Indian High Court’s Decision Was Wrong

This is the unedited version of the letter "Indian High Court’s decision was wrong appearing in the Stabroek News of July 9, 2009.

Dear Editor,

The letter “Restoring Dignity of Men and Women” by Michel Sidibe' (Kaieteur News 8/7/09; Stabroek News 7/7/09 captioned "UNAIDS Applauds the Decision of India's High Court" ) is disturbing in its whimsical disregard for science, medicine, the extant law, and the truth. It can be rebutted on several distinct grounds, each of which illustrates that Sidibe' has taken the unprofessional step of arguing his case with innuendo rather than fact. In taking the opposite posture, our approach offers the detail and evidence that all citizens need to make responsible personal and corporate decisions.

First, we had aggressively rebutted Sidibe’s colleague Ruben del Prado’s similar outburst one year ago with the aptly captioned "A Departure From Professional Conduct"; http://www.guyanachronicle.com/ARCHIVES/archive%2026-05-08.html. There, in a fanciful fascination with the “Yogyagakarta Principles”, del Prado had made the similar mistake of implying that there were not good medical, legal, moral and societal reasons for criminalizing homosexuality. The arguments to the contrary in “A Departure from Professional Conduct” still hold, and, if you look closely, Sidibe has carefully sidestepped every one of them.

The first, and obvious response to Sidibe is that most PLWHA-treatment in Guyana and the Caribbean is anonymous anyway, and that the focus of any effective epidemiological response needs to be behaviour modification, not accommodation!

Second, there is a geo-political thrust to Sidibe’s arguments, having nothing to do with HIV/AIDS. For Sidibe, then, India’s activist High Court ruling, sure to be challenged, represents a shot in the arm for the now-tired arguments usually spawned by gay militancy and a recklessly unprofessional confederacy of its supporters in the UN ….anxious for any “victory” after the astonishing defeat to opponents of Proposition 8 in the USA (see “Why Proposition 8 will Stand in 2010”; http://www.esnips.com/web/Proposition8 ). There, the people simply got fed up with “court decisions” that pilfered their traditional values and democratic principles, and voted down yet another effort to redefine marriage, this being the holy grail of the “decriminalization” crowd. We had hopefully addressed some of the issues in the online article “The OAS Resolutionson Sexual Orientation Do Not Reflect the Will of the people of the Region” (http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/letters/06/13/oas-resolutions-on-sexual-orientation-do-not-reflect-the-will-of-the-citizens-of-the-region ). The caption of this article was not accidental, since, with the threat of democratic opposition-action at the grassroots, an entire swathe of gay-rights “victories” are being engineered NOT in the polls where the people have a voice, but in activist courts and legislatures, and by executive order. This is slap in the face for voters, and it is all being done in the name of “human rights!

Thirdly, if we were casting our net wide with references to the geo-politics defined by the “OAS” and the “UN” in response to Sidibe, it will surely come as a surprise to readers/voters in Guyana and the Caribbean that the specious argumentation being resuscitated by Sidibe was in fact peddled in selfsame short-measure by CARICOM’s PANCAP as recently as 2008. Hopefully, we had provided Guyana and the Caribbean with enough material in the online summary “Arguments Against Pancap and rthe Decriminalization of Homosexuality” (http://www.esnips.com/doc/8e2963b1-92f4-4b9e-b68f-2306587109a5/ARGUMENTS-AGAINST-PANCAP-AND-THE-DECRIMINALIZATION-OF-HOMOSEXUALITY ) to show the error of that particular effort.

It gets worse. What do current US-indicators tell us about this “glorious” development in India ? Sidibe' denies the fact of MRSA infection, and its affinity 19 times greater for homosexual populations. David Ostrow is in no doubt, however, and shares why the OAS, the UN and PANCAP must now be equally "fascinated" with behaviour modification rather than “behaviour accommodation”: “…The physiology of the rectum makes it clear that sodomy is unnatural. The inward expansion of the rectum during anal intercourse frequently tears the rectal lining, resulting in spasms, colitis, cramps, and a variety of other physical responses. Furthermore, sperm can readily penetrate the rectal wall (the vagina cannot be so readily penetrated) and do massive immunological damage, leaving the body vulnerable to a bewildering variety of opportunistic infections…." (David Ostrow et al, eds., “Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Homosexual Men”, New York, Plenum Medical Book Co., 1982). Note … the science has not changed in from then to 2009, only Sidibe’s rhetoric. He denies a gigantic paradox ... that homosexuality therefore needs entire medical brigades to justify its political space under decriminalization, thereby also explaining why gay-militant activity in activist countries has always targeted the health sector, or its Ministers. But medical fact does not supplant "human rights" in Sidibe's world.

Sidibe' is careful to point out that his, and UNAIDS’, motives lie in the “fight against HIV/AIDS”. To the extent that a key strategy of the gay-rights and gay-militant lobby has always been to blur and confuse the lines between the legitimate needs of PLWHA and “securing” gay rights, then Sidibe’s comments are disingenuous.

Jusith Reisman, who destroyed Kinsey’s abysmal outlook on human sexuality, documents the devious ploy by gay activists to “use” HIV/AIDS” as a “marketing tool” to achieve their political goals. Sidibe’s education in this regard should begin by noting the words of homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen outlined in the law review “Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth” ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Reisman.doc ): "... According to Kirk and Madsen, "AIDS gives us a chance, however brief, to establish ourselves as a victimized minority ...." Reisman goes on …“... To hide the fact that most AIDS children appear to be infected by bi/homosexuals, the "World AIDS Day" artfully reports that "16% of adolescents with AIDS, aged 13 through 19 . . . have been infected through heterosexual contact…,” rather than that 84% of AIDS children are infected by male bi/homosexual sex abuse. To place this grievous medical sleight-of-hand in perspective, Kate Leishman reports that in 1988, though representing less than 5% of the U.S. population, “…. homosexuals were responsible for 50% of the nation’s cases of syphilis and a “phenomenal incidence of venereal disease…” ( Kate Leishman, “AIDS and Syplillis”, The Atlantic Monthly. January 1988, 20, 21).

The point again? Homosexuality NEEDS medical brigades to justify its space, and THAT’s a valid enough reason for criminalization. And we have not even addressed the Biblical perspective as yet, or links to psychosexual violence and pedophilia!

The final words defining Sidibe’s caricature of the Indian High Court ruling, then, belong to lawyer Roger J Magnuson. These words would constitute important advice for unsuspecting, naïve third world populations infatuated with UN rhetoric”:

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

Magnuson would go on to document that “… during the first decade of gay rights in san Francisco - the annual rate of infectious Hepatitis A increased 100%, infectious Hepatitis B 300%, and amoebic colon infections increased 2500% ....” CDC 2004 figures show remarkably consistent HIV infection rates among MSM, in glaring counterpoint to Sidibe's figures.

What are the facts for the Caribbean? India? What can we reasonably expect with decriminalization? If the above does not constitute valid reasons for the criminalization of a psychosexual disorder that manifests itself in socially and personally destructive ways, then what does?

Decriminalization accommodates a slow but fatalistic degeneracy where everyone loses. And an Indian High Court bought it … hook, line and sinker!

Yours faithfully

Roger Williams
8th July 2009

UNAIDS SHOULD OBJECT TO DELHI COURT RULING, NOT APPLAUD IT

Dear Editor,

The letter “Restoring Dignity of Men and Women” by Michel Sidibe' (Kaieteur News 8/7/09; Stabroek News 7/7/09 captioned "UNAIDS Applauds the Decision of India's High Court" ) is disturbing in its whimsical disregard for science, medicine, the extant law, and the truth. It can be rebutted on several distinct grounds, each of which illustrates that Sidibe has taken the unprofessional step of arguing his case with innuendo rather than fact. In taking the opposite posture, our approach offers the detail and evidence that all citizens need to make responsible personal and corporate decisions.

First, we had aggressively rebutted Sidibe’s colleague Ruben del Prado’s similar outburst one year ago with the aptly captioned "A Departure From Professional Conduct"; http://www.guyanachronicle.com/ARCHIVES/archive%2026-05-08.html. There, in a fanciful fascination with the “Yogyagakarta Principles”, del Prado had made the similar mistake of implying that there were not good medical, legal, moral and societal reasons for criminalizing homosexuality. The arguments to the contrary in “A Departure from Professional Conduct” still hold, and, if you look closely, Sidibe has carefully sidestepped every one of them.

The first, and obvious response to Sidibe is that most PLWHA-treatment in Guyana and the Caribbean is anonymous anyway, and that the focus of any effective epidemiological response needs to be behaviour modification, not accommodation!

Second, there is a geo-political thrust to Sidibe’s arguments, having nothing to do with HIV/AIDS. For Sidibe, then, India’s activist High Court ruling, sure to be challenged, represents a shot in the arm for the tired arguments usually spawned by gay militancy and a recklessly unprofessional confederacy of its supporters in the UN ….anxious for any “victory” after the astonishing defeat to opponents of Proposition 8 in the USA (see “Why Proposition 8 will Stand in 2010”; http://www.esnips.com/web/Proposition8 ). There, the people simply got fed up with “court decisions” that pilfered their traditional values and democratic principles, and voted down yet another effort to redefine marriage, this being the holy grail of “decriminalization” crowd. We had hopefully addressed some of the issues in the online article “The OAS Resolutionson Sexual Orientation Do Not Reflect the Will of the people of the Region” (http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/letters/06/13/oas-resolutions-on-sexual-orientation-do-not-reflect-the-will-of-the-citizens-of-the-region ). The caption of this article was not accidental, since, with the threat of democratic opposition action at the grassroots, an entire swathe of gay-rights “victories” are being engineered NOT in the polls where the people have a voice, but in activist courts and legislatures, and by executive order. This is slap in the face for voters, and it is all being done in the name of “human rights!

Thirdly, if we were casting our net wide with references to the geo-politics defined by the “OAS” and the “UN” in response to Sidibe, it will surely come as a surprise to readers and voters in Guyana and the Caribbean that this specious argumentation being resuscitated by Sidibe was in fact being peddled in selfsame short-measure by CARICOM’s PANCAP as recently as 2008. Hopefully, we had provided Guyana and the Caribbean with enough material in the online summary “Arguments Against Pancap and rthe Decriminalization of Homosexuality” (http://www.esnips.com/doc/8e2963b1-92f4-4b9e-b68f-2306587109a5/ARGUMENTS-AGAINST-PANCAP-AND-THE-DECRIMINALIZATION-OF-HOMOSEXUALITY ) to show the error of that particular effort.

It gets worse. What do current US-indicators tell us about this “glorious” development in India ? He denies the fact of MRSA infection, and its affinity 19 times greater for homosexual populations. David Ostrow is in no doubt, however, and shares why the OAS, the UN and PANCAP must now be equally "fascinated" with behaviour modification rather than “behaviour accommodation”: “…The physiology of the rectum makes it clear that sodomy is unnatural. The inward expansion of the rectum during anal intercourse frequently tears the rectal lining, resulting in spasms, colitis, cramps, and a variety of other physical responses. Furthermore, sperm can readily penetrate the rectal wall (the vagina cannot be so readily penetrated) and do massive immunological damage, leaving the body vulnerable to a bewildering variety of opportunistic infections…." (David Ostrow et al, eds., “Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Homosexual Men”, New York, Plenum Medical Book Co., 1982). Note … the science has not changed in 2009, only Sidibe’s rhetoric. He denies the gigantic paradox that screams at us all ... that homosexuality therefore needs entire medical brigades to justify its political space under decriminalization, thereby also explaining why gay-militant activity in activist countries has always targeted the health sector, or its Ministers. But medical fact does not supplant "human rights" in Sidibe's world.

Sidibe is careful to point out that his, and UNAIDS’, motives lie in the “fight against HIV/AIDS”. To the extent that a key strategy of the gay-rights and gay-militant lobby has always been to blur and confuse the lines between the legitimate needs of PLWHA and “securing” gay rights, then Sidibe’s comments are disingenuous.

Jusith Reisman, who destroyed Kinsey’s abysmal outlook on human sexuality documents the devious ploy by gay activists to “use” HIV/AIDS” as a “marketing tool” to achieve their political goals. Sidibe’s education in this regard should begin by noting the words of homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen outlined in the law review “Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth” ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Reisman.doc ): "According to Kirk and Madsen, "AIDS gives us a chance, however brief, to establish ourselves as a victimized minority". Reisman goes on …“To hide the fact that most AIDS children appear to be infected by bi/homosexuals, the "World AIDS Day" artfully reports that "16% of adolescents with AIDS, aged 13 through 19 . . . have been infected through heterosexual contact…,” rather than that 84% of AIDS children are infected by male bi/homosexual sex abuse. To place this grievous medical sleight-of-hand in perspective, Kate Leishman reports that in 1988, though representing less than 5% of the U.S. population, “…. homosexuals were responsible for 50% of the nation’s cases of syphilis and a “phenomenal incidence of venereal disease…” ( Kate Leishman, “AIDS and Syplillis”, The Atlantic Monthly. January 1988, 20, 21).

The point? Homosexuality NEEDS medical brigades to justify its space, and THAT’s a valid enough reason for criminalization. And we have not even addressed the Biblical perspective as yet, or links to violence and pedophilia!

The final words defining Sidibe’s caricature of the Indian High Court ruling, then, belong to lawyer Roger J Magnuson. These words would constitute important advice for unsuspecting, naïve third world populations infatuated with UN rhetoric”: "…. The political proposals advanced by an increasingly aggressive group of gay activists ... merit and demand serious discussion and rational analysis. Unfortunately, gay rights proposals have often received neither. The seriousness of the issues has not been matched by a seriousness of analysis. There has been a curious inversion: a high level of public policy interest; a low level of public policy debate…." ( Roger Magnuson; "Are Gay Rights Right? making Sense of the Controversy!", p. 137). Magnuson would go on to document that “…during the first decade of gay rights in san Francisco - the annual rate of infectious Hepatitis A increased 100%, infectious Hepatitis B 300%, and amoebic colon infections increased 2500%....” CDC 2004 figures show remarkably consistent infection rates among MSM, in glaring counterpoint to Sidibe's figures.

What are the facts for the Caribbean ? India ? What can we reasonably expect with decriminalization? If the above does not constitute valid reasons for the criminalization of a psychosexual disorder that manifests itself in socially and personally destructive ways, then what does? Decriminalization accommodates a slow but fatalistic degeneracy where everyone loses.

And an Indian High Court bought it … hook, line and sinker!

Yours faithfully
Roger Williams

8th July 2009

A Rebuttal of Vikram Seth's and Amartya Sen's Position on Gay Rights

Dear Editor,

I refer to Vickram Seth’s “open letter” and would appreciate the opportunity to rebut. Copies are being sent to Amartya Sen, Vickram Seth and as many others of the signatories of their “open letter” as possible, and the organizations they represent.

It is the truth that sets persons free.

Seth and Sen ignore the evidence in law reviews that homosexual and bisexual activity is medically, socially and personally destructive, and that the defence of these behaviours has usually meant that detractors are silenced, and that statistical, medical, legal and academic/research evidence is just simply ignored. There is another, more sinister outcome possible for parliamentary democracy in India, adequately alluded to by Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail article of September 7, 2006: "How Britain is turning Christianity into a crime!" ( http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=447 ).

The “open letter” by Seth et al, and the “support” by Sen, is couched in the vague, amorphous, and emotion-dripping syrup of the “rights” arguments, and ignores the plea by at least one research scientist that science, not emotion, should inform the debate.

Dr Jeffrey Satinover (“Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth”; Hamilton Press; 1996) confides that in conference with groups like Seth’s and Sen’s - the denial was so intense that self-examination was entirely precluded. I referred to this anomaly in the online initial critique of Arif Bulkan's “National Assessment on HIV/AIDS Human Rights, Law and Ethics in Guyana” ( www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com/national_assessment.pdf ) when pondering the absence of a doctor's opinion from the 'assessment' in the Guyana context.

There is a therefore a criminal irresponsibility in Seth’s and Sen’s refusal to address the Indian epidemic of HIV/AIDS from standard epidemiological terms of reference, as medical doctors must, instead opting for a 'rights-based' point of view.

There is not a single medical doctor in the entourage that “supports” Seth’s “open letter”. If there was, they took great pains to hide the fact, and that alone bespeaks of a similar degree of criminal irresponsibility. SASOD, like Seth, has by now achieved competence in the art of propaganda, and carefully pads local advocacy for Seth’s position with the words “… the other signatories come from diverse walks of life, and include academics, public servants, politicians, lawyers, artists, soldiers, religious leaders, social activists and business people.” In the context of the worldwide and Indian epidemics of HIV/AIDS, this is tantamount to criminal negligence and mischief in leading their “flock” astray.

Roger Magnuson (“Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy"; Multhnomah Press) on pages 48-52, illustrates some of the medical evidence and authority that Seth and Sen must acknowledge in the process of being responsible for promulgating the “sexual orientation” argument.

● Homosexuals and bisexuals release both disease and crime into society to an extent far in excess of their percentage of the population. The connection between homosexuality and ill health has been underscored as recently as 2004 in the CDC's HIV report (page 5 of the online critique, or e-mail RogerWilli@Yahoo.com for copies).

● One survey revealed that 78% of homosexuals have been affected at least once by a sexually transmitted disease, and that a large number of them have been afflicted with illnesses such as urethritis, hepatitis, herpes, pediculosis, scabies, venereal warts and intestinal parasites. What are the facts for Guyana? What are the facts for India?

● In the USA, ninety percent of homosexually active men demonstrate chronic or recurrent viral infections with herpes virus, CMV, and hepatitis B. What are the facts for Guyana? What are the facts for India?

● During the first decade of gay rights in san Francisco - the annual rate of infectious Hepatitis A increased 100%, infectious Hepatitis B 300%, and amoebic colon infections increased 2500% '. What are the facts for Guyana? What are the facts for India?

See pages 7-8 in the online article "Annex A: An initial Critique of the National Assessment" at the URL: www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics/national_assessment.pdf for Roger Magnuson’s treatment of the legal pitfalls and perils that accompany “sexual orientation” considerations. There is fertile ground here for legal rebuttal to Seth’s deception.

The legal issues should at the very least not displace prudent medical or epidemiological responses. That would be irresponsible in the face of an epidemic, one indicator for Guyana being the report in the Kaieteur News of October 24th 2004 advising that eight out of every ten blood-donors in Region Three (one of 10 administrative districts in Guyana) are tested positive for HIV. What are the facts for India?

Guyana is therefore in the middle of an epidemic of HIV/AIDS, and it would be safe to say that with a population of about 750,000, a total infection episode would be imminent if the solid protection provided by current laws were laid aside as people like SASOD and Seth advocate. Guyana, Suriname and Haiti share the highest levels of seroprevalence in the region, similar to levels in Southern Africa.

Homosexuality is not a civil right. It is a civil wrong. Daniel Garcia and Robert Regier have dealt conclusively with the attendant issues in the article “Homosexuality Is Not A Civil Right” at http://www.crrange.com/wall34.html . Rabbi Eidensohn’s critique of the Sexual Orientation Anti-Discrimination Act (SONDA) outlines the perilous intrigue of deception we court in democracies as we are seduced and hoodwinked by gay militancy ( http://www.sinaicentral.com/gendercentral/CritiqueSONDAS720_120202.htm ). Readers should also peruse the article http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WT02G1 entitled “From Playboy to Pedophilia: How Adult Sexual Liberation Leads to Children's Sexual Exploitation “. SASOD’s stated intention in its letter to have “joined with other interest groups to call for the urgent reform of the legislation to improve the access to justice for victims of sexual violence, especially child victims” is disingenuous at best, and hypocritical in the extreme.

I should now voice some scholarly concern that SASOD’s, and Seth’s, experience in research in this area did not mandate a comment on any of the numerous medical issues and commentaries that are available on the subject. For example, the following comment in the first paragraph of page 2 of 16 of the review by Dr. Steve Baldwin, "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement" ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Baldwin.doc ; 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 267; 2002 ) raises fertile opportunity for research scientists in the Caribbean and India.

".... Unfortunately, the truth is stranger than fiction. Research confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals, and the mainstream homosexual culture commonly promotes sex with children. (See W.D. Erickson et al, "Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters", 17 ARCHIVES SEXUAL BEHAV. I, 83 [1988] and numerous other references on page 2 of 16 in Dr. Baldwin's review). Homosexual leaders repeatedly argue for the freedom to engage in consensual sex with children, and blind surveys reveal a shockingly high number of homosexuals admit to sexual contact with minors. Indeed, the homosexual community is driving the worldwide campaign to lower the age of consent...."

Perhaps the most interesting point in the SASOD letter to Stabroek News is the outright confession that their target is the repeal of “sodomy laws”. In the past, they have delicately sidestepped this claim, and Dr. Marcus Day made an abortive attempt on their behalf to fashion an argument that “homosexual men don’t necessarily commit sodomy”. He quickly withdrew after being challenged. As it was then, this argument remains specious and puerile, and does not reflect serious scholarship. Sodomy defines homosexuality, and a liberal sexual environment ensures bisexual crossover and acceptance in the heterosexual population, particularly where education on sexual issues is deficient or biased in favour of gay militancy.

Regarding anal intercourse, either heterosexual or homosexual, Vickram Seth and Amartya Sen should appreciate and promote as fact to both populations that anal intercourse must be condemned for what it is, a medically dangerous activity that happens to facilitate the most virulent transmission of HIV, and that is condemned by no less a person than the Surgeon General of the USA:

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

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

".... The physiology of the rectum makes it clear that sodomy is unnatural. The inward expansion of the rectum during anal intercourse frequently tears the rectal lining, resulting in spasms, colitis, cramps, and a variety of other physical responses. Furthermore, sperm can readily penetrate the rectal wall (the vagina cannot be so readily penetrated) and do massive immunological damage, leaving the body vulnerable to a bewildering variety of opportunistic infections...."

Dr Day's (and now SASOD, Seth’s and Sen’s) avoidance of these facts has in the past been particularly disturbing, as is his deferral on the issue that sodomy defines homosexuality, and to the extent that the gay population in the USA circa 1990 (1% of the total population) was responsible for more than 50% of the national cases of syphilis and gonorrhoea, he seems to willfully ignore the fact that we can expect a similarly dramatic and disproportionate effect in the contracting and spread of rectal gonorrhoea, gonorrhoea of the throat, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, herpes, CMV, urethritis, pediculosis, scabies, venereal warts and intestinal parasites in addition to the incidence of HIV. As a responsible research scientist, the only question that should occupy Dr. Day's mind at this time is: What are the facts for Guyana? India?

Surely, even if 50% of a deviant population engages in a disease-ridden activity we should consider the medical and social implications with the seriousness it deserves.

The Encyclopedia Britannica now classifies "sodomy" as including bestiality, and no less a person than the very liberal Hon. Mr. Justice Michael Kirby AC, CMG, President of the New South Wales Court Of Appeal, Sydney, Australia, during an address to the First South African Conference on Aids and the Law, 25th June 1992) seems to have been misled according to Vikram Seth’s arguments:

".... But the paradox is: if we are serious about the containment of the aids epidemic, we must enter their individual minds and get them to change their behaviour which seems central to them to the definition of their being...."

At the same time, every reader should read Ty Clevenger's law review: "Gay Orthodoxy and Academic Heresy" 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 241 (2002) ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Clevenger.doc ). This would explain why some research scientists are trying to redefine "marriage", "homosexuality" and "same-sex attraction disorders" … using percentages. Seth needs no “facts” for his “open” letter. He uses his name, star power, and his followers’ gullibility!

Perhaps the final word that will address these issues belongs to David Lee Mundy, Editor in Chief of the Regent University Law Review series:

".... So we are left with the unpopular job of setting the record straight. The legal community has a right to know, among other things, that a link exists between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children, that the American Psychiatric Association was hijacked by homosexual activists, that homosexuality is being marketed to children, that studies claiming that homosexual parenting does not harm children are questionable, that homosexuality is not immutable, and that homosexual advocates are calling for the legalization of pedophilia...."

Yours faithfully,
Roger Williams

September 26, 2006