Is being honest hateful? Certainly, anyone can tell the truth with hateful motives, but is the truth itself hateful? Should we be afraid of telling the truth? Especially, should we be fearful of the truth in public discourse? Indeed, can we be intellectually honest in defending a position we hold and not be truthful?

For instance, in arguing the merits of same-sex marriage, should we avoid stating our position by referring to certain obvious realities about homosexuality. If one were to argue all human beings are born biologically (and, thus, genetically) predisposed to heterosexual behavior, is that argument hateful? One cannot refute the truth of the assertion of the fundamental biological design of men and women. Men and women are designed for heterosexual intercourse. No biological design exists for homosexual behavior.

In the recent Miss USA Pageant, Miss California was asked her view of same-sex marriage. She answered by stating honestly her conviction: marriage is for a man and a woman. Now the judge who asked the question, Perez Hilton, a homosexual, has declared Miss Prejean’s answer to be homophobic. By not endorsing same-sex marriage, Miss California, and anyone else who advocates traditional marriage, is, thus, a homophobe. Why?

Even in the heyday of the Roman Empire, where bi-sexuality was widely practiced among the social and political elite, same-sex marriage was unknown. Sexual relations between two people of the same sex, most often between two men, was understood for what it was: recreational sex. Neither did all Romans endorse such behavior. Juvenal was scathing in his 9th satire in his views on homosexual behavior.

So, why is one considered to be homophobic when he refuses to accept homosexual behavior as the moral equivalent of heterosexuality? Is a person being hateful when he refuses to elevate homosexual behavior to the same category as heterosexuality? Let us reiterate a truth: we are all born genetically predisposed to heterosexual behavior. Even if one accepts the theory of evolution as the explanation for all life forms, he would be hard-pressed to find in evolution a logical explanation as to why a person would be born homosexual.

Marriage is as old as humanity. In the biblical account of creation, humanity was made male and female and given the task of replenishing the earth. Now, in some cultures (including ancient Israel), polygamy has been practiced as a legitimate form of marriage. But, polygamy is a form of heterosexual behavior. Further, in cultures where polygamy has been accepted, most often, only clan, tribal, and national leaders engaged in the practice. Historically and universally, monogamous, heterosexual marriage has been the model for marriage.

In the modern era, courts and legislative bodies have been extending the “right” to marry to homosexuals. Why only homosexuals? Why do we not endorse polygamy or polyandry? Procreation is not an issue in same-sex marriages, so why not allow others, for whom procreation is not the fundamental purpose of their sexual activities, to marry as well? Recently, some have advocated for triad marriages. Why should they not be granted the “right” to marry? Upon what basis will courts and legislative bodies refuse them the right to marry?

Are we not being hateful when we refuse anyone the right to marry because of the nature of their relationship? We might want to argue the unnaturalness of a triadic marriage, but can we so so and not be guilty of being hateful and mean-spirited? The myth of Pandora and her box goes far in explaining our current situation. Once the “marriage box” was opened to homosexuals, we cannot close it to others. Legislators and judges in Vermont, Massachusetts, Iowa, Maine, and Connecticut have created this dilemma.

With no thought given to the basic meaning of marriage, these enlightened social architects have, according to the Book of Job, sown the wind; we are now just beginning to reap the whirlwind. In a culture in which the rights of individuals always supercede the integrity and health of the community, chaos is inevitable.

The sad reality for many sexually active young women is how unstable and unreliable young men are. Few male teens accept their responsibility as fathers; some choose not to, others are unable to for a variety of reasons. Census data show nearly 85% of all single-parent households are headed by a female. Now, all these households are not the result of teen pregnancies, but many are. The data also show approximately one-third of female single parents have never been married. Among teens, eight of ten fathers do not marry the mothers of their first children. These absent fathers pay less than $800 annually in child support, often because they are poor themselves (The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy). Obviously, teen pregnancy is a disaster (see the report of the NCPTUP, “Why it Matters: Teen Pregnancy and Responsible Fatherhood,” at www.thenationalcampaign.org/resources/fact-sheets, Males and Fatherhood).

Men are promiscuous by nature. Some have argued marriage domesticates men and, thus, by restraining their sexual appetites makes them useful to society. While that theory, albeit attractive, may have no substantive foundation, what is beyond debate is the stabilizing influence marriage has in a society. With the erosion of stable, heterosexual, monogamous marriage comes the erosion of society in general. As long as men remain faithful to their marriage vows, act responsibly as a parent, and function as a productive member of his community, his marriage will remain healthy and secure. Sexual infidelity by men disrupts his own family, affects his children, can disrupt another family, and creates a sense of uncertainty is his larger community. Sexual fidelity is fundamental to a marriage.

Such is not the case among male homosexuals. For them, looking outside their relationship for sexual encounters is more the rule than the exception. In the book The Male Couple, authors David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison present the findings of a study they did among 156 homosexual couples. Of these, 95% had been in a relationship for 5 years or longer. In this group, all had an agreement allowing one or both partners to be involved sexually outside their relationship. Among the remaining 5% of the study group, all reported on or both partners had been sexually active outside their primary relationship.

In a post on Townhall.com, Michael Medved observed the following.  “In their push for government endorsement of same-sex unions, gay advocates insist they only want to extend the institution of marriage, not to change it in any meaningful way. At the same time, some of the leading married activists on this issue (like author and columnist Dan Savage) admit to participating in group sex with their spouses and rejecting heterosexual standards of monogamy. A New York Times Magazine profile of gay “married couples” revealed that nearly all of them practiced “open,” non-exclusive relationships. While man-woman couples often fall short of perfect fidelity, they rarely hold up sexual adventurism as a new ideal. Overwhelming majorities of Americans say cheating is wrong in all cases, so when prominent gay activists openly, proudly stray, they signal their unmistakable intention to redefine marital norms in a radical way.”

That homosexual relationships do not serve the same purpose as heterosexual ones is clear from the above stated observations. For heterosexuals, sex serves to bind husband and wife. The highest ideal for heterosexuals is sexual fidelity. Not so among homosexuals. If heterosexuals were as sexually promiscuous as male homosexuals, the divorce rate would be 100%. Obviously, homosexuals do not seek intimacy in the way heterosexuals do. For them, sex is a recreational activity.

For homosexuals, sex cannot be defined as a normal, natural thing. The human body and the human psyche is not designed for homosexual behavior. The vast majority of human beings do not now, nor have they ever seen sex between two men or two women as a natural, acceptable thing. In fact, for most men and women, the idea of being involved sexually with someone of their own gender is repulsive. Sex between two persons of the same gender requires a humiliating submissiveness on the part of one member at least. Who would want to debase themselves in the way homosexual sex requires?

When a man and a woman enter into a marriage, and honor and abide by the principles defining marriage, especially the biblical ones, the marriage will be healthy, fulfilling, and ennobling to both partners. Marriages fail because individuals break the rules or misuse or abuse their partner by perverting sex. When a husband his sexuality as meant primarily for his wife and not his pleasure, and shows concern and respect for her, then both partners will be ennobled. When both partners are wholly loyal to one another and to the vows upon which their marriage is based, the marriage will work. When one partner, though, indulges his/her desires in a selfish way, either within or outside the marriage, then the other partner is diminished and devalued. Neither is affirmed or ennobled under such conditions.

Sex between a husband and wife is the only normal context for human sexuality. In any other context, sex is selfish, sex destroys, sex degrades.

*Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D., is Senior Fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute, the think tank for Concerned Women for America. The study she cited was presented in an article published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Five authors from different departments (Psychology, Pediatrics, Maternal and Child Health, Research and Evaluation, and Internal Medicine) at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) explored whether "gender-specific patterns of substance use and sexual behavior precede and predict depression or vice versa."

Unfortunately, “safe-sex” advice of the sort Dr. Elders gave does not lead to responsible action among teens. Instead of lowering the bar of teens behavior, by the way, the bar should be raised. When challenged to excel, most people try harder. When a challenge is absent, behavior tends to drop to the lowest level. If we do not challenge young people to commit themselves to higher standards of conduct, why should we be surprised when they act on momentary feelings? Teens should not be expected to act as adults do, or as adults should be acting. Most teens do not understand the concept of long-term consequences. If they did, risky behavior among teens would be much lower. Yet, binge drinking and sexual excess on Spring Break remain a problem.

Sex is normal. We have been designed as sexual beings. Why, then, does a normal thing produce such bad consequences? When a good thing, sex, is abused and misused, only bad consequences result. Abusive sex degrades; healthy sex ennobles. For sex to be healthy, it must be experienced in its proper context. That context is heterosexual marriage. In any other circumstance, sex loses its overriding and most important purpose: procreation. Outside marriage, sex is fundamentally a selfish activity. The negative emotional consequences, as reported in the UNC-CH study, shows clearly sex has a proper context.

For a woman, sexual intercourse is one of the most intimate experiences of her life. Yet, when a woman becomes a sexual object for a man, the sexual experiences becomes dehumanizing and degrading. To be an object of another’s pursuit of pleasure means one has lost their fundamental identity and personhood. Adultery, teen sex, homosexuality, and abusive sex in marriage all are acts of selfishness, self-absorption, and self-centeredness. In all contexts other than marriage, sex is primarily recreational, in that the experience serves as a means of sensual satisfaction. How can a person profess to love and care for another yet use that person as a tool for gratification of one’s desire for pleasure? Such sexual activity is destructive, humiliating, and degrading.

In marriage (only heterosexuals truly can be married), sex is a healthy activity (abusive sex in marriage does not negate the ideal). Heterosexual intercourse elevates because of the purpose for which it exists. For married couples, even when pregnancy is not intended, sexual intercourse is defined above all other issues by its procreative purpose. A husband and wife instinctively know what they are doing is more than recreational. The act serves to bind the couple by a deeply intimate act in their relationship as husband and wife.

Ideally, sex in marriage is a time of self-giving. For a married couple, irresponsible and selfish sex hurts the relationship. For that reason, sexual infidelity most times destroys a marriage. Selfishness in sex, even within the marriage context, erodes intimacy and hinders the growth of the relationship between a husband and wife. Adultery leads to a loss of trust because adultery is a betrayal of intimacy and love. Once lost, the trust and intimacy may never be recovered, and if it is, the level of trust enjoyed before betrayal will never be known again.

Among teens, sexual faithfulness is not even an issue. Sex for teens is all about pleasure, especially for males. As a means of binding a couple in a long-term relationship, sex among teens fails miserably. Teen girls may hope for deeper intimacy with their partners, and they might dream of staying with their boyfriends for life, but the facts betray this hope as a fantasy. The reference above to the UNC-CH study illustrates the terrible toll for teens, especially girls, when they are sexually active. Further, other studies have shown the more one is sexually active, the harder for that person to sustain a long-term relationship. Casual sex leads to a series of short-term relationships.

A troubling practice among teen has recently hit the news. Girls and boys are using their cell phone cameras to take pictures of parts of their bodies which they send to their significant others. Seems they are running afoul of child pornography laws. Given the prevailing attitudes about sex in our society, should we be surprised by what these young people are doing? Indeed, those pictures are only the tip of the iceberg.

Information sent electronically, in this case pictures, is like a word spoken: once the word is spoke, ownership and control are lost. One wonders if the young women understand the proclivity of young males to brag about their sexual exploits? Do they think their boyfriend is the only person who will see the picture they sent? What might have been intended as an adolescent expression of intimacy quickly becomes an act of public indecency and humiliation. How many of those pictures, made with innocent intent, are forwarded on to others?

Our society has lied to teens. The dream of sexual freedom has become for many a nightmare of unintended consequences. A CDC study released on March 11, 2008 estimates that one in four (26 percent) young women between the ages of 14 and 19 in the United States – or 3.2 million teenage girls – is infected with at least one of the most common sexually transmitted diseases (human papillomavirus (HPV), chlamydia, herpes simplex virus, and trichomoniasis). The study, presented at the 2008 National STD Prevention Conference, is the first to examine the combined national prevalence of common STDs among adolescent women in the United States, and the study provides the clearest picture to date of the overall STD burden in adolescent women.

The CDC’s Sara Forhan, M.D., M.P.H., said the study also finds that African-American teenage girls were most severely affected. Nearly half of the young African-American women (48 percent) were infected with an STD, compared to 20 percent of young white women. The two most common STDs overall were human papillomavirus, or HPV (18 percent), and chlamydia (4 percent).

Kevin Fenton, M.D., director of CDC’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention was reported to have said, “Today’s data demonstrate the significant health risk STDs pose to millions of young women in this country every year. Given that the health effects of STDs for women – from infertility to cervical cancer – are particularly severe, STD screening, vaccination and other prevention strategies for sexually active women are among our highest public health priorities.” The data were presented by CDC researchers as part of the agency’s National STD Prevention Conference in Chicago. “What’s surprising about this is just how quickly young adolescent women acquire sexually transmitted diseases once they become sexually active,” Fenton said. “Nearly one in five women will acquire one of these infections within the first year after being sexually active.

In the article "Teen sex Leads to Depression and Drug Use," Janice Shaw Crouse highlighted the results of a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill study* on teen patterns of drug use and sexual activity. The findings, Crouse pointed out, go against the grain of the position held by social liberals of our day. The UNC-CH study showed that especially among teen girls, extremely negative effects are experienced as a result of sexual activity. Depression was shown clearly to result from either drug use or sexual activity. In fact, the study showed that depression does not lead to sex. In fact, "Depressed girls who are abstinent, however, have decreased odds of engaging in any high-risk behavior," Crouse stated.*

This study should be viewed in light of the advice given by many so-called experts (including individuals and institutions such as Planned Parenthood). Jocelyn Elders, for instance, in her tenure as Surgeon General in the Clinton Administration, advocated for sexual exploration among teens. In 1994, she was invited to speak at a United Nations conference on AIDS. Dr. Elders was asked if promoting masturbation as a means of preventing young people from engaging in riskier forms of sexual activity was appropriate. Her answer: "I think that it is part of human sexuality, and perhaps it should be taught." The problem with such advice is the effect such a pronouncement has on a young person. If solo masturbation is okay, why not mutual masturbation for a teen couple? If masturbation is okay, why not oral sex? Why not sexual intercourse?

In response to a couple of comments posted regarding my thoughts about homosexuality and genetics:

The point I sought to make, and apparently did not, was that as long as males view sex as primarily a recreational activity, an attitude not uncommon among men, unwed women especially will bear unwanted children. Any man who has been married for any time at all and is sensitive to his wife, realizes how different are the attitudes of men and women towards sex. Men are promiscuous by nature. The nature of the sexual relationship between male homosexuals (As Medved's post and the conclusions found in a study published in book form, The Male Couple show) and female homosexuals differs at the point of sexual exclusivity in their relationships. Female homosexuals tend to be as heterosexual couples: sexually exclusive. Why, we might ask, is the majority of the clients of  both male and female prostitutes men? Do we then need to argue the deleterious effects of male promiscuity and his view of sex as, first and foremost, fun? Out-of-wedlock births do not occur when men and women act responsibly. I was not suggesting non-procreative sex produces unwed pregnancies. I wanted to show, by using Medved's comments, that promiscuity, and thus, irresponsible sex in the male population, homosexual or heterosexual, is a unarguable point. Perhaps, David, you can steer me to a peer-reviewed study showing different causes for unwed births other than sexual irresponsibility.

With ultrasound technology, couples can know the sex of their child before birth. What is obvious immediately is the biologically-based sexual orientation of the little boy or girl. All of us are born pre-disposed to heterosexual behavior. We are designed physically and hot-wired emotionally and intellectually for heterosexuality. The choice of when or if to become sexually active is delayed until sexual maturity, but the expectation for such behavior, even before birth, given the obvious presence of a male and female sex organs, is normal.

The male sex organ has two functions: the discharge of urine and the ejaculation of semen. Female sex organs similarly have two functions as well: a point of entry to the uterus is available so sperm can be deposited for egg fertilization; and an exit point for the birth of a baby. All other uses or functions of these biological realities are subsidiary to their primary purposes. Ironically, no physical “proof” exists to indicate homosexuality. No one is born physically predisposed to homosexual behavior. In fact, behavior is the only indicator of homosexuality.

Having said that, let’s still consider the argument for a genetic basis for homosexuality. What would be some logical implications of a genetic basis for homosexuality? Well, first of all, we would need to identify some genes. First, we would need a female gene, say A. Second, a male gene, B, would be required. Obviously, these genes are imbedded in all human (and other animal DNA). Further, to establish the genetic basis for homosexuality, two other categories would be required. First, heterosexual genes, peculiar to the two sexes would need to exist: AB (girl/boy) and BA (boy/girl). Second, we would need homosexual genes specific to each sex: AA (girl/girl) and BB (boy/boy).

Having established our genes, we now must look to the implications. First and foremost, we rightly assume procreation as the major and sole function of heterosexuality. Boys and girls get together in order to make babies. Except in the case of infertility, every time a male and a female engage in intercourse, a baby can be produced. Thus, we practice birth-control.

Such is not the case for homosexuals. No two men engaging in anal sex (I do not consider anal sex to be intercourse) can produce a baby. Nor are two female homosexuals capable of producing a child since no form of true intercourse exists for two women. So, producing a child is not and cannot be a function of homosexuality. We therefore must conclude homosexual sex is primarily recreational

But, back to genetics. Since homosexuals are said to make up between 1 - 3 percent of the overall population, we must conclude the heterosexual gene is predominant. Yet, if homosexuality is genetic, the AA and BB genes are imbedded in all human DNA. At any time, any heterosexual couple could produce a homosexual child.

Two considerations come to mind. First, if homosexuality is genetic, and the gene is imbedded in human DNA (Do other  primates have homosexual genes?), then such a gene could replace the heterosexual gene and become the dominant gene. Surely, if the gene exists, over time, more and more homosexuals will be born. What if a particular group of humans starting producing more homosexual children than heterosexual. Would that group face extinction?

We must ask, as well, if homosexuality is genetic, would not the children produced by a male homosexual and a female homosexual stand a greater chance of being born homosexual? Such is the case with other genetic traits: eye color, hair color, skin pigmentation, height, body size, etc. African-American couples are no more likely to produce a blue-eyed, blond-headed, fair-skinned child than a Caucasian couple has of producing a child with decidedly Asian physical traits. If homosexuality is genetic, and thus normal, why would homosexuals not want to increase the chances of more of their tribe being born

A second, major issue remains in considering the possibility of homosexuality as genetics: child-bearing. The central function of heterosexual intercourse is procreation. All other aspects of heterosexual sex are subsidiary to the procreative function. The failure to recognize procreation as the primary purpose and recreation as secondary in human sexuality has led to the current epidemic in out-of-wedlock births in American society. The innate drive of males to spread their “pollen” as widely as possible says much about the nature of homosexual behavior as it does about homosexual behavior. Consider the following comments from Townhall.com, posted by Michael Medved.

    “In their push for government endorsement of same-sex unions, gay advocates insist they only want to extend the institution of marriage, not to change it in any meaningful way. At the same time, some of the leading married activists on this issue (like author and columnist Dan Savage) admit to participating in group sex with their spouses and rejecting heterosexual standards of monogamy. A New York Times Magazine profile of gay “married couples” revealed that nearly all of them practiced “open,” non-exclusive relationships. While man-woman couples often fall short of perfect fidelity, they rarely hold up sexual adventurism as a new ideal. Overwhelming majorities of Americans say cheating is wrong in all cases, so when prominent gay activists openly, proudly stray, they signal their unmistakable intention to redefine marital norms in a radical way.”

Unlike heterosexual intercourse, sex for homosexual males is purely recreational? Sex between two men or two women ultimately can serve no purpose other than pleasure. Procreation is not and cannot be a logical urge for homosexuals. Procreation is not a biological possibility for homosexuals, as is the case for heterosexuals.

The only way in which homosexuals can produce children is through artificial insemination. Sperm is provided by the male and a woman’s egg is artificially fertilized through a clinical procedure. To make a baby requires a man and a woman, whether they actually engage in sex or not. Ironically, the whole process assumes the normalcy and necessity of heterosexuality.

Since procreation is not a function of homosexuality, why would homosexuals even desire children? Why would homosexuals possess a trait which is the product of heterosexuality? One thing, desiring/bearing children, cannot follow logically the other, homosexuality. No argument can be made for procreation as a “normal” urge of homosexuality.

Essentially, we are all heterosexual and thus possess the procreative urge. Not all heterosexuals can have children. Infertility and some social conditions prevent child-bearing. Others choose, for a variety of reasons, to remain celibate, or to prevent pregnancy through birth control. Nonetheless, every time a man and a woman engage in intercourse, pregnancy is a possibility. Since such is the case, procreation is normal for heterosexuals and abnormal for homosexuals. Why should one have an urge to do what is impossible for them to do?

If, one the other hand, homosexuality has environmental causes and has no genetic basis, then the desire for children by homosexuals is more easily understood. One would think a genetic basis for homosexuality would make sperm production in male homosexuals and egg production in female homosexuals an impossibility. Why produce something which is of no use. If we ascribe to evolutionary theory, we would be required to admit that after a period of time, an unused, purposeless trait would cease to function or even appear at all. Yet, if homosexuality is not genetic, then sperm and eggs are more easily understood.

The homosexual population needs to come to terms with the truth about themselves. They cannot be both homosexual and heterosexual. Marriage and children are exclusively the products of heterosexual relationships. Companionship and recreation do not equate to marriage and family. If homosexuality is genetic, then, certain genetic facts must be admitted. If homosexuality is environmental, an entirely different set of realities must be accepted.

In her Townhall article, Debra Saunders spoke of Elizabeth Edwards' "class act." Someone had to show some class. Since John Boy refused to do so, his wife had to. John Boy wants to be President. Nevermind that his wife has cancer and he has two small childre. America needs him (what a laugh). He follows in the footsteps of Billy Boy, who put his sexual appetites ahead of the honor of the Presidency.

Does the Democrat Party have any real men?

In her February 23 article, "Sexualizing Girls," Mona Charen observed that the American Psychological Association "has discovered that too early sexualization of children, particularly girls, is damaging." They had to discover that? Normal people know instinctively that the last thing on a little girl’s mind is sex. Neither should young girls be compelled to deal with such a topicr. To have adult sexuality forced on a child is unconscionable.

So, how do young girls become sexualized so early? I am unable to formulate a reasoned response to that question, so I’ll be honest: idiot parents, parents with no ethical code at all, parents who are more immature than their children. What mother in her right mind would allow a pre-teen daughter to wear "eye-candy" thong underwear? Only one whose understanding of human sexuality is, at best, perverted. A mother who would do such is no better than the sexual pervert who preys on innocent little girls.

The sexualization of children is not the only crime being committed against girls and boys. According to an Internet article (no author or source cited), "half of young children (ages 7-11) are anxious about the effects of global warming, often losing sleep because of their concern." These "facts" are the results of a survey of 1,150 children done by the UK supermarket giant Somerfield. One in four blamed politicians for global warming; 1 in 7 blamed their parents for not doing enough (those were the ones whose Mommies had just denied them a candy treat).

I have to say that after reading the article, I didn’t know whether to laugh, cry, or scream in utter, angry frustration. A survey done by a supermarket of children ages 7-11 is to be taken seriously as an indicator of rates of childhood anxiety over global warming? Give me a break. Can anyone really believe that 7-11 year olds are concerned about "the possible submergence of entire countries"? I wonder about the emotional and intellectual stability of parents who would allow their children to develop such fears.

Sadly enough, too many well-educated adults get their science from a looney, loopy ex-Vice President; now they can look to supermarkets as an authorities on the emotional well-being of children. In the 80s, some of these same people were taken in by the "nuclear-freeze, nuclear winter" movement (funded in Europe, we learned, by the USSR). Earlier, many jumped on the global-cooling bandwagon.

Our three children, as far as I know, and they have never admitted to such, never had a moment’s anxiety about nuclear war. In all honesty, they never thought much about it; school, social activities, sports, family, recreation, etc. took up their time. None of them now are caught up in the global warming hysteria either.

For some reason, too many people, no, too many parents do not take their children seriously. Obviously, some parents see their offspring as a means to living out some unfulfilled fantasy of their own, or think of their children as nothing more than little adults. Children are children and do not need adult anxieties and concerns (global warming, sexuality) forced upon them. The well-bing of the children does not seem to be a priority for some parents.

In the debate over adoption of children by homosexuals, the issue is not the welfare of children, either. The legitimation of homosexuality is the overriding issue. How could children be the main concern in the debate over adoption by homosexuals?

When children are adopted by homosexuals, they are immediately faced with certain issues they do not deserve to have to contend with. Why should a child be required to work out the dynamics of why he has two daddies or two mommies, unlike most his friends, who have a mother and a father. Will a little girl with two daddies or two mommies ever have sleep-overs with her friends? Will children of homosexuals grow up in typical neighborhoods doing the things children normally do?

Biology tells us that heterosexuality is the norm and that children need, from conception on, both a mother and a father. Ironically, in America today, thousands of adopted children are going through difficult processes to find their birth-parents. While some may be driven by medical issues, most sense a deeper need to know who they are.

Children, those in their mid-teens and below, should not be immersed into the world of adult issues. Global warming, as in the current Gore-fashioned fantasy, should not be forced on children. Why should children have to deal with sexuality when most adults have trouble with the topic? Why should a child have to figure out why he does not have a mommy and a daddy?

The following stories are all based upon actual families I have known over the years. As a Baptist minister, interaction with families of all sorts in a variety of circumstances has enabled me to gain some appreciation for the struggles typical families face. The experiences my wife and I have had as parents further enable me to understand the issues attendant to child-rearing.

Couple A is in their early twenties. At one time, both were hourly wage earners, living in a rural area, supported by extended families. They learned that their two-year old child had a tumor behind one eye. After a lengthy period of hospitalization, surgery, and post-surgery therapy, they brought their child home. He had lost one eye, but remains cancer-free. This couple was willing to incur a debt they might never pay off in order to save their child’s life.

Couple B is in their late twenties. One is college-educated and is a self-employed sales rep for a major corporation. The other owns his own business. This couple’s goal was for the wife to establish herself in her career prior to having a baby. Consequently, because of the costs involved, they opted to not include pregnancy coverage in their health insurance. To their surprise, the wife found out she was pregnant. On her second visit to her doctor, during the ultra-sound, she heard her eight-week old, unborn child’s heartbeat. As she later told her mother, her life was forever changed. They will incur over $10,000 in medical bills due to the pregnancy.

Couple C is in their early thirties and the parents of a 4-year old son and a 2-year old daughter. The wife is an RN, the husband a journeyman pipefitter. The husband has a 13-year old son from a previous marriage. The wife works with a home health agency and is able to manage her schedule so that the children do not have to stay in day care for more than 4-5 hours a day. Often, the husband is required to work 6 and 7 day weeks. When necessary, he takes time off to care for the children. The term "free-time" is a joke.

The time and financial resource demands on these three couples are not unlike those experienced by thousands of parents across America. Surprisingly, to some, most of these families are successful and rear their children to be well-adjusted, productive adults. Even with limited resources, parents find the time and material resources to do what must be done to make things work.

Reading the American Sociology Review article on adoptive parents (See Part 1), one would expect only adoptive parents (APs), with their age, education, and financial advantages, to rear far more well-adjusted children than all other family types. Indeed, the article suggests that because APs can invest so much in their children, they should be better parents. Is such the case?

I have known many adoptees throughout my life. Further, based on my 33+ years as a Baptist minister, I can say that the adoptedees I have known, both as children and adults, were no better or worse, as a group, than children who had been reared by their birth parents. Of all the people I have known who had been adopted as a child, they all share one trait with most other children I have known: they grew up in homes with both a father and a mother.

As I noted in Part 1 of this response to the ASR article, the authors appear to take a favorable view of same-sex marriage and adoption by homosexual couples. If such is the case, then the results of this study could be used in defense of adoption by same-sex couples. Conventional wisdom says, on average, homosexuals have higher incomes than the general population. Would not an older, more-educated, more affluent same-sex couple appear to be good candidates for parenthood? Based on the ASR article, we might expect to hear a resounding yes.

In actual fact, time and money are not the key components of good parenting. Money in particular is not essential for one to be a good parent. Why, you might ask? What parents have to give cannot be bought at a local department store. Parents, in spite of whatever limitations they might have, are responsible for rearing healthy children. In spite of limited funds and limited time, poor and middle class parents succeed just as well as their more affluent peers; neither do they fail at a higher rate than wealthy parents.

Children need committed Moms and Dads; every child deserves both. Daughters need to learn what only mothers can teach; sons need what only fathers can give.

 In the February issue of the American Sociological Review (Vol. 72, February 2007) an article appeared entitled "Adoptive Parents, Adaptive Parents: Evaluating the Importance of Biological Ties for Parental Investment" (Hamilton, Powell, Cheng, 95-116). The conclusion of the study was that adoptive parents (APs) invest more in terms of "economic, cultural, social, and interactional resources" than other types of families.

A number of observations are in order. First of all, the authors pointed out that "two-adoptive-parent families have significantly higher annual income and levels of parental education than all other family types (104). Further, the article pointed out that APs also tend to be older than other parents (101), and must go through "some sort of screening and waiting process" prior to adoption. Typically, the screening process is very thorough and demanding, and not all applicants are approved.

I would add further that the authors appear to take a favorable view of the idea that homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt. APs are categorized by the researchers as one kind of "Alternative Family Types." Also, in the section "Measures of Independent and Dependent Variables," the authors style their categories of parent types in such a manner that adoptive homosexual couples could have been included in the study. One could also interpret a statement in the introductory section as an endorsement of same-sex marriage. The authors observed that courts have used evidence of the superiority of biological parenthood in court cases regarding same-sex marriage "as a compelling rationale for the current legal definitions of marriage" (97). One way this study could be interpreted is that biological parenthood may not be the best form of parenting.

Are Hamilton and her co-authors attempting, albeit subtly, to make a case for adoption by homosexuals? The authors stated "Lesbian and gay parents—facing high levels of discrimination, homophobia, and stigma—may also engage in compensatory parenting mechanisms that benefit their children" (112). Given the underlying tone of the article, the authors appear to believe that not allowing homosexual couples to marry and adopt children would be examples of discrimination and homophobia. We will visit the issue of the fitness of homosexuals as parents in a later posting.

Now, the article indicates that APs have advantages over all other types of parents. On its face, this conclusion might bear some significance. But, in real terms, what is the significance of the conclusion? From the start, I would raise the issue of the validity of comparing a very narrowly defined population (APs) with another that is broad and general (all BPs). For instance, what value can be found in comparing a set of adoptive parents (with all the advantages listed above) with a young married couple with children who may be in their late teens to early twenties, which is quite natural and normal.

Generally speaking, natural, birth-parents (BPs) are young, less experienced, have less formal education, are less financially, socially, and psychologically stable. While APs make their decision about children in a kind reasoned way, many times, pregnancy is a wholly unexpected event for young couples.

Many, if not most BPs must resort to two incomes in order to meet the economic demands of family life. Younger parents generally are in the beginning stages of their careers, and must work longer and harder to make their professional mark. Being young and in the early stages of a career, they are not at the peak of their earning capacity.

For APs, the option of choosing children who might have few if any severe medical problems is available. BPs do not have such an option. The child born to them is the one they must care for, regardless of the financial burden.

Young fathers and mothers, at the beginning stages of their careers, find time to be at a premium. APs are more likely to be able to choose for one partner to not work. Or, the APs could elect to send their child to a more expensive day-care facility. At school-age, sending their child to an upper level, scholastically elite private school is more possible than for the average young parents. Being more secure in their careers, and having elected to adopt, APs surely are more probable to have the time and resources to invest in their children. Younger fathers, especially those who are the sole income-earner in a family, have much less time available than older, more financially secure APs.

One wonders if the authors of this article believe that having more money, material resources, and time are all that is that is needed to rear socially and psychologically well-adjusted children. The question of the applicability of this study must also be asked. What is the point of comparing APs with all other parent types? Why not compare APs with BPs in the same professional, educational, social, and economic strata? What meaning does the authors’ conclusion have? Surely they do not think adoption is preferable to children remaining in their birth family?

The current debate in the world-wide Anglican community over homosexuality underscores the deep divisions and confusion within the Christian family about human sexuality. Ironically, no document could be more clear than the Bible regarding human sexual behavior. In spite of the few examples of polygamy, the consistent view of Scripture is that monogamous heterosexuality is the norm for God’s people. Both adultery and homosexual sex are proscribed for believers.

Yet, in the modern era, some denominational groups appear unwilling to affirm the biblical model of appropriate sexual conduct.

When we moderns disagree with the guidelines of Scripture, we attempt to discredit the messenger so that we might invalidate the message. Paul, for instance, is accused of being both a homophobe and a misogynist. Thus, we can re-interpret his message, stripping it of its "cultural biases" and out-dated and time-bound opinions. As a result of Scripture being redefined, we are able to declare confidently that Scripture rejects only some kinds of homosexual sex, but not homosexuality in general. Further, we can also affirm that God is in favor of "loving relationships."

Yet, we cannot blithely ignore and disregard the teachings of the Bible regarding human sexuality. By "modernizing" the Bible, we trivialize its teachings. To rationalize the Bible’s statements about homosexuality allows us equally to rewrite Scripture’s teachings about other behaviors as well. Incidentally, what do we do about pedophilia? The Bible, quite frankly, doesn’t give us a lot of guidance on that subject.

Let’s recognize the fact that adultery, pedophilia, and homosexuality all stem from sexual "feelings." So, what about those feelings? If we argue, as Part 1 of this series illustrated, that since we cannot identify the source of our feelings they must be of God, what feelings do we include, which do we exclude? Can one involved in an adulterous affair not claim "God made me this way" with as much authority as one with homosexual urges? Further, if God smiles with favor on a "loving" homosexual relationship, why not on a "loving" adulterous relationship?

So, we are faced with the question of whether or not God is to blame for one’s having homosexual feelings. What do we do? Well, a good starting place would be a couple of statements in the Epistle of James in the New Testament. "Let no one say when he is tempted (enticed to indulge one’s desires or feelings), ‘I am being tempted by God.’; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone."

In saying that God "does not tempt anyone," the writer appears to be saying that God does not tempt or entice anyone with evil (compare the overall context). God has never created anything that is inherently evil. Grapes, corn, tobacco, the leaves of the coca plant, cannabis, poppies, the female body, the male body, and children were not brought into existence in order to be a source of evil. The problem is not the object; the problem is human desire.

"But each one is tempted (see above) when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust (unwholesome desire)." Evil is resident, at the least, in our desires, our feelings. Now, not all desires or feelings are bad. We simply must affirm that the feelings Scripture has declared to be evil, unhealthy, and unproductive must not be indulged. Among those feelings the Bible rejects as having their source in the baser part of the human identity is homosexual sex. Homosexual desires are no more to be acted upon by a believer than the urge to steal, lie, or commit adultery. Giving in to any desire that is deemed by Scripture to be inappropriate for believers leads one, ultimately, to his ruin.

If God has ever given anyone homosexual desires, or made him a homosexual, then the Lord of Heaven must be the ultimate schizophrenic. Why would he inspire writers throughout history to declare that homosexual behavior was wrong, and then, cause people to be homosexual? If such is the case, God loses all credibility and nothing he has ever said is to be taken as binding upon humans.

Happily, such is not the case. God has never made anyone a homosexual, pedophile, adulterer, liar, thief, murderer, or racist. People hate, are greedy, and desire what is not legitimate because they indulge the wrong feelings. Yet, the mere presence of a feeling is not the problem. The behavior that grows out of feelings is the issue.

Scripture expects God’s people to reject the world’s pressure to conform. The world teaches us to indulge our "feelings." The Bible reminds us that feelings are nothing more than emotional urgings. Some lead to good behavior, or result from such; others lead to destruction. Feelings do not define us. We are not what we feel. For Christians, the only true guide for responding to our feelings and urges is Scripture. Without the clear ethical guidance of God’s Word, we are set adrift and in the sea of moral confusion and chaos.

 "Why do I have these feelings?" Dr. Warren Throckmorton* wrote an article by that title in which he discussed the dilemma those "feelings" had for a young man who had concluded he was gay because of his "feelings." The better question, as Dr. Throckmorton observed, is how do we respond to our feelings.

The "Why" question can be asked legitimately by any number of people. Why do so many males feel an overwhelming desire to look at naked women? Why are some people drawn to sex with children? Why does a person have racist feelings? What makes a person want to steal? Do drugs? Get drunk? What generates all these feelings? Does the source really matter?

Our society, by the way, defines people on the basis of feelings. One is a homophobe because he does not believe homosexuality is normal (Obviously, some would argue, only hate for another person based on his sexual orientation, not a reasoned argument, could lead to the conclusion that homosexuality is abnormal.). One is a homosexual because he feels attracted to a person of his own sex. One is a racist because he speaks despairingly about a person of a race other than his own, regardless of the nature of his criticism.

To an extent, we are what we do. But, is a person’s whole being defined by one set of emotions or one act? The truth is that "normal" people have feelings or emotions whose origins may be lost to them. These feelings may draw that person to modes of behavior that are at variance with what is considered normal, acceptable behavior. If I have feelings of jealousy towards a co-worker, and am tempted to lie about that person to improve my own position, am I a liar?

Let us return to homosexuality. Is a person a homosexual because he has certain feelings or sexual attractions? Or, is a person just a person who happens to have what are termed "homosexual" urges? To what extent is a person defined by his feelings?

All of us are born predisposed to heterosexuality. We are born either male or female, with the associated physical attributes. No one has ever been born with physical traits that predispose him to homosexuality. Biology trumps emotions.

Having said that, what might we infer from the biological facts of our sexuality? Can we say that all heterosexuals share a set of common traits that set them apart from homosexuals or celibates? Certainly not. All one can conclude from the statement that a person is a heterosexual is that he has chosen to be sexually involved with a person or persons of the gender opposite his own. No conclusions can be drawn about such a person’s overall identity simply because he likes heterosexual sex.

The same is true of homosexuality. Beyond the sexual and emotional aspects of homosexuality, no commonly shared set of traits can be defined that set homosexuals apart from heterosexuals or celibates. Beyond the object of one’s sexual and emotional desires, no other trait appears to be universally shared in the homosexual population.

So, homosexuality is all about one’s preferred mode of sex. Homosexuals desire a sexual and emotional relationship with someone of their own gender. No one has ever been compelled to be sexually involved with any other person on a regular basis (apart from coerced activity). Our feelings cannot make us do anything. Our feelings can only lure us in some direction or another. What we can affirm about human sexuality is that, beyond the obvious procreative function, sex, as an activity, is not necessary.

Modern Americans live in a highly sexually charged environment. We are treated to TV ads promoting treatments for herpes; promotional spots for cures for male erectile dysfunction; enticements to diets that will make one more sexy; and commercials for products that will restore hair to the bald, thus, restoring sexual potency. We have become one-dimensional creatures, and appear to not question the idea.

To hear the latest advertisement, sex, and only sex means anything. Human beings will never find happiness and fulfillment apart from being sexually active. Somehow, we are not truly human if we are not sexually potent and active. You see, sex is the irresistible urge (All teens will be sexually active; they can’t help themselves. So, give them condoms. What an absurdity.). Thus, some have been led to believe that unless they indulge their sexual attraction to a person of their own gender, they will never be happy.

*Warren Throckmorton, PhD, is Associate Professor of Psychology and Fellow for Psychology and Public Policy at Grove City College. He is the coauthor, along with Mark Yarhouse of Regent University, of the Sexual Identity Therapy Framework, a new paradigm for responding to sexual and religious conflicts. He maintains an active blog at www.wthrockmorton.com.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has declared that unless school-age girls in Texas are vaccinated with Gardasil, the human papillomavirus vaccine, they will not be allowed to attend school. The vaccine is produced by Merck, which is behind the campaign to pass laws in state legislatures across the country mandating vaccination with Gardasil vaccine for girls as young as 11 or 12. Some see Perry’s financial and political ties with Merck as the reason for his decision.

Most likely, Perry’s order will not stand up in court. One would hope such is the case. The order by the Texas governor involves parental privacy rights and gender issues at least. One wonders why the governor has not mandated mandatory flu shots for all children in Texas as a requirement for school attendance. The flu virus kills 60,000 people annually in the U.S. Only an estimated 4,000 fatalities from HPV and cervical cancer (related to HPV) occur each year. What’s more dangerous to a child’s health, flu or HPV?

Perry’s actions are similar to those of proponents of universal HIV/AIDS testing. Both mandatory HPV vaccination and universal HIV/AIDS testing imply that anyone can become infected with either of these sexually transmitted disorders. Not long ago an AIDS Summit was hosted by California mega-church pastor Rick Warren and his wife Kay. The Warrens are to be commended for taking the lead in getting the church involved in addressing AIDS. The church has been silent and inactive far too long, as Warren has pointed out. Yet, what Warren and Senators Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Sam Brownback, R-Kan., did during the conference is cause for criticism. Each was publicly tested for HIV.

What, you might ask, is the problem with their being tested for HIV/AIDS? Fundamentally, the same problem Gov. Perry’s mandate involves. Both HIV/AIDS and HPV are sexually transmitted diseases. Does Pastor Warren believe that members of his congregation, or Americans in general, are in danger of becoming HIV positive? How many parents in Texas expect their 11- and 12-year old daughters to be sexually active? Those who expect their daughters to be sexually active anytime prior to marriage have a strange notion of their role as parents.

Teens, especially girls, are not predisposed to promiscuous sex, as some would have us believe. In her article on Townhall.com, "Teen sex Leads to Depression and Drug Use," Janice Shaw Crouse highlighted the results of a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill study on teen patterns of drug use and sexual activity. Their findings, Crouse pointed out, go against the grain of the position held by social liberals of our day. The UNC-CH showed that especially among teen girls, extremely negative effects are experienced as a result of sexual activity. Depression was shown clearly to result from either drug use or sexual activity. In fact, the study showed that depression does not lead to sex. In fact, "Depressed girls who are abstinent, however, have decreased odds of engaging in any high-risk behavior," Crouse stated.

Personally, I read the message being sent by Gov. Perry, in particular, as well as by Rev. Warren, as being that we can assume that most people are, have been, or will be sexually active outside marriage. The Texas governor seems to believe that all girls in Texas are in danger of contracting HPV. Why else would we vaccinate all girls if such were not the case? Why be tested for HIV/AIDS unless you have been sexually active outside of marriage? For men, by the way, being HIV/AIDS positive suggests homosexual activity at some time, unless the virus is passed to the male by a female.

Gov. Perry has no business telling all parents in Texas they should expect their daughters to become sexually active. Obviously, he has no confidence in Texas parents. If Gov. Perry is so health conscious, not only should he also institute mandatory flu vaccination as a requirement for school attendance, he should also order HIV/AIDS testing as well.

Children rise to the standards set by their parents. My wife and I reared two daughters and a son. We not only expected them to abstain from sex and drugs, we did everything in our power to assist them in resisting popular pressure to do both. Each made a True Love Waits commitment, which each of our daughters honored till they were married. Our son, a Marine, has done the same.

Parents should resist any attempt by any agency, governmental or otherwise, to force them to have their daughters vaccinated with the HPV vaccine. If, when a girls becomes an adult, she decides to be vaccinated, let her do so. Young girls should never be forced to take such a step. Parents, and parents alone, are the ones to make such decisions.

Gov. Perry needs to do some homework. All girls are not going to be sexually active; in fact, most will not be, especially those who are challenged to be abstinent. If Gov. Perry’s ruling stands, and some girls feel safer in being sexually active, they definitely will pay an emotional price for the "freedom" the good governor granted them. Consequently, he will bear a share of the responsibility for the emotional price those young women will pay.

Parents, your children's health is in your hands, not the governments’.