Courtesy Salt Shakers (Christian ministry)
By Spencer D Gear
There are rational reasons to oppose homosexual marriage. These are some of them:
1. The homosexual sexual act is a revolt against nature. For procreation to allow for the continuation of the human race, a heterosexual liaison is needed. If homosexual sex were normal and practised extensively, the human race would be greatly diminished.
2. The rectum is not designed for sexual penetration; the vagina is. Anal sex is a high risk sexual activity. One of the many hazards is the vulnerability of the tissues to tearing and bleeding. Damage can be done to the sphincter muscles that may lead to incontinence and rectal prolapse. There is a high level of organisms that may cause disease in the rectum. If pathogens are introduced in the sex act, contagious diseases may spread. There are some authorities who oppose all anal sex as an unsafe sexual act because of the high rates of condom failure, even among condoms that are strengthened. (Some information from Wikipedia, “Anal sex“.)
3. Some research has shown that the risk for transmission of the HIV virus is higher for anal sex than for vaginal sex.
This report from 2008, “Inequitable Impact: The HIV/AIDS epidemic among gay and bisexual men and other men who have sex with men in Massachusetts“, demonstrates the increased HIV rate among MSM (men having sex with men) in Massachusetts:
“This is the second in a series of reports examining the impact of the HIV/AIDS epidemic on residents of Massachusetts. The first report, An Added Burden: The Impact of the HIV/AIDS Epidemic on Communities of Color in Massachusetts, focused on the ongoing racial/ethnic disparities in HIV incidence and prevalence in the Commonwealth. This report examines one mode of HIV exposure, same-sex sexual behavior between men, and its role in an inequitable impact of HIV on gay/bisexual men and other men who have sex with men.
Efforts to reduce the transmission of HIV in Massachusetts have been successful in a number of populations at risk, including injection drug users and heterosexual men and women. However, less success can be reported from work with gay and bisexual men and other men who have sex with men (MSM), who represent over 50% of HIV cases reported among Massachusetts men between the years 2004 and 2006, and 39% of all HIV cases reported during this period. These rates of new infection are striking in light of the fact that only 4.3-9.4% of Massachusetts men (18-64 years old) report having had sex with men in the past twelve months on standardized behavioral surveys over the past seven years. These impacts represent an inequitable rate of infection that is nearly 25 times higher for men who have sex with men than for men who report only having had sex with women (emphasis added).
While the impact of HIV on MSM is most evident among white men, at 70% of new white male cases, MSM has emerged as a first- or second-ranked mode of exposure for black and Hispanic men in recent years. In half of the health service regions of the Commonwealth, MSM is the leading mode of exposure for persons recently reported with HIV, particularly evident in Boston, Metrowest, and Southeastern Massachusetts. The inequitable impact of HIV on MSM is also seen among the youngest persons at risk, with 44% of individuals age 13-24 recently reported with HIV having MSM as their mode of exposure. Even among men not born in the US, MSM represents over a third of new HIV cases reported in Massachusetts.
In Africa, “On average it is estimated that HIV infection rates amongst MSM (men who have sex with men) are four to five times higher than the population overall, with highs in certain areas” (AFRICA: Homophobia fuelling the spread of HIV).
The male homosexual lifestyle does increase the risks of HIV.
The levels of promiscuity in the homosexual community also elevate the rates of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). This summary report, ‘The health risks of gay sex’, by John R. Diggs Jr. M.D., states:
Sexual relationships between members of the same sex expose gays, lesbians and bisexuals to extreme risks of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs), physical injuries, mental disorders and even a shortened life span. There are five major distinctions between gay and heterosexual relationships, with specific medical consequences. They are:
- Levels of Promiscuity
Prior to the AIDS epidemic, a 1978 study found that 75 percent of white, gay males claimed to have had more than 100 lifetime male sex partners: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500- 999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. Levels of promiscuity subsequently declined, but some observers are concerned that promiscuity is again approaching the levels of the 1970s. The medical consequence of this promiscuity is that gays have a greatly increased likelihood of contracting HIV/AIDS, syphilis and other STDs.
Similar extremes of promiscuity have not been documented among lesbians. However, an Australian study found that 93 percent of lesbians reported having had sex with men, and lesbians were 4.5 times more likely than heterosexual women to have had more than 50 lifetime male sex partners. Any degree of sexual promiscuity carries the risk of contracting STDs.
4. I found some interesting dynamics in the front-page news of The Courier-Mail newspaper of surrogacy for homosexual male parents (Joy and condemnation of gay dad’s legal surrogacy, 20 November 2010). For a child to be born to make such surrogacy possible, it is not feasible without the involvement of a female ovum and a male sperm. Paradoxical, isn’t it? What would happen if the child born for this male homosexual couple were a female? Would that be another reason for killing the pre-born through abortion?
5. This is not just an issue for homosexuals. A 2005 survey found that ‘40% of men and 35% of women have had anal sex with an opposite-sex partner,” 40% of men and 35% of women, aged 25-44” (CDC), were engaged in heterosexual oral sex. This was a study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
6. Please read this assessment by Brian Camenker in 2008 of “What same-sex marriage has done to Massachusetts: It’s far worse than most people realize“.
Examine the impact in Massachusetts on education in schools right down to the primary school level. Observe how it influences public health, increased domestic violence, business, the legal profession, adoption of children, Government mandates, the public square and the mass media.
7. These are excellent physiological reasons for rejecting homosexual marriage and the anal sexual act. However, for me a greater moral issue is God’s view that heterosexual marriage is God’s ordained method for marriage and reproduction. From the very earliest of times, according to Genesis 1:27-28, we know this: “’So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, ˜Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. This is impossible for the homosexual to do. As for the marriage union, God said: Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed (Genesis 2:24-25). From the beginning of time, God’s design is for the marriage union to be between a man and a woman.
For any country or state to vote against this law of heterosexual marriage and support homosexual marriage, it will be promoting what is unnatural, ungodly and destructive to the country.
Copyright (c) 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 9 October 2015.
