Wappel Releases Discussion Paper on “Sexual Orientation”

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


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


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


“While there will be those who criticize, I challenge readers who may disagree with my views, to refrain from childish name-calling, and to respond with facts and rational argument” concluded Wappel.
Copies of the Paper are available by calling (613) 995-0284 or (416) 261-8613


Letter to Members of Parliament and Senators

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

Dear Colleagues,

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

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

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

Yours very truly,
Scarborough West

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



Issues to Consider

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

Part A
Introduction 1
The Need to Define “Sexual Orientation” 2
Paedophilia 6
Bill C-41 7

Part B
Introduction 8
The Canadian Human Rights Act 9
Current Impact on Society of the Seemingly Harmless Amendments to Provincial Human Rights Codes 11
Potential Consequences if the Canadian Human Rights Act is Amended to Include”sexual orientation” 12
Politics 13
Morality 15
Response to “Talking Points” on sexual orientation issues 16

Homosexuality 17

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




“It is because of the problem of the definition of those words [sexual orientation] that we do not think they should be in the constitution. Do not ask me today to tell you what it is, because those concepts are diff cult to interpret, to define and that is why we do not want them in the constitution. ”
Jean Chrétien, while Justice Minister, before the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada, 1981




“Sexual orientation” must be defined.

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


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


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

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

There is no definition of “sexual orientation” in any dictionary.

Laws based on court interpretations are in constant flux and are never immune from challenges and change.
The Association of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Liberals, in a letter dated October 19, 1994, to some Members of Parliament wrote that

“’sexual orientation’ has a clear and unambiguous meaning in society and the law”, yet no where in the letter did the Association of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Liberals provide a definition which has been propounded by the Supreme Court of Canada, the only court whose decisions bind all lower courts. This is because there is no such definition!

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

The State of Wisconsin’s Employment Relation Act defines “sexual orientation” as meaning:
(13m) “…having a preference for heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality, having a history of such a preference or being identified with such a preference”

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

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


“Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice”
—Dr. Paul Wilson, Editor, January 1991, No. 29


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


“Heterosexuality, homosexuality, scopophilia, pedophilia—they’re all just different orientations and an individual may have a number of them.”
Dr. David Greenberg—psychiatrist with the Sexual Behaviour Clinic Hospital at the Royal Ottawa Hospital
—Ottawa Sun, July 17, 1994


“There are treatments for paedophiles. There is a common perception that there’s no cure. Well, I suppose that’s true to the extent that paedophilia is not a disease, it’s sexual orientation. People are heterosexual, they’re gay, they’re lesbian and they’re also paedophilic.”
Robert Wakefield, Criminal Lawyer
Member of the Board of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association and Director of its Ottawa Region
CBC Prime Time Magazine, October 27, 1994


“…while pedophilia is a disorder, it is also ‘a value judgement’…some may view it only as a ‘different kind of sexual orientation.’”
Dr. Fred Berlin, Professor of Psychiatry, Johns Hopkins University, as quoted in Focus on the Family Citizen.
November, 1992 p 1


“’Sexual Orientation’ is as ambiguous as ‘political orientation.’ If a law were to protect all ‘Political Orientations’ then Nazi’s, White Supremacists, violent anarchists and who knows who else is protected. Likewise, if sexual orientation is protected by law, since some people sincerely like to do almost anything imaginable sexually—child molesters, homosexuals, animal lovers [bestiality], you name it, would be equally protected.”
Dr. Paul Cameron
—Family Research Institute, Inc.


“Pedophilia, according to Money [retired professor of medical psychology and paediatrics; Johns Hopkins University], should be viewed as a sexual orientation, not a disease or disorder.”
Michael Ebert, Focus on the Family Citizen, November, 1992
—referring to statements by Dr. John Money; retired: Johns Hopkins University


“…attitudes of decency, increased tolerance and reducing discrimination are being manipulated and abused by some extreme gay activists to insidiously bring into the schools and public arena propaganda intended to lead to the acceptance of pedophilia as a ‘healthy, natural, alternative lifestyle.’”
—Dr. Joseph Berger, psychiatrist
past-member of the Toronto Board of Education
The Medical Post, February 23, 1993 p 10


“But clinical psychologist Joseph Nicolosi of the Thomas Aquinas Clinic in Encino, California, warns that the outrage may merely conceal an undercurrent of growing recognition of pedophilia as just another acceptable ‘sexual orientation’…‘The more something is made ordinary, the more often you read about it in the newspapers, the less shocking it becomes.’”
Alberta Report September 19, 1994 p 40
James R. Robertson of the Law and Government Division of the Library of Parliament said it well in his essay on “Interpreting The Term ‘Sexual Orientation’”:


“It is likely that the courts would bend over backwards to interpret ‘sexual orientation’ so as to exclude paedophilia, bestiality and other proclivities. There is, however, a theoretical possibility that the term could be interpreted broadly enough to cover such activities. The simplest way of removing any uncertainty would be to specifically include a definition of “sexual orientation” in any legislative amendment (my emphasis).”
Why take any chances? Let us define the phrase. What possible argument could there be in favour of not defining it?



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

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

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

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

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

Given that paedophile organizations have tried to associate themselves with homosexual groups, these same homosexual groups, and the government, should be demanding a definition of “sexual orientation” which would clearly exclude paedophilia and all other illegal perversions.
Bill C-41


Bill C-41 proposes in S 718.2 (a) (i) to instruct judges to give stiffer sentences if:
“(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or Physical disability or sexual orientation of the victim, or…”
There is no definition of the term “SEXUAL ORIENTATION”.
Contrast this with Canada’s Television Broadcasting Regulations. 1991, which prohibit:
“abusive comment…that…tends to…expose…a group…to hatred or contempt on the basis of:..sexual orientation”
Television Broadcasting Regulations Section 5(1)(b)
“Sexual orientation” is then defined (by exclusion) as follows:
“sexual orientation does not include the orientation towards any sexual act or activity that would constitute an offence under the Criminal Code.”
Television Broadcasting Regulations Section 5 (1.1)
Thus, we have the strange anomaly that an amendment is proposed to the Criminal Code (C-41) using a legally undefined phrase, while a regulation contains a definition of sorts. WHY?
A reasonable compromise
The McTeague amendment proposes to amend section 718.2 (a) (i) to read:
“(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate of the victim, or”
Should the Government refuse to either define the term “sexual orientation” or use specific words such as “homosexuality” in place of vague ones such as “sexual orientation”, then, I believe the McTeague amendment achieves the exact same judicial principles that section 718.2 presently seeks to achieve, without either the crystallization in law of the undefined phrase “sexual orientation” or the listing of certain categories, thereby excluding others.


Part B
While I agree with and am prepared to defend the adage that the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation (provided the activities therein are legal), equally, the legal bedroom habits of the nation have no place in the laws or the Charter of the nation.
This portion of the paper makes clear the reasons for my objections to those who would force society to regard homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle and why I see this as the inevitable result of recklessly (albeit with the best of intentions) adding “sexual orientation”, howsoever defined, as a prohibited ground of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act.
It further outlines my thesis that matters which deal with homosexuality are deeply moral, upon which a free vote must be permitted.
Finally, let me reiterate that my aversion to homosexuality, which is shared by the vast majority of Canadians, does not mean that we hate homosexuals, and certainly not any individual homosexual simply because he or she is a homosexual.
Logically, one can abhor war, without abhorring the individual participants in the war. Similarly, one can abhor homosexuality, without abhorring individual homosexuals.
The Canadian Human Rights Act


As mentioned earlier, if “sexual orientation” is put into Bill C-41 then it will undoubtedly be proposed as a prohibited ground of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Federally, the stated strategy of the radical homosexuals is to apply in court to strike down existing laws. If the courts seize jurisdiction (or if we permit them to do so) of the issue under the guise of constitutional law, then we will not get a chance to debate the same-sex couple issue. We could also be paralysed in future legislation which would incorporate homosexual issues. Any amendment Parliament would try to make in, for example, the Marriage Act (perhaps saying that marriage is deemed to be between people of the opposite sex), could be struck down as unconstitutional.


Presently, “sexual orientation” has only been “read into” the Charter by the Ontario Court of Appeal. “Sexual orientation” has not yet been “read into” the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Ontario Court of Appeal’s ruling only applies to Ontario. If “sexual orientation” is added to the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Supreme Court of Canada will, in the near future (for example, the Egan case which was heard this month on the issue of same-sex benefits) take that as a signal that Parliament wants and intends “sexual orientation” to be in section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This, despite the fact that sexual orientation was never intended to be in the Constitution. Please see the comments of Jean Chrtien made while Justice Minister (page 2).
If the phrase is read into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then, through the courts (by their own admission), the push will be on for same-sex benefits, marriages etc.. It is important to remember that Ontario’s same-sex benefit Bill was based in law on the Ontario Human Rights Code’s prohibition of discrimination on the ground of “sexual orientation”.
When Max Yalden, Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, appeared before the Human Rights Committee on March 15, 1994, he said:


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


“There’s the example of same-sex couples. I hope I have been as accurate as I can because these are very tricky waters. I have said we believe that if sexual orientation is included by the courts in the act [Canadian Human Rights Act], and even if its more obviously included by Parliament in the act [my emphasis], it would be discriminatory on the ground of sexual orientation to give benefits of one sort or another to a common-law couple and yet deny them to a same-sex couple.” Issue 2: page 12
It is also important in this debate to remember that the courts do not make laws, Parliamentarians do. This is the historic role of Parliament. Thus, it would be irresponsible for us to abdicate our historic legislative responsibility for the political expediency of “letting the courts do it”.


Current Impact on Society of the Seemingly Harmless Amendments to Provincial Human Rights Codes
—attempts to force, as the stated policy of society, that homosexuality is an acceptable, normal alternative lifestyle
—attempts to teach this lifestyle to our children (Toronto Board of Education) including teaching children that parents who tell their children otherwise are suffering from a “neurological disorder” called “homophobia” and a disease called “heterosexism”.


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


“Human rights law in Ontario includes as discrimination, conduct which, though not intended to discriminate, has an adverse impact on individuals or groups on the basis of the prohibited grounds.”
The Law Society of Upper Canada
Benchers Bulletin, September 1994


For the first time in our legal history it seems that we can discriminate without intending to discriminate. Thus, we have removed intent from culpability, thereby completely discarding centuries’ old legal principles.
Potential Consequences if the Canadian Human Rights Act is Amended to include “sexual orientation”
1) Legalization of Same-Sex Marriages
2) Immigration
—”sexual orientation” based refugee claims
—Homosexual “spousal” applications
—no mandatory testing for AIDS as it may be seen as discriminatory
Lest one think these matters farfetched, consider that, in a recent, Liberal Draft Report on Citizenship and Immigration Priorities, the following was written under the section “OBJECTIVES”; 1. Enriching the Fabric of Canadian Life:
“* develop family and related policies with reference to parents and grandparents, processing of spouses in Canada, the admission of same-sex couples and common-law spouses and associated costs” (p. 6)
3) Conflicts with Freedom of Religion
—it will become unlawful for religions to preach that homosexuality is a sin and unnatural
4) Conflicts with Freedom of Speech
—it will become unlawful to publicly avow that homosexuality is abnormal and should not be condoned
5) Tax Benefits to same-sex couples
—Why not provide these benefits to everyone living together, eg. two brothers, son & mother. Why not everyone in a loving relationship with anyone, eg. boyfriend and girlfriend?
6) Adoptions by same-sex couples
7) Legalization of present illegal perversions, such as paedophilia.
Sexual Orientation is defined in other jurisdictions.
Sexual Orientation is not legally defined in Canada in either statute or Supreme Court decision.
Proposed amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation” were not in the Liberal Plan for Canada (the Red Book).
Proposed amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation” were not in the Throne Speech.
The Liberal Party, at its May, 1994 Biennial Convention, passed the following resolution:
32. Whereas the Liberal Party is committed to the freedom and Protection of individuals,


BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada support all measures to eliminate discrimination against homosexuals and bisexuals.
The Liberal Party, at its May, 1994 Biennial Convention, defeated the following resolution:
Whereas the Liberal Party is committed to the freedom and protection of individuals,

BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada urge the government to support legislation recognizing same sex marriages and common law relationships.
Logic compels us to realize that by defeating this resolution, Liberals discriminated against homosexuals and bisexuals.
On page 92 of the Red Book, under the heading Parliamentary Reform, the following is written:


“More free votes will be allowed in the House of Commons, and individual members of Parliament will be involved in an effective pre-budget consultation process. ”
The socialist, doctrinaire NDP government in Ontario recently allowed a free vote on the issue of same-sex benefits and adoption. Can the Liberals do less?


* As of November 4, 1994, 238 petitions had been presented or filed with the Clerk—more petitions than on any other issue—asking the government not to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include the undefined phrase “sexual orientation”. The Prime Minister, when he was Justice Minister, clearly recognized the dangers and refused to put the phrase in the Constitution (page 2).
For anyone who professes belief in any religion, this should be a moral issue.
—all major world religions declare homosexuality to be a sin and contrary to the laws of the supreme Deity.
For example:


“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.”
The Holy Bible, Old Testament, Leviticus 18:22
“Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.”
The Holy Bible, New Testament, Romans 1:27


“And there was Lot when he told his people: ‘Do you indulge in a sexual practice such as no one in the Universe has ever indulged in previously? You approach men lustfully instead of women! Rather you are dissipated folk… We sent rain down on them: look how the outcome was for such criminals!’”
The Holy Koran 7: 80-84
“When Lot told his folk: ‘Do you indulge in sexual misconduct with your eyes open? Do you approach men passionately instead of women? Indeed you are folk who act out of ignorance!’ His folk’s answer was merely to say: ‘Run Lot’s family out of your town; they are people who try to keep clean!’ So We saved him and his family, except for his wife; We destined her to be one of those who stayed behind. We sent rain down upon them; how evil was such a rain for those who had been warned!”
The Holy Koran 27: 54-58


“Nor does the church incite hatred against homosexuals when it holds homosexual activities to be sinful. It measures actions against the teaching of Holy Scripture but it does not condemn persons, the judgement of whom is left up to God.”
J. Edward Troy
Bishop of Saint John, New Brunswick
—primitive tribes consider homosexuality taboo
—Page 92 of the Red Book states: “More free votes will be allowed in the House of Commons”. In our Parliamentary democracy, moral issues, such as abortion, capital punishment and euthanasia have been traditionally dealt with on the basis of a free vote. Surely a free vote should apply to this moral issue as well. [Note: the following is page 16]

Response to “Talking Points” on sexual orientation issues
They talk about human rights, yet this is not a human rights issue, since everyone has the same “rights”. Exactly what “rights” are denied homosexuals which are granted to heterosexuals? None. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to everyone, irrespective of their bedroom behaviour.
The authors are confusing “rights” with “benefits” or societal “privileges”, and it is society’s legitimate role to bestow benefits where it deems fit, and to promote what it deems appropriate to promote.
Amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act to Prohibit Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation
It was not an election commitment of the Liberal Party. It is not found in the Red Book. It is not found in the Throne Speech.
The phrase “sexual orientation” is undefined and therefore means different things to different people.
Concepts supported by Liberal Policy Conventions are not sacrosanct, and do not automatically become Liberal Government policy.
It is not a question of “fundamental human rights”. It is, however, a question of deeply held moral convictions for the vast majority of Canadians.
The Prime Minister, when he was Minister of Justice, explicitly declined to include sexual orientation in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for legitimate reasons of vagueness, yet the talking points trumpet “many court decisions” ruling that the Charter of Rights “implicitly” contains a phrase that was explicitly excluded by Parliament. This is not only an example of judges making law instead of enforcing it, it is also an example of judicial tyranny and the usurpation of Parliament’s legitimate role by the courts, who are not responsible to the people of Canada.
Most Canadians view homosexuality as abnormal. They are prepared to tolerate legal sexual activity behind closed doors, but they are not prepared to accept homosexuality as normal.
[end of page 16]
FACT: Homosexuals constitute between two to three per cent of the population.
SOURCE: Michael, Laumann, Micheals, and Gagnon
University of Chicago Study
October 1994
—homosexuals constitute 2.8 per cent of the male population and 1.4 per cent of the female population
SOURCE: Battelle Human Affairs Research Centres
Seattle, Washington
—homosexuals constitute 2.3 per cent of the population
FACT: Homosexuality is not genetic
“The genetic theory of homosexuality has been generally discarded today. Despite the interest in possible hormone mechanisms in the origin of homosexuality, no serious scientist today suggests that a simple cause-effect relationship applies.”
—Masters & Johnson
Human Sexuality: Boston 1984 p 319
Human Sexuality: Third Edition 1988 p 418
“With rare exceptions, homosexuality is neither genetic nor the result of some glandular disturbance. Homosexuals are made, not ‘born that way.’ From my 25 years’ experience as a clinical psychologist, I firmly believe that homosexuality is a learned response to early experiences and that it can be unlearned.”
—Dr. R. Kronemeyer
New York Tribune, May 6, 1983
“…in my 20 years of psychiatry I have never come across anyone with “innate homosexuality”. That notion has been a long-proclaimed gay activist political position, intended to promote the acceptance of homosexuality as a healthy, fully equal, alternative expression of human sexuality.”
Joseph Berger, MD
Assistant Professor of Psychiatry
University of Toronto
Globe & Mail February 26, 1992
“…they indicate that sexual orientation is not under the direct governance of chromosomes and genes, and that, whereas it is not foreordained by prenatal brain hormonalization, it is influenced thereby, and is also strongly dependent on postnatal socialization.”
Dr. John Money, Johns Hopkins University
“Sin, Sickness, or Status?”
American Psychologist. April, 1987 “Abstract” p 384
“I have come to the conclusion that homosexuality is largely a matter of conditioning.”
—Alfred Kinsey
Dr. Kinsey and the institute for Sex Research
New York: Harper & Row, 1972
“We’re born man, woman, and sexual beings. We learn our sexual preferences and orientations.”
William Masters and Virginia Johnson
—interview with United Press International
April 23, 1979
* There is not a shred of credible scientific evidence to demonstrate that homosexuality is genetic! If anyone tells you there is, have him/her produce the studies *
FACT: Homosexuality is a promiscuous lifestyle
SOURCE: Aids Committee of Toronto, February 1993
“Sex in the 90s” Toronto Men’s Survey of 1,295 gay and bisexual men
None 6%
1 only 17%
2-9 38% +
10-14 12%
15-24 9%
25+ 18%
Canadian Aids Society in cooperation with the University of Toronto and Laval University
“Doing it in the 90s; Gay Community Report of the Results of Men’s Survey” May, 1993
—based on interviews with more than 4,800 men in 35 Canadian cities
None 3%
One 17%
2-5 34%
6 or more 46%
—the study found that 40% of the homosexuals interviewed were in a current relationship with another man, and that of those 40% in a relationship, only 45% were sexually faithful with their partner, and 44% said that they, or their partner, or both, had had sexual relations outside the relationship, while in the relationship.
While 80% of homosexuals have had sex with multiple partners over the past year, by contrast, the recent University of Chicago Study by Michael, Laumann et al. (October, 1994) found that:
“only 3% of the adult population [including homosexual adults] had five or more sexual partners over the previous year.”
—see Washington Post article by Barbara Vobejda, October 7, 1994
Clearly then, the heterosexual promiscuity rate is infinitesimal when compared to the homosexual rate.
FACT: Homosexual activity can have adverse medical consequences
There has been much scientific research done on the medical dangers of homosexual behaviour. Some of the diseases caused by or exacerbated by homosexual activity are listed hereafter, with references.
Gay Bowel Syndrome, Colitis, tears in rectal lining penetration of the rectal wall by sperm.
David Ostrow et al., eds. Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Homosexual Men. (New York: Plenum Medical Book Co. 1982)
G. Manligit et al. “Chronic Immune Stimulation by Sperm Alloantigens”. Journal of the American Medical Association 251 (1984) pp 237-41
J. Richards et al. “Rectal Insemination Modifies Immune Responses in Rabbits”. Science 224 (1984) 390-392
Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do. Family Research Institute, Inc. 1993.
Gene Antonio, AIDS: Rage and Reality, Why Silence is Deadly. 1993 pp 103-122
Daniel C. William, Parasitic Infectious Diseases as Sexually Transmitted Infection: AIDS and Infections of Homosexual men. Pearl Ma, ed. 1989.
Urethritis, Hepatitis, Herpes, Pediculosis, Scabies, Venereal Warts, Intestinal Parasites:
E. Rueda, The Homosexual Network, Greenwich, Conn. Devin-Adair Publishers. 1982.
T. Quinn, “The Polymicrobial Origin of Intestinal Infections in Homosexual Men”. New England Journal of Medicine 309 (1983): pp 576-582
David Ostrow et al., eds. Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Homosexual Men. (New York: Plenum Medical Book Co. 1982)
L. Corey and K. Holmes, “Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men”. New England Journal of Medicine 302 (1980): 435-38.
Gerald Mandell et. al., eds., Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases, 3rd ed. (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1990) pp 2280-84
Syphilis & other Venereal Diseases
Kate Leishman, “Aids and Syphilis”: The Atlantic Monthly, January 1988, pp 20-21.
E. Rowe, Homosexual Politics (CLA, 1984) p 17.
Buchanan and Muir, Gay Times and Diseases. pp 17-18
J. Kassler, Gay Mens’ Health (New York) Harper and Row, 1983. p 38
FACT: Homosexuals have a shorter lifespan than heterosexuals
SOURCE: Paul Cameron, Ph.D and Kirk Cameron, Ph.D
“Homosexual Parents”
Family Research Institute. Inc.
Washington D.C.
—homosexuals registered a median age of death of 46 based on the analysis of 986 consecutive obituaries in a homosexual newspaper
Paul Cameron et al.
—presented at the Eastern Psychological Association’s Convention April, 1993
6,574 homosexual obituaries/death notices were examined from 18 homosexual journals over 13 years and compared with 2 conventional newspapers
Results: The average age of death of the 6,574 (including AIDS related deaths) was 39 years. For the 829 who died from non-AIDS related causes, the median age of death was 42 years. Only 9 % of those 829 deaths lived to old age. The data from obituaries of non-homosexual newspapers were similar to the U.S. average for longevity (75 years).
Mr. Wappel’s numbers are as follows:
Ottawa Office
Tel: 613-995-0284
Fax: 613-996-6309
Constituency Office
Tel: 416-261-8613
Fax: 416-261-5268