Homosexuality is thus only one branch on the pansexual tree, a tree with branches for every known sexual practice, a tree natural to the secular/pagan Godless world of the Fall. With no relation to the Living God, there is nothing in the world to tell anyone otherwise -- neither by moral standard nor by the Image of God in which we are made, male and female.

The quest to legitimize sexual promiscuity never had an ounce of intellectual integrity, yet it has been the underground engine driving western culture since the late 19th century. It surfaced and hit the streets in the 1960's -- the so-called "sex revolution". And then the homosexual revolution in 1969 with the Stonewall riots in New York.

Today we face the astonishing situation that although few Americans, including politicians, support the homosexual agenda (recent polls tell us that nearly 70% of Americans oppose it), yet all sides assume that the legal mandating of homosexual marriage is inevitable. Homosexualists have created the illusion of an inevitable juggernaut.

People wonder how homosexual activists, representing less than 3% of the population could sway the whole nation. They can do so only with the help of the much larger pansexual group of persons who desire their sexual freedom -- whatever the brand. B. Behavior - the Achilles Heel

Some blame outlaw, runaway judges who legislate at will. But the primary fault is not with the courts, homosexual activists, or their pansexual sympathizers. Homosexual marriage is as "inevitable" only as the timidity of those who object -- who fail to confront the single vulnerable issue, the Achilles' heel of homosexualism, i.e., homosexual behavior.

Homosexual activists have successfully framed the debate as a matter of civil rights, privacy, and victimhood. The population has been so desensitized and anesthetized that the people of America will not confront them with either the facts or the consequences of their behavior.

Homosexualists cannot afford public discussion of the behavior because it is so outlandish and self-destructive. And those who oppose them have been typically too prudish, timid, or ignorant to do so. In the 34 years since the Stonewall riots ignited the homosexual revolt, no political, religious, or educational leader has stood up to lead a sustained, honest public discussion of homosexual behavior.

That is betrayal of the public, and especially of homosexual persons themselves. Truth alone sets people free.

The homosexualist mind-control effort to quell any such discussion has been astonishingly successful -- with the result that conservatives are buying "a pig in a poke" -- an unexamined pig and a public policy time-bomb. That requires remarkable revisionist "salesmanship" (read "brainwashing"). And remarkable apathy, ignorance, and naiveté among their conservative "victims".

The Episcopal Church fell to homosexual forces because the conservative leadership was either unwilling to address, or incapable of addressing, homosexual behavior. America need not go down the same path.

Their bizarre behavior is the only issue homosexual advocates cannot talk around. They can talk around Scripture, the law of God, undermining marriage, "traditional values", the constitution, or any other conservative issue. But they have to shut down discussion of behavior because they know the public would not consider their behavior moral, healthy, or mainstream America.

If the public knew what it was. C. Clearing the "PR" Fog

The public intuitively knows that something is terribly wrong. But Americans have allowed themselves to be kept sufficiently in a fog so that most persons (uncomfortably) believe that homosexual behavior is essentially benign and harmless -- just a little affectionate hugging and kissing.

The public has been kept in this fog of misinformation by the enormously successful "public relations" program, which has pictured homosexual persons as victims, and anyone who disagrees as "homophobic", "mean spirited", and denying their civil rights. So the public is pathologically hesitant to challenge homosexual behavior publicly.

But it can - must - and will be done. Despite the juggernaut illusion, the homosexual agenda is a very, very vulnerable "house of cards". Below is a logical, simple, common sense, and graceful strategy for getting the important information on the table, forcing a candid but graceful public discussion to pull the house down.

It is to be hoped that you, dear reader, will pray for guidance as to whether you are called to get equipped to make a public statement -- through one-on-one discussion, letters to the editor, testimony at board of education meetings, at political rallies and committee meetings, or through other ways of your own creative devising. If we do not address the behavior issue both gracefully and candidly, with clinical, not street, language, we can plan on losing the sexuality war.

If we lose, pastors can plan on hate-crime laws shutting down their preaching on homosexuality -- leaving the choice of fighting in court, compliance, or jail. Pastors must train their people, first in their personal spiritual life, secondly in the Godly understanding of being made in the image of God, male and female, and thirdly, how to make a difference in the public arena, especially with legislators.

Time is short. We are passing on to our children and grandchildren a battle which will cost them far more to win than it will cost us to fight here and now.

Effective resistance at public hearings requires at least a small group, not soloists (who are too easily diverted). When the first speaker is shut down or sidetracked, a second, third, and fourth speaker should be ready to bring the diverted subject (homosexual behavior and its consequences) back into focus, picking up where the previous speaker left off.

The material below will provide a head start in forming a small group who can work together to support each other so that homosexual advocates will begin to understand that whenever they get up to speak, they will have to defend homosexual behavior in public.

[For examples of how to use this strategy, visit http://theRoadtoEmmaus.org/RdLb/32Ang/Epis/00Epis.htm In the "Strategy" sections, select Fr. Fox's dialogue with the Rev. Frank Wade, and his witness at the Gene Robinson consecration.] II. Five Questions for Getting Truth into the Discussion

Reason and righteousness are fundamental aspects of both Biblical religion and of the American democratic republic. The Church is society's conscience, the State is its referee. The following five questions will lead, with moral and intellectual integrity, to a reliable conclusion to the question:

Should civil or ecclesiastical government approve the homosexual legislative agenda? Yes or No? And why?

Whatever else homosexuality might be, it is at least a behavior. We are forbidden to judge persons (which God alone can do), but we are required to judge behavior (every law, divine or civil, is a commandment to judge behavior -- our own first, and, when appropriate, that of others).

Q1. Homosexuality is a behavior. What behavior, precisely, are we being asked to approve? We do not want to buy a pig in a poke. What are the behaviors and approximate percentages of homosexual persons who engage in these behaviors?

Advocates of homosexuality will seldom volunteer to explain their sexual behavior. Rather, they deliberately hide their behavior from public discussion (see After the Ball, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, two primary homosexualist strategists, who recommend this deceit as a part of their strategy). Truthful policy-makers must learn on their own to explain the behavior -- publicly.

One begins by asking them to explain the behavior so an honest assessment can be made. Wait patiently for a clear answer. Only when they are unable or unwilling, should our side offer what we have garnered from reliable studies, asking, "Is this your understanding of typical homosexual behavior? Is this what the Church and America are being asked to approve? If you think this inaccurate, to what better studies can you point us?"

Studies from both sides focus on the same behaviors with reasonably similar figures on what percentages of homosexual persons engage in them. There is little debate about the general picture of the sadly misnamed "gay" lifestyle.

The following figures are taken from one of the largest (850 pp.) studies on this subject, "The Gay Report" (1979), by two homosexual researchers, Karla Jay and Allen Young. The pair and their respondents are stunningly candid. According to their research:

Around 99% of homosexual males engage in oral sex;
91% engage in anal sex;
82% engage in "rimming".......,
22% engage in "fisting".............,
23% engage in "golden showers".............., and
4% engage in "scat" ..............and in "mud rolling"..............

Homosexual promiscuity is enormous. A study in the New England Journal of Medicine indicates that the average active homosexual male ingests the fecal material of 23 different men each year (largely from rimming), and that the number of sexual partners averages nearly 100. Homosexual persons, per year, on average fellated 106 different men......

[FYI: type 'homosexual' along with any of the behaviors above into the Google search engine. These practices are widespread.]

Q2. What are the medical, psychological, and sociological consequences of homosexual behavior, and of defending such behavior? Put very briefly...

Medical consequences are so devastating that the average practicing homosexual person loses from 25% to 40% of his/her lifespan, typically not living beyond 50 in a culture where we average well into our 70's. Sexually transmitted diseases (STD's) commonly gotten from homosexual behavior include gonorrhea, syphilis, hepatitis A and B, anal cancer, amoebic "gay" bowel disease, and herpes.

Over 50% of American HIV/AIDS cases are contracted by practicing homosexual persons -- less than 3% of the population. The Red Cross will not accept blood from anyone who has had same-sex sex, even once, since 1977. Joel Beltz writes in World Magazine, "Here is a whole category of people in our culture today unable to perform a basic function of human society - to share their blood with their fellow human beings."

Homosexual behavior is lethal. Nearly 1,000,000 Americans have been infected with HIV -- and 400,000 have died -- of a behavior-caused, and thus preventable, disease, largely because those in the medical watchtowers have remained silent as this enemy of social order entered the gates and seized the levers of power. There is no excuse for the abysmal ignorance of the public, nor for the cowardice of medical (and other) professionals in sounding the warning.

Psychologically, the evidence shows homosexuality to be compulsive and addictive. When warned that continuing their behavior would result in a high death rate, homosexually active persons typically respond that such a request was an attack on their identity and personhood, not on their behavior. "Homosexuality is who I am, not what I do!!" The continued justification and practice of self-destructive behavior, even when warned, is evidence of a compulsive and addictive pattern.

The social consequences of the homosexual agenda include the deconstruction of marriage and of sexual morality, and the criminalization of honest discussion through "hate-crime" laws.

Marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of family. The family is the building block of society. God, not the State, created the family when He created the human race in His image, male and female. The State only recognizes, not creates, marriage. Where there is no legal proscription of homosexuality, there is then no legal barrier to same-sex marriage, nor, soon, to any of the other "pan-sexual" arrangements, all of which undermine social order.

Anti-discrimination based on "sexual orientation" opens the pansexual door, permitting pedophilia, pederasty, adultery, bestiality, polygamy, and others. Pederasty and pedophilia are largely subsets of homosexuality. Supporters of the whole range of pansexuality are already bringing cases to court, based on the recent Supreme Court decision striking down sodomy laws in Texas.

There is no bottom to this pit. One asks, "Which of these homosexual behaviors do you think God (or the State) ought to bless?" Homosexual behavior makes no more sense than playing in the toilet.

Q3. Is homosexuality a genuine inborn identity, a choice, or a compulsive, often lethal addiction?

Prior to the 1990's, no researchers on either side of the fence said either that homosexuality was genetic, inborn, or otherwise "hardwired", or that one could not change one's orientation. Alfred Kinsey, John Money, Masters and Johnson, all pansexual proponents, said that persons could change, and that it was their own business. It was difficult, but possible.

Not until the 1990's did homosexual activists discover the "PR" value of getting people to believe that their condition was "genetic" or "biologically determined". Several studies during the early and middle '90's were alleged to prove such. The claim was false. Not one of those studies has survived scientific peer review, and few, if any, researchers today will support that claim. Even some homosexual groups are now admitting the "inborn" case to have failed.

The prodigious promiscuity in disease-causing behavior, coupled with denial of lethal dangers, provides incontestable evidence that the homosexual orientation is a compulsive and addictive condition -- with practitioners looking for self-justification in a pseudo-identity.

Q4. Given the answers to #1-3 above: Would a loving person (God, or a compassionate legislator) approve homosexual behavior, or reject and forbid it? Would such behavior be consistent or inconsistent for persons made -- male and female -- in the image of a loving and reasonable God?

Love not based on objective truth is no love at all. It is betrayal. Love seeks the welfare of the beloved, not emotional bondage. Love speaks the hard truth even when it causes pain, and will not allow a person caught in bondage to define the diagnosis. A loving response does not condemn persons, but gives a candid assessment of behavior. A loving person condemns the sin precisely so that the sinner will not be condemned, neither by God nor by the behavior itself. Tough love.

In America, all civil laws proscribing behaviors harmful to persons, property, and the public good are based ultimately on Biblical moral codes, including the Ten Commandments, i.e., on the law of God. Thus, to say, as some do, that "you cannot legislate morality" is disingenuous, illogical, and contrary to historical fact. All law, without exception, is based on someone's moral code, someone's understanding of right and wrong. Morality is the only thing we legislate. Easily available evidence shows that American law is based on the Judeo-Christian revelation of the will of God, who designs laws for human benefit and prosperity. (Read, for example, Original Intent, by David Barton.)

Given the evidence above, a loving person, God, or other legislators, would say "No" to homosexual behavior.

Q5. Given the answer to #4: What should the public do (personal action, law enforcement, in the Church) about this situation?

How might Church and State go about implementing a "no" response to homosexual claims with both truth and compassion?

Honest public policy would conjoin truth, righteousness, and love. It would call an addiction an addiction, and then assist those seeking help. Honest public policy would insist on candid discussion of health issues (i.e., honest science) with appropriate public health measures. It would stop the common subversion of public health policy which betrays those very persons badly in need of honest discussion, trapped in an addiction.

Civil government faithful to its constituents would not allow activists to subvert discussion of homosexual behavior or its impact on public health and welfare. Two issues must be considered.

1. Non-Discrimination Laws: The freedom of religious communities to conduct affairs, such as hiring, and the freedom of individuals to conduct their home life according to their own moral standards must be protected. Homosexual activists are aiming at coercing employment and housing policy to enforce their pseudo-nondiscrimination, a situation already true in Canada, Europe, and in parts of America. Churches and para-church organizations would be forced to hire persons who violate the spiritual and moral base of the group. Owners of homes and apartments would be forced to share their own space with persons of a contrary moral and/or spiritual view -- as has already happened in Madison, Wisconsin.

Valid inclusiveness does not validate immoral behavior. Every law discriminates. That is the purpose of laws. The proper basis for discrimination is the moral judgement of the people, under God, through their elected legislators.

2. Hate-Crime Laws: The proper object of law is behavior, not attitude or belief. Hate-crime laws attempt to regulate feelings and attitudes to subversively gain an end they cannot attain in open discussion. They are often used to shut down the very public discussion of homosexual behavior necessary to rational public policy, and thus they violate the proper inclusiveness and pluralism necessary to a democratic republic. Honest inclusiveness or pluralism does not say that every view is right, but rather that every view is welcome into the public discussion to be tested to find out whether it is the right one for the circumstances. Views are plural, but truth is singular.

A loving church would offer the gifts of salvation: repentance, forgiveness, with restoration of innocence and reason for existence. It would hold persons accountable for good behavior, offer prayer, help in finding resources for overcoming self-destructive patterns, and provide companionship along the way. The church would offer resources for spiritual and emotional healing, and for discipleship into mature man- and womanhood.

And finally, the church would stand firmly for rational public policy which would assist in these compassionate aims.

Ergo, the Question: Should either civil or ecclesiastical government approve the homosexual legislative agenda?

The Answer: the five questions above lead to one reasonable and compassionate answer. Truth and compassion both tell us, "No."

Government regulates everything from bungee jumping, to tattoos, to cigarette smoking "for the benefit of the public". It is therefore facetious to suggest that government has no authority to craft policies to restrict sexual behaviors which adversely affect public health.

A homosexual person is entitled to the same civil rights as every other citizen -- according to the rules of honest inclusiveness and pluralism. Society is not obligated to legitimize dangerous sexual behavior any more than adultery, gambling, or drug use. The much touted privacy of homosexual behavior ("Stay our of our bedrooms!") does not mean the public is not affected. Both private and public acts of homosexual persons have profoundly affected the whole public and private order: our education system, our media, our political system, our medical system, and our Churches, often through deceit, manipulation, or intimidation. When private acts have damaging public consequences, as the homosexual agenda does, society has a legitimate interest in protecting the public from those consequences.

[NOTE: permission is given to copy and distribute this article in toto. A *.pdf or *.htm version can be found at http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22Sx/PnSx/HSx/Strtgy1pg.htm]