orientation. People are heterosexual, they're gay, they're
lesbian and they're also paedophilic."

Robert Wakefield, Criminal Lawyer
Member of the Board of the Criminal Lawyers' Association and
Director of its Ottawa Region
CBC Prime Time Magazine, October 27, 1994

"...while pedophilia is a disorder, it is also 'a value
judgement'...some may view it only as a 'different kind of sexual
orientation'."

Dr. Fred Berlin, Professor of Psychiatry, Johns Hopkins
University, as quoted in Focus on the Family Citizen.
November, 1992 p 1

"'Sexual Orientation' is as ambiguous as 'political orientation'.
If a law were to protect all 'Political Orientations' then
Nazi's, White Supremacists, violent anarchists and who knows who
else is protected. Likewise, if sexual orientation is protected
by law, since some people sincerely like to do almost anything
imaginable sexually - child molesters, homosexuals, animal lovers
[bestiality], you name it, would be equally protected."

Dr. Paul Cameron
-Family Research Institute, Inc.

"Pedophilia, according to Money [retired professor of medical
psychology and paediatrics; Johns Hopkins University], should be
viewed as a sexual orientation, not a disease or disorder."

Michael Ebert, Focus on the Family Citizen, November, 1992
-referring to statements by Dr. John Money; retired: Johns
Hopkins University

"...attitudes of decency, increased tolerance and reducing
discrimination are being manipulated and abused by some extreme
gay activists to insidiously bring into the schools and public
arena propaganda intended to lead to the acceptance of pedophilia
as a 'healthy, natural, alternative lifestyle'."

- Dr. Joseph Berger, psychiatrist
past-member of the Toronto Board of Education
The Medical Post, February 23, 1993 p 10

"But clinical psychologist Joseph Nicolosi of the Thomas Aquinas
Clinic in Encino, California, warns that the outrage may merely
conceal an undercurrent of growing recognition of pedophilia as
just another acceptable 'sexual orientation'...'The more
something is made ordinary, the more often you read about it in
the newspapers, the less shocking it becomes'."

Alberta Report September 19, 1994 p 40

James R. Robertson of the Law and Government Division of the
Library of Parliament said it well in his essay on "Interpreting
The Term 'Sexual Orientation"':

"It is likely that the courts would bend over backwards to
interpret 'sexual orientation' so as to exclude paedophilia,
bestiality and other proclivities. There is, however, a
theoretical possibility that the term could be interpreted
broadly enough to cover such activities. The simplest way of
removing any uncertainty would be to specifically include a
definition of "sexual orientation" in any legislative amendment
(my emphasis)."

Why take any chances? Let us define the phrase. What possible
argument could there be in favour of not defining it?


PAEDOPHILIA

FACT: Paedophiles are people who enjoy having sex with children.
Some paedophiles are heterosexual, some paedophiles are
homosexual and some will prey on both sexes of children.

FACT: Groups that condone and promote paedophilia associate
themselves with homosexual organizations.

FACT: The United Nations, in September, 1994, recalled its
decision to provide consultative status to the International
Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) because ILGA, although it had
earlier this year expelled three of its member organizations
known to promote and condone paedophilia, could not assure the
United Nations that "neither the Association (ILGA) nor its
member organizations or subsidiaries promote, condone or seek the
legalization of Paedophilia." The United Nations will "consider
reinstating" ILGA if the conditions mentioned above are met.

-Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

Why did ILGA permit these known paedophile organizations to join
it?

Paedophiles justify their reprehensible conduct by declaring it
their "sexual orientation". Certain academics can be counted on
to support this [see p 4].

Given that paedophile organizations have tried to associate
themselves with homosexual groups, these same homosexual groups,
and the government, should be demanding a definition of "sexual
orientation" which would clearly exclude paedophilia and all
other illegal perversions.





Bill C-41

Bill C-41 proposes in S 718.2 (a) (i) to instruct judges to give
stiffer sentences if:

"(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice
or hate based on race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, age,
mental or Physical disability or sexual orientation of the
victim, or

There is no definition of the term "SEXUAL ORIENTATION".

Contrast this with Canada's Television Broadcasting Regulations.
1991, which prohibit:

"abusive comment...that...tends to...expose...a group...to hatred
or contempt on the basis of:..sexual orientation"

Television Broadcasting Regulations Section 5(1)(b)

"Sexual orientation" is then defined (by exclusion) as follows:

"sexual orientation does not include the orientation towards any
sexual act or activity that would constitute an offence under the
Criminal Code."

Television Broadcasting Regulations Section 5 (1.1)

Thus, we have the strange anomaly that an amendment is proposed
to the Criminal Code (C-41) using a legally undefined phrase,
while a regulation contains a definition of sorts. WHY?


A reasonable compromise

The McTeague amendment proposes to amend section 718.2 (a) (i) to
read:

"(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice
or hate of the victim, or"

Should the Government refuse to either define the term "sexual
orientation" or use specific words such as "homosexuality" in
place of vague ones such as "sexual orientation", then, I believe
the McTeague amendment achieves the exact same judicial
principles that section 718.2 presently seeks to achieve, without
either the crystallization in law of the undefined phrase "sexual
orientation" or the listing of certain categories, thereby
excluding others.


Part B

While I agree with and am prepared to defend the adage that the
state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation (provided the
activities therein are legal), equally, the legal bedroom habits
of the nation have no place in the laws or the Charter of the
nation.

This portion of the paper makes clear the reasons for my
objections to those who would force society to regard
homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle and why I see this as
the inevitable result of recklessly (albeit with the best of
intentions) adding "sexual orientation", howsoever defined, as a
prohibited ground of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights
Act.

It further outlines my thesis that matters which deal with
homosexuality are deeply moral, upon which a free vote must be
permitted.

Finally, let me reiterate that my aversion to homosexuality,
which is shared by the vast majority of Canadians, does not mean
that we hate homosexuals, and certainly not any individual
homosexual simply because he or she is a homosexual.

Logically, one can abhor war, without abhorring the individual
participants in the war. Similarly, one can abhor homosexuality,
without abhorring individual homosexuals.



The Canadian Human Rights Act

As mentioned earlier, if "sexual orientation" is put into Bill
C-41 then it will undoubtedly be proposed as a prohibited ground
of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Federally, the stated strategy of the radical homosexuals is to
apply in court to strike down existing laws. If the courts seize
jurisdiction (or if we permit them to do so) of the issue under
the guise of constitutional law, then we will not get a chance to
debate the same-sex couple issue. We could also be paralysed in
future legislation which would incorporate homosexual issues. Any
amendment Parliament would try to make in, for example, the
Marriage Act (perhaps saying that marriage is deemed to be
between people of the opposite sex), could be struck down as
unconstitutional.

Presently, "sexual orientation" has only been "read into" the
Charter by the Ontario Court of Appeal. "Sexual orientation" has
not yet been "read into" the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by
the Supreme Court of Canada. The Ontario Court of Appeal's ruling
only applies to Ontario. If "sexual orientation" is added to the
Canadian Human Rights Act, the Supreme Court of Canada will, in
the near future (for example, the Egan case which was heard this
month on the issue of same-sex benefits) take that as a signal
that Parliament wants and intends "sexual orientation" to be in
section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This, despite
the fact that sexual orientation was never intended to be in the
Constitution. Please see the comments of Jean Chrtien made while
Justice Minister (page 2).

If the phrase is read into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
then, through the courts (by their own admission), the push will
be on for same-sex benefits, marriages etc.. It is important to
remember that Ontario's same-sex benefit Bill was based in law on
the Ontario Human Rights Code's prohibition of discrimination on
the ground of "sexual orientation".

When Max Yalden, Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights
Commission, appeared before the Human Rights Committee on March
15, 1994, he said:

"We are strongly in favour of an amendment that would prohibit
any discrimination based on sexual orientation. That means that
if benefits are paid to a heterosexual couple living common law,
the same benefits should be paid to a couple living in the same
situation, except that they are two men or two women. Our
position on that matter is very clear. We are waiting for the
government's reaction." Issue 2: page 11

"There's the example of same-sex couples. I hope I have been as
accurate as I can because these are very tricky waters. I have
said we believe that if sexual orientation is included by the
courts in the act [Canadian Human Rights Act], and even if its
more obviously included by Parliament in the act [my emphasis],
it would be discriminatory on the ground of sexual orientation to
give benefits of one sort or another to a common-law couple and
yet deny them to a same-sex couple." Issue 2: page 12

It is also important in this debate to remember that the courts
do not make laws, Parliamentarians do. This is the historic role
of Parliament. Thus, it would be irresponsible for us to abdicate
our historic legislative responsibility for the political
expediency of "letting the courts do it".



Current Impact on Society of the Seemingly Harmless Amendments to
Provincial Human Rights Codes

-attempts to force, as the stated policy of society, that
homosexuality is an acceptable, normal alternative lifestyle

-attempts to teach this lifestyle to our children (Toronto Board
of Education) including teaching children that parents who tell
their children otherwise are suffering from a "neurological
disorder" called "homophobia" and a disease called
"heterosexism".

Using the Ontario Human Rights Code prohibition of discrimination
on the basis of "sexual orientation" as the legal justification
and basis for Bill C-167, the Ontario government attempted to
legislate same-sex benefits and adoption. Bill C-167 was defeated
at second reading, but only after tumultuous debate and public
outcry.

"Human rights law in Ontario includes as discrimination, conduct
which, though not intended to discriminate, has an adverse impact
on individuals or groups on the basis of the prohibited grounds."

The Law Society of Upper Canada
Benchers Bulletin, September 1994

For the first time in our legal history it seems that we can
discriminate without intending to discriminate. Thus, we have
removed intent from culpability, thereby completely discarding
centuries' old legal principles.



Potential Consequences if the Canadian Human Rights Act is
Amended to include "sexual orientation"

1) Legalization of Same-Sex Marriages

2) Immigration
- "sexual orientation" based refugee claims
- Homosexual "spousal" applications
- no mandatory testing for AIDS as it may be seen as
discriminatory

Lest one think these matters farfetched, consider that, in a
recent, Liberal Draft Report on Citizenship and Immigration
Priorities, the following was written under the section
"OBJECTIVES"; 1. Enriching the Fabric of Canadian Life:

"* develop family and related policies with reference to parents
and grandparents, processing of spouses in Canada, the admission
of same-sex couples and common-law spouses and associated costs"
(p. 6)

3) Conflicts with Freedom of Religion

- it will become unlawful for religions to preach that
homosexuality is a sin and unnatural

4) Conflicts with Freedom of Speech

- it will become unlawful to publicly avow that homosexuality is
abnormal and should not be condoned

5) Tax Benefits to same-sex couples

- Why not provide these benefits to everyone living together, eg.
two brothers, son & mother. Why not everyone in a loving
relationship with anyone, eg. boyfriend and girlfriend?

6) Adoptions by same-sex couples

7) Legalization of present illegal perversions, such as
paedophilia.



Politics

Sexual Orientation is defined in other jurisdictions.

Sexual Orientation is not legally defined in Canada in either
statute or Supreme Court decision.

Proposed amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit
discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation" were not in
the Liberal Plan for Canada (the Red Book).

Proposed amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit
discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation" were not in
the Throne Speech.

The Liberal Party, at its May, 1994 Biennial Convention, passed
the following resolution:

32. Whereas the Liberal Party is committed to the freedom and
Protection of individuals,

BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada support all
measures to eliminate discrimination against homosexuals and
bisexuals.

The Liberal Party, at its May, 1994 Biennial Convention, defeated
the following resolution:

Whereas the Liberal Party is committed to the freedom and
protection of individuals,

BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada urge the
government to support legislation recognizing same sex marriages
and common law relationships.

Logic compels us to realize that by defeating this resolution,
Liberals discriminated against homosexuals and bisexuals.

On page 92 of the Red Book, under the heading Parliamentary
Reform, the following is written:

"More free votes will be allowed in the House of Commons, and
individual members of Parliament will be involved in an effective
pre-budget consultation process. "

The socialist, doctrinaire NDP government in Ontario recently
allowed a free vote on the issue of same-sex benefits and
adoption. Can the Liberals do less?

* As of November 4, 1994, 238 petitions had been presented or
filed with the Clerk - more petitions than on any other issue -
asking the government not to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act
to include the undefined phrase "sexual orientation". The Prime
Minister, when he was Justice Minister, clearly recognized the
dangers and refused to put the phrase in the Constitution (page
2).



Morality

For anyone who professes belief in any religion, this should be a
moral issue.

-all major world religions declare homosexuality to be a sin and
contrary to the laws of the supreme Deity.

For example:

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an
abomination."

The Holy Bible, Old Testament, Leviticus 18:22

"Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing
what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of
their error which was due."

The Holy Bible, New Testament, Romans 1:27

"And there was Lot when he told his people: "Do you indulge in a
sexual practice such as no one in the Universe has ever indulged
in previously? You approach men lustfully instead of women!
Rather you are dissipated folk... We sent rain down on them: look
how the outcome was for such criminals!"

The Holy Koran 7: 80-84

"When Lot told his folk: "Do you indulge in sexual misconduct
with your eyes open?" Do you approach men passionately instead of
women? Indeed you are folk who act out of ignorance!" His folk's
answer was merely to say: "Run Lot's family out of your town;
they are people who try to keep clean!" So We saved him and his
family, except for his wife; We destined her to be one of those
who stayed behind. We sent rain down upon them; how evil was such
a rain for those who had been warned!"

The Holy Koran 27: 54-58

"Nor does the church incite hatred against homosexuals when it
holds homosexual activities to be sinful. It measures actions
against the teaching of Holy Scripture but it does not condemn
persons, the judgement of whom is left up to God."

J. Edward Troy
Bishop of Saint John, New Brunswick

- primitive tribes consider homosexuality taboo

- Page 92 of the Red Book states: "More free votes will be
allowed in the House of Commons". In our Parliamentary democracy,
moral issues, such as abortion, capital punishment and euthanasia
have been traditionally dealt with on the basis of a free vote.
Surely a free vote should apply to this moral issue as well.

[Note: the following is page 16]

Response to "Talking Points" on sexual orientation issues

They talk about human rights, yet this is not a human rights
issue, since everyone has the same "rights". Exactly what
"rights" are denied homosexuals which are granted to
heterosexuals? None. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies
to everyone, irrespective of their bedroom behaviour.

The authors are confusing "rights" with "benefits" or societal
"privileges", and it is society's legitimate role to bestow
benefits where it deems fit, and to promote what it deems
appropriate to promote.

Amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act to Prohibit
Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation

It was not an election commitment of the Liberal Party. It is not
found in the Red Book. It is not found in the Throne Speech.

The phrase "sexual orientation" is undefined and therefore means
different things to different people.

Concepts supported by Liberal Policy Conventions are not
sacrosanct, and do not automatically become Liberal Government
policy.

It is not a question of "fundamental human rights". It is,
however, a question of deeply held moral convictions for the vast
majority of Canadians.

The Prime Minister, when he was Minister of Justice, explicitly
declined to include sexual orientation in the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms for legitimate reasons of vagueness, yet the talking
points trumpet "many court decisions" ruling that the Charter of
Rights "implicitly" contains a phrase that was explicitly
excluded by Parliament. This is not only an example of judges
making law instead of enforcing it, it is also an example of
judicial tyranny and the usurpation of Parliament's legitimate
role by the courts, who are not responsible to the people of
Canada.

Most Canadians view homosexuality as abnormal. They are prepared
to tolerate legal sexual activity behind closed doors, but they
are not prepared to accept homosexuality as normal.

[end of page 16]



HOMOSEXUALITY


FACT: Homosexuals constitute between two to three per cent of the
population.

SOURCE: Michael, Laumann, Micheals, and Gagnon
University of Chicago Study
October 1994
-homosexuals constitute 2.8 per cent of the male population and
1.4 per cent of the female population

SOURCE: Battelle Human Affairs Research Centres
Seattle, Washington
1993
-homosexuals constitute 2.3 per cent of the population


FACT: Homosexuality is not genetic

"The genetic theory of homosexuality has been generally discarded
today. Despite the interest in possible hormone mechanisms in the
origin of homosexuality, no serious scientist today suggests that
a simple cause-effect relationship applies."

-Masters & Johnson
Human Sexuality: Boston 1984 p 319
Human Sexuality: Third Edition 1988 p 418

"With rare exceptions, homosexuality is neither genetic nor the
result of some glandular disturbance. Homosexuals are made, not
'born that way'. From my 25 years' experience as a clinical
psychologist, I firmly believe that homosexuality is a learned
response to early experiences and that it can be unlearned."

-Dr. R. Kronemeyer
New York Tribune, May 6, 1983

"...in my 20 years of psychiatry I have never come across anyone
with "innate homosexuality". That notion has been a
long-proclaimed gay activist political position, intended to
promote the acceptance of homosexuality as a healthy, fully
equal, alternative expression of human sexuality."

Joseph Berger, MD
Assistant Professor of Psychiatry
University of Toronto
Globe & Mail February 26, 1992

"...they indicate that sexual orientation is not under the direct
governance of chromosomes and genes, and that, whereas it is not
foreordained by prenatal brain hormonalization, it is influenced
thereby, and is also strongly dependent on postnatal
socialization."

Dr. John Money, Johns Hopkins University
"Sin, Sickness, or Status?"
American Psychologist. April, 1987 "Abstract" p 384

"I have come to the conclusion that homosexuality is largely a
matter of conditioning."

-Alfred Kinsey
Dr. Kinsey and the institute for Sex Research
New York: Harper & Row, 1972

"We're born man, woman, and sexual beings. We learn our sexual
preferences and orientations."

William Masters and Virginia Johnson
-interview with United Press International
April 23, 1979

* There is not a shred of credible scientific evidence to
demonstrate that homosexuality is genetic! If anyone tells you
there is, have him/her produce the studies *


FACT: Homosexuality is a promiscuous lifestyle

SOURCE:
Aids Committee of Toronto, February 1993
"Sex in the 90s" Toronto Men's Survey of 1,295 gay and bisexual
men

NUMBER OF SEX PARTNERS (MALE - LAST YEAR)

None 6%
1 only 17%
2-9 38% +
10-14 12%
15-24 9%
25+ 18%

SOURCE:

Canadian Aids Society in cooperation with the University of
Toronto and Laval University
"Doing it in the 90s; Gay Community Report of the Results of
Men's Survey" May, 1993
-based on interviews with more than 4,800 men in 35 Canadian
cities

NUMBER OF SEX PARTNERS (MALE - LAST YEAR)

None 3%
One 17%
2-5 34%
6 or more 46%

-the study found that 40% of the homosexuals interviewed were in
a current relationship with another man, and that of those 40% in
a relationship, only 45% were sexually faithful with their
partner, and 44% said that they, or their partner, or both, had
had sexual relations outside the relationship, while in the
relationship.

While 80% of homosexuals have had sex with multiple partners over
the past year, by contrast, the recent University of Chicago
Study by Michael, Laumann et al. (October, 1994) found that:

"only 3% of the adult population [including homosexual adults]
had five or more sexual partners over the previous year."
-see Washington Post article by Barbara Vobejda, October 7, 1994

Clearly then, the heterosexual promiscuity rate is infinitesimal
when compared to the homosexual rate.


FACT: Homosexual activity can have adverse medical consequences

There has been much scientific research done on the medical
dangers of homosexual behaviour. Some of the diseases caused by
or exacerbated by homosexual activity are listed hereafter, with
references.

Gay Bowel Syndrome, Colitis, tears in rectal lining penetration
of the rectal wall by sperm &

GENERAL

David Ostrow et al., eds. Sexually Transmitted Diseases in
Homosexual Men. (New York: Plenum Medical Book Co. 1982)

G. Manligit et al. "Chronic Immune Stimulation by Sperm
Alloantigens". Journal of the American Medical Association 251
(1984) pp 237-41

J. Richards et al. "Rectal Insemination Modifies Immune Responses
in Rabbits". Science 224 (1984) 390-392

Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do. Family Research
Institute, Inc. 1993.

Gene Antonio, AIDS: Rage and Reality, Why Silence is Deadly. 1993
pp 103-122

Daniel C. William, Parasitic Infectious Diseases as Sexually
Transmitted Infection: AIDS and Infections of Homosexual men.
Pearl Ma, ed. 1989.

Urethritis, Hepatitis, Herpes, Pediculosis, Scabies, Venereal
Warts, Intestinal Parasites:

E. Rueda, The Homosexual Network, Greenwich, Conn. Devin-Adair
Publishers. 1982.

T. Quinn, "The Polymicrobial Origin of Intestinal Infections in
Homosexual Men". New England Journal of Medicine 309 (1983): pp
576-582

David Ostrow et al., eds. Sexually Transmitted Diseases in
Homosexual Men. (New York: Plenum Medical Book Co. 1982)

L. Corey and K. Holmes, "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in
Homosexual Men". New England Journal of Medicine 302 (1980):
435-38.

Gerald Mandell et. al., eds., Principles and Practice of
Infectious Diseases, 3rd ed. (New York: John Wiley and Sons,
1990) pp 2280-84

Syphilis & other Venereal Diseases

Kate Leishman, "Aids and Syphilis": The Atlantic Monthly, January
1988, pp 20-21.

E. Rowe, Homosexual Politics (CLA, 1984) p 17.

Buchanan and Muir, Gay Times and Diseases. pp 17-18

J. Kassler, Gay Mens' Health (New York) Harper and Row, 1983. p
38


FACT: Homosexuals have a shorter lifespan than heterosexuals

SOURCE: Paul Cameron, Ph.D and Kirk Cameron, Ph.D
"Homosexual Parents"
Family Research Institute. Inc.
Washington D.C.

-homosexuals registered a median age of death of 46 based on the
analysis of 986 consecutive obituaries in a homosexual newspaper

Paul Cameron et al.

-presented at the Eastern Psychological Association's Convention
April, 1993

6,574 homosexual obituaries/death notices were examined from 18
homosexual journals over 13 years and compared with 2
conventional newspapers

Results: The average age of death of the 6,574 (including AIDS
related deaths) was 39 years. For the 829 who died from non-AIDS
related causes, the median age of death was 42 years. Only 9 % of
those 829 deaths lived to old age. The data from obituaries of
non-homosexual newspapers were similar to the U.S. average for
longevity (75 years).

Egale Canada ©2007