Sunday, October 29, 2017

Another REAL EXORCISM: Oct.14, 2017, from the post by Fr. Winston Fernandez Cabading


"Another post from Fr. Winston Cabading illustrating the important role of our Blessed Mother not only in the Exorcism Ministry but in the life of a true follower of Christ.
Winston Fernandez Cabading
In a real exorcism last Saturday, Oct 14, that lasted more than 3 hrs straight...
Setting: Adoration Chapel
Victim: 20+ yr old Filipino from the province. Fairly educated. Pious in upbringing. During the possessed state, the victim spoke only in Pilipino.
Exorcist: The glorious Mother of God commands you. She, who from the first moment of her conception, crushed your proud head.
Demoniac: (in a very enraged voice with spitefulness) Babae lang siya! Tao lang sya! Bakit Niya ibinigay sa kanya ang korona na dapat ay sa amin.... (trans. She is just a woman! She is merely a human being! Why did He gave her the crown that is supposed to be ours?)
Exorcist: Hail Mary full of grace...
Demoniac: Aaahhh itigil ninyo yan nakakabingi ang pangalan na yan! PI ninyo papatayin namin kayo! (trans. Stop it! Her name is deafening! (cuss word) We will kill you all!)
Exorcist: (reciting the Dominican Litany to Mary to be said during tribulations) Mary, abode of the Angels. Pray for us.
Demoniac: (with a terrifying scream then growling) Aaaaahhhh. Itigil ninyo yan. (trans. Stop it!)
Exorcist: Holy Mary, abode of the angels (repeated 10x)
Demoniac: Aaaaahhhh. Hindi kami pumayag na iluklok siya mas mataas pa sa amin. Ngunit pinlano Niya lahat iyon na ibigay sa kanya ang kaluwalhatian. Dahil sa kanya itinapon kami. (trans. We did not accede to have her placed higher than us. But He planned it all to give to her the glory. Because of this we were cast out!.)
Exorcist : (inviting those assisting him to sing the Salve Regina in latin)
Demoniac: PI ninyo bakit ninyo sya tinatawag? Tao lang sya! Hindi sya diyos! (trans. (cuss words) Why are you calling on her? She is merely a human being! She is not a god!)
Exorcist and assistants: Eia ergo advocata nostra... O clemens, o pia... o dulcis Virgo Maria...
Demoniac: (in shrieking terror as if terrified with what it sees) Aaaaaaah! Itigil ninyo yan! Tama na hirap na hirap na kami! (trans. Stop it! Stop it! We are already in terrible suffering!)
Demoniac: (returns to conscious state from trance state.)
Exorcist: (addressing the victim to test if it is really the victim) Say from your heart "Praise be Jesus and Mary!
Victim: Praise be Jesus and M... Nooooo! (enters into trance and possessed state again)
Demoniac: Hindi namin sya pupurihin kailanman! Tao lang sya! (trans. We will never glorify her! She is just a human being!)
Exorcist: O August Queen of Heaven! Sovereign Mistress of the angels! Thou who from the beginning hast received from God the power and mission to crush the head of Satan, we humbly beseech thee to send thy holy Legions, that, under thy command and by thy power, they may pursue the evil spirits,...
Demoniac: (in a horrified scream) Itigil ninyo yan! Nahihirapan na kami. Galit kami sa babaeng iyan! Siya ang sumira ng lahat ng plano namin... (trans. Shut up! We are in agony. We hate that woman! She is the one that destroyed all our plans!)
Exorcist: Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us (repeating 10x)
Demoniac: (in a surrendering yet angry and defiant tone) Napakalinis niya. Galit kami sa babaeng iyan! Wala kaming kapangyarihan laban sa kanya! (trans. She is immaculate. We abhor that woman! We do not have power over her!)
Lesson learned: Demons may say anything against the Blessed Virgin Mary. But they are truly terrified of her. For they know by her humility, faith in God, and yes to the message of an angel, God became flesh, and the devil's plan was destroyed forever. All who hate her, therefore, align themselves with the devil who abhors her extremely. I have seen the virulence of the devil and his minions of fallen angels against the Blessed Mother and it is not too far from the virulence of some "Christians" against her."
Entire article reposted from: https://www.facebook.com/exorcismphilippines/

Saturday, October 28, 2017

REAL EXORCISM: Reactions of a demoniac during particular prayers, Sept. 27, 2017

"A post from Fr. Winston Cabading, OP, one of the exorcists in the Archdiocese of Manila. Our Beloved Mother Mary really never fails to pray for us. ❤️

Winston Fernandez Cabading
Here are snippets of the reactions of a demoniac during particular prayers in a real exorcism dated September 24, 2017 that lasted more than 3 hours straight.
Setting: Adoration Chapel
Victim: 20+ yr old Filipina who came from a rural area. During the entire possession state, she spoke in straight English with no local accent whatsoever, as if a native speaker of that language, sometimes she spoke in clear Spanish.
Exorcist: (kneeling before the exposed Blessed Sacrament) O Sacrament Most Holy, O Sacrament Divine, all praise and all thanksgiving be every moment Thine.
Demoniac: (with a mocking laughter) Why are you worshipping that “pan”? Worship me instead. I am immortal and powerful. He just gave you bread, nothing more. (Followed by a growl)
Exorcist: (commanding the demon to worship God) Kneel before His holy presence in the Eucharist, unclean spirit! Kneel and worship Him, your Creator and God!
Demoniac: Neverrrrrrrr!
Exorcist: (instructing all those assisting him to kneel before the Blessed Sacrament with heads bowed) O Sacrament Most Holy, O Sacrament Divine, all praise and all thanksgiving…
Demoniac: (shouting with fury) Do not worship Him! Worship me! He gives you nothing! I can give you everything! I own the world! I own everything in it! I can give it to you!
Exorcist: Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts. Heaven and earth are full of your glory…
Demoniac: (Hissing and cursing) We were there, glorious and immortal. He threw us out of His presence. We did not accept His plan for you.
Exorcist: (praying the Litany of the Saints) Lord, have mercy on us…Christ, have mercy on us…Lord, have mercy on us.
Demoniac: (with a snarled voice and mocking) There is no mercy for you. You are just like us. Rebellious, disobedient, sinnnnerrrrrs!
Exorcist: Holy Mary, pray for us.
Demoniac: (face tightening) No! Stop it! Do not call that woman!
Exorcist: St. Michael…St. Gabriel…St. Raphael…
Demoniac: (a change in the pronoun used by the demoniac from first person plural to singular) I was more glorious than them. Aaaaahhhhh (in a very furious tone). Call on me and I will answer you!
Exorcist: (calling on each of the saints in the litany) St. Joseph…St. Augustine… St. Dominic…
Demoniac: (answering the litany with rage) Sinners! Sinners! Sinners all of them!
Exorcist: From all evil, deliver us O Lord… From all sin…
Demoniac: (jeering) You ask God to deliver you from evil and sin? You love sin. That is why we are here with you. Your sin will all destroy you. In a few years the whole world will be ours because of you. Darkness will cover you all. (laughing with scorn) Do you not see it and experience it? It is already here.
Exorcist: That you govern and preserve your holy Church, we beg you to hear us.
Demoniac: I will destroy her!
Exorcist: That you humble the enemies of holy Church…
Demoniac: You are her enemies. These priests and religious that serve her. (then started to laugh with scorn) they are all unfaithful. They invited us even in their own houses with the things they do and practice. We will destroy them all from the inside. (then looking with raging eyes on one religious sister who was assisting) Yes, sister, your congregation has nothing of the holiness of your father (mentioning the name of a great saint where the congregation takes its inspiration). We will destroy you soon. We are already inside.
Exorcist: That you lift up our minds to heavenly desires, we beg you to hear us.
Demoniac: You all desire sin more than heaven. You do more evil things. (sneering laughter)
Exorcist: (started praying in latin using the Ritual) Praecipio tibi, quicumque es, spiritus immunde, et omnibus sociis tuis hanc dei famulan obsidentibus: ut per mysteria incarnationis, passionis, resurrectionis et ascensionis Domini nostri Jesu Christi, per missionem Spiritus Sancti, et per adventum ejusdem Domini nostri at judicium, dicas clare mihi nomen tuum, dicas clare mihi nomen tuum, dicas clare mihi nomen tuum, dicas clare mihi nomen tuum, dicas clare mihi nomen tuum…
Demoniac: Satanas! Padre, I know your sins…I will accuse you all at the hour of your death.
Exorcist: (repeating the command) Dicas clare mihi nomen tuum…
Demoniac: Lucifer! You think you worship God, Padre? Humanity worships me everytime. They worship me in their movies, their music, and their dances. (then in a whisper) I am there whenever they only please themselves. (scorning laughter). You are wasting your time, Padre. She is ours, the world is ours. Humanity has rejected God.
Exorcist: Prorsus in omnibus obedias! Prorsus in omnibus obedias! Prorsus in omnibus obedias!
Demoniac: (growling voice) How dare you command us? You are just a man. We are immortal! You are just a priest. We are more powerful!
Exorcist: Prorsus in omnibus obedias!
Demoniac: We will not subject ourselves to you! Aaaahhh (as if in terrible agony)
Exorcist: Our Father…
Demoniac: He is no father to you. You do not listen to Him…. Stop that praying!
Assisting Sister: (started singing all joined her) Hail Mary, full of grace…
Demoniac: Stop that! Stop that! Stop that! She is just a woman! Damn you!
Assisting Sister and everyone: …pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death…
Demoniac: (growling) That woman never stops praying for you!
Exorcist: (instructing the sister and the others to sing the Salve Regina in latin)
Demoniac: Your queen is no queen to us! But He made her truly the queen! Damn her! Damn her! She destroyed everything!
Exorcist: (called everyone to recite the Nicene Creed) I believe in God the Father Almighty, …I believe in Jesus Christ …for us men and for our salvation, He came down from heaven…
Demoniac: (hissing and shouting expletives) There is no salvation for you!
Exorcist: (repeating that line over and over again) For us men and for our salvation, He came down from heaven…
Demoniac: (in exasperation) Nooooooooooo! Why should he become man? Why not become like us? He chose you over us! He chose you over us!
Exorcist: For us men and for our salvation, He came down from heaven. And by the power of the Holy Spirit, He became incarnate of the Virgin Mary and became man.
Demoniac: (infuriated) He chose her! He chose her to be His mother! Had we known it will be her, we would have killed her in the womb!
Exorcist: He will come again in glory to judge the living and dead and His kingdom will have no end…
Demoniac: (terrified) We suffer, we suffer terribly and fear the day of judgment to come.
Exorcist: Holy God, Holy Mighty One, Holy Immortal One, have mercy on us and the whole world. (repeating 10x)
Demoniac: He should not be merciful to you. Yet, He has shown you mercy. You are all sinners and we will not stop until we bring you to damnation. We will bring many with us to hell!
Exorcist: Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins. Save us from the fires of hell. Bring all souls to heaven, especially those who need most Thy mercy.
Demoniac: (surrendering but defiant) Noooooo!
Lessons Learned: Jesus is truly present in the Holy Eucharist. The devil recognizes that reality and fears it tremendously. But he sees the irreverent disposition of some Catholics toward the Blessed Sacrament and this gives him the opportunity to blaspheme it just like what some Christians do. Satan indeed is the accuser of mankind before God. He accuses us night and day. Lucifer wants to be worshiped like God and whenever we sin, the devil is emboldened. He is indeed a murderer from the beginning. Our hope is in God. Our Savior Jesus Christ came to save us. The devil is infuriated because of this. The Mother of God and the Saints in heaven unceasingly pray for our salvation. The Blessed Mother’s purity terrifies the demons. The devil will try their best to bring many to perdition. However, no matter how they try, when God stretches His hand of mercy, man will still be saved. Blessed be God! Blessed be His Holy Name! Pray unceasingly.
Share if you want to those who can be helped in their faith by this story. Comment if it has helped you."
Repost from: https://www.facebook.com/exorcismphilippines/

Thursday, February 11, 2016

Collective-evolution.com:1947 Rockefeller Patent Shows Origins Of Zika Virus: And What About Those Genetically Modified Mosquitoes?


Below article was copy-pasted from:

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/02/04/1947-rockefeller-patent-shows-origins-of-zika-virus-and-what-about-those-genetically-modified-mosquitoes/

------------

1947 Rockefeller Patent Shows Origins Of Zika Virus: And What About Those Genetically Modified Mosquitoes?

31

ROCK

 advertisement - learn more
As you’ve probably already heard, the World Health Organization (WHO) recently made an announcement declaring the Zika virus to be a global health emergency. They did so without providing much detail about the disease, however, so here is some more information and answers to questions many people are asking, such as: Where did it come from? And do the millions of genetically modified mosquitoes that have been released in these areas have anything to do with it?
First of all, this sexually-transmitted virus has been around for approximately 70 years, and is actually marketed by two companies, but before we get to that, let’s find out who owns the patent on the virus. It’s the Rockefeller Foundation.
ZIKA
As PBS points out:
Zika is a flavivirus, which is pronounced a bit a like flavor. Flay-v-virus. Most viruses in this family are carried by arthropods — mosquitoes and ticks. We’ve known about Zika virus since at least 1947, when researchers from the Rockefeller Foundation put a rhesus monkey in a cage in the middle of Zika Forest of Uganda. The team was conducting surveillance for yellow fever. But “Rhesus 766” would ultimately become the first known carrier of Zika virus. (It remains unconfirmed if monkeys or other animals are consistent carriers — or reservoirs — for the disease).
The virus is also marketed by two companies, LGC Standards (headquartered in the UK) and ATCC (headquartered in the US).
As Gulliaume Kress from Global Research writes:
The LGC Group is:
…the UK’s designated National Measurement Institute for chemical and bioanalytical measurements and an international leader in the laboratory services, measurement standards, reference materials, genomics and proficiency testing marketplaces.
One of its branches, LGC Standards, is:
…a leading global producer and distributor of reference materials and proficiency testing schemes. Headquartered in Teddington, Middlesex, UK, LGC Standards has a network of dedicated sales offices extending across 20 countries in 5 continents and more than 30 years experience in the distribution of reference materials. These high quality products and services are essential for accurate analytical measurement and quality control, ensuring sound decisions are made based on reliable data. We have an unparalleled breadth of ISO Guide 34 accredited reference material production in facilities at 4 sites across the UK, the US and Germany.
LGC Standards entered into a partnership with ATCC, of which the latter is:
…the premier global biological materials resource and standards organization whose mission focuses on the acquisition, authentication, production, preservation, development, and distribution of standard reference microorganisms, cell lines, and other materials. While maintaining traditional collection materials, ATCC develops high quality products, standards, and services to support scientific research and breakthroughs that improve the health of global populations.
This “ATCC-LGC Partnership” is designed to facilitate:
…the distribution of ATCC cultures and bioproducts to life science researchers throughout Europe, Africa, and India and […] to make access to the important resources of ATCC more easily accessible to the European, African, and Indian scientific communities through local stock holding of more than 5,000 individual culture items supported by our local office network delivering the highest levels of customer service and technical support.

Where Do Genetically Modified Mosquitoes Fit Into The Picture?

A recent article published by The Antimedia first brought to the world’s attention the fact that millions of of Genetically Modified Mosquitoes had been released in Brazil. This is where Oxitec first unveiled its large-scale, genetically modified mosquito farm in July 2012 with the goal of reducing the incidence of dengue fever.
Oxitec has already released a large number of GM olive flies that were used to kill off wild pests that damage crops. In the Cayman Islands, 3 million GM mosquitoes were released, and in this case over 90 percent of the original natural native mosquito population was suppressed. The same results were also seen in Brazil. (source)
On the other side of the coin, genetically modified mosquitoes are now being proposed as a solution to stop the spread of such viruses. Livescience recently published an article alluding to that, as did The Globe and Mail, while other media sources, such as RT news, are reporting that these GM mosquitoes could be linked to the virus.
It is difficult to separate fact from fiction here. The point is, however, that when it comes to GM insects, there are many things to be concerned about, one being, what happens if someone receives a bite from one of these mosquitoes?
“Will their GM DNA be injected into your arm or leg? Oxitec has counteracted this objection by stating they only plan to release male mosquitoes, which don’t bite. This again sounds good in theory… but in reality, sorting millions of insects according to sex is no small feat. And even FKMCD notes that although ‘every effort is made to release only males,’ Oxitec trials show that .03 percent of the mosquitoes released are female.” -Dr. Joseph Mercola (source)
If you think about it, with millions of mosquitoes released, we are still talking about thousands of mosquitoes that can bite. Estimates of genetically modified insects that have been released into the environment are between 50-100 million. What about the environmental health impacts report? And what about the synthetic DNA from the bites? Who is tracking all of this stuff, and how exactly do you track it? Why are we just assuming everything is okay, without any evidence to back it up?
The potential exists for these genes, which hop from one place to another, to infect human blood by finding entry through skin lesions or inhaled dust. Such transmission could potentially wreak havoc with the human genome by creating “insertion mutations” and other unpredictable types of DNA damage. (source)
According to Alfred Handler, a geneticist at the Agriculture Department in Hawaii, mosquitoes can develop resistance to the lethal gene and might then be released inadvertently. (source)
Todd Shelly, an entomologist for the Agriculture Department in Hawaii, said 3.5 percent of the insects in a laboratory test survived to adulthood, despite presumably carrying the lethal gene. (source)
Another factor to consider is this:
Tetracycline and other antibiotics are now showing up in the environment, in soil and surface water samples. These GM mosquitoes were designed to die in the absence of tetracycline (which is introduced in the lab in order to keep them alive long enough to breed). They were designed this way assuming they would NOT have access to that drug in the wild. With tetracycline exposure (for example, in a lake) these mutant insects could actually thrive in the wild, potentially creating a nightmarish scenario. (source)
Dr Helen Wallace, director of GeneWatch UK, warned about the GM fruit flies that were released a couple of years ago:
Releasing Oxite’s GM fruit flies is a deeply flawed approach to reducing numbers of these pests, because large numbers of their offspring will die as maggots in the fruit. Not only does this fail to protect the crop, millions of GM fruit fly maggots (most dead, but some alive) will enter the food chain where they could pose risks to human health and the environment. Oxitec’s experiments should not go ahead until rules for safety testing and plans for labelling and segregation of contaminated fruits have been thoroughly debated and assessed. If these issues are ignored, growers could suffer serious impacts on the market for their crops. (source)
It’s also important to note that there is there is no specific regulatory process for GM insects anywhere in the world.
Wallace went on to state that:
Regulatory decisions on GM insects in Europe and around the world are being biased by corporate interests as the UK biotech company Oxitec has infiltrated decision-making processes around the world. The company has close links to the multinational pesticide and seed company, Syngenta. Oxitec has already made large-scale open releases of GM mosquitoes in the Cayman Islands, Malaysia and Brazil and is developing GM agricultural pests, jointly with Syngenta. (source)(source)
“The public will be shocked to learn that GM insects can be released into the environment without any proper oversight. Conflicts of interest should be removed from all decision making processes to ensure the public have a proper say about these plans.” – Dr Helen Wallace, Director of GeneWatch UK (source)
Environmental NGOs like Greenpeace suggest that GM insects could have unintended and wide ranging impacts on the environment and human health due to the complexity of ecosystems and the high number of unknown factors which make risk assessment difficult. These companies have raised a number of concerns which include: (source)
  • New insects or diseases may fill ecological niche left by the insects suppressed or replaced, possibly resulting in new public health or agricultural problems
  • The new genes engineered into the insects may jump into other species, a process called horizontal transfer, causing unintended consequences to the ecosystem
  • Releases would be impossible to monitor and irreversible, as would any damage done to the environment
A briefing done by these organizations also shows that Oxitec is trying to influence regulatory processes for GM insects, that they: (source)
  • Don’t want to be liable for any complications
  • Try to avoid any regulation of GM agricultural pests on crops appearing in the food chain
  • Exclude important issues from risk assessments, like the impact on human health
  • Release of large amounts of GM insects prior to regulations
  • Undermining the requirement to obtain informed consent for experiments involving insect species which transmit disease

Saturday, January 2, 2016

Science Facts On Same-sèx Marriage

Getting the Facts: Same-Sex Marriage

Society has a vested interest in prohibiting behavior that endangers the health or safety of the community. Because of this, homosexual liaisons have historically been forbidden by law. Homosexuals also do a poor job of raising healthy, well socialized children.
Homosexuals contend that their relationships are the equivalent of marriage between a man and woman. They demand that society dignify and approve of their partnerships by giving them legal status as ‘marriages.’ They further argue that homosexuals should be allowed to become foster-parents or adopt children.
The best scientific evidence suggests that putting society’s stamp of approval on homosexual partnerships would harm society in general and children in particular. A large body of scientific evidence suggests that homosexual marriage is a defective counterfeit of traditional marriage and that it poses a clear and present danger to the health of the community and children’s well-being.
Traditional marriage improves the health of its participants, has the lowest rate of domestic violence, prolongs life, and is the best context in which to raise children. Homosexual coupling undermines its participants’ health, has the highest rate of domestic violence, shortens life, and is a poor environment in which to raise children.

THE FACTS ABOUT HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE

Fact #1: Homosexual Marriages Are Short Lived

When one examines homosexual behavior patterns, it becomes clear that the plea for legal homosexual marriage is less about marriage than the push for legitimacy. Most gays and lesbians are not in monogamous relationships, and in fact often live alone by preference.
  • In a study1 of 2,000 U.S. and European gays in the 1960s, researchers found that “living by oneself is probably the chief residential pattern for male homosexuals. It provides the freedom to pursue whatever style of homosexual life one chooses, whether it be furtive encounters in parks or immersion in the homosexual subculture. In addition, homosexual relationships are fragile enough to make this residential pattern common whether deliberate or not.”
  • A 1970 study in San Francisco2 found that approximately 61% of gays and 37% of lesbians were living alone.
  • In 1977, the Spada Report3 noted that only 8% of the gays in its sample claimed to have a monogamous relationship with a live-in lover.
  • The same year4 over 5,000 gays and lesbians were asked: “Do you consider or have you considered yourself ‘married’ to another [homosexual]?” Only 40% of lesbians and 25% of gays said “yes.” The authors noted that with “gay male couples, it is hard to even suggest that there are norms of behavior. [One] might expect to find a clear pattern of ‘categories’ emerging from the answers to the questions about lovers, boy friends, and relationships. In fact, no such pattern emerged.”
  • In the early 1980s, a large non-random sample5 of almost 8,000 heterosexual and homosexual couples responded to advertisements in alternative newspapers. The average number of years together was 9.8 for the married, 1.7 for cohabiting heterosexuals, 3.5 for the gay couples, and 2.2 for the lesbian couples.

Variety Over Monogamy

Although gay activists often argue that legalizing homosexual marriage would help make such relationships more permanent, the reality is that most gays desire variety in their sex partners, not the monogamy of traditional marriage.
  • In 1987, only 23% of gays in London6 reported sexual exclusivity “in the month before interview.”
  • In 1990, only 12% of gays in Toronto, Canada7 said that they were in monogamous relationships.
  • In 1991, in the midst of the AIDS crisis, Australian gays8 were monitored to see whether they had changed their sexual habits. There was essentially no change in 5 years: 23% reported a monogamous relationship, 35% a non-monogamous relationship, and 29% only “casual sex.” The authors reported that “there were almost as many men moving into monogamy as out of it, and out of casual-only partnerships as into them.” [emphasis added]
  • In 1993, a study9 of 428 gays in San Francisco found that only 14% reported just a single sexual partner in the previous year. The vast majority had multiple sex partners.
  • In 1994, the largest national gay magazine10 reported that only 17% of its sample of 2,500 gays claimed to live together in a monogamous relationship.
  • Even gays who do have long-term partners do not play by the typical ‘rules.’ Only 69% of Dutch gays11 with a marriage-type ‘partner’ actually lived together. The average number of “outside partners” per year of ‘marriage’ was 7.1 and increased from 2.5 in the first year of the relationship to 11 in the 6th year.

Why are homosexual marriages shorter and less committed than traditional marriages?

At any given time, less than a third of gays and approximately half of lesbians are living with a lover. Because the relationships are so short, the average homosexual can anticipate many, many ‘divorces.’
At any instant, about 10% of gays live together in monogamous relationships. Their monogamy seldom lasts beyond a year. Perhaps half of lesbians live together in monogamous relationships. These typically dissolve in one to three years.
These same patterns appear in the scientific literature over the last 50 years — both long before and during the AIDS epidemic. This consistency suggests a reality associated with the practice of homosexuality, one unlikely to be affected by changes in marriage laws.

The Scandinavian experience

In Denmark, a form of homosexual marriage has been legal since 1989. Through 1995, less than 3% of Danish homosexuals had gotten married, and 28% of these marriages had already ended in divorce or death.12 The Danish experience provides no evidence that gay ‘marriage’ is beneficial. Men who married men were three times more apt to be widowers before the age of 55 than men who married women! Similarly, a woman who married a woman was three times more apt to be a widow than a woman who married a man.
Though only about 3% of gays get married in Norway and Sweden, gay marriages more frequently result in divorce. In these countries, divorce is about 50% more likely in male homosexuals, and 200% more likely in lesbians. Furthermore, reversing the usual excuse of ‘staying together for the sake of the kids,’ divorce was more common if children lived with the same-sex couple.13

Fact #2: Studies Show Homosexual ‘Marriage’ Is Hazardous To One’s Health

Across the world, numerous researchers have reported that ‘committed’ or ‘coupled’ homosexuals are more apt than ‘single’ gays to engage in highly risky and biologically unsanitary sexual practices. As a consequence of this activity, they increase their chances of getting AIDS and other sexually transmitted or blood-borne diseases.
  • In 1983, near the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, gays in San Francisco14 who claimed to be in “monogamous relationships” were compared to those who were not. Without exception, those in monogamous relationships more frequently reported that they had engaged in biologically unhealthful activity during the past year. As examples, 4.5% of the monogamous vs. 2.2% of the unpartnered had engaged in drinking urine, and 33.3% vs. 19.6% claimed to practice oral-anal sex.
  • In 1989, Italian researchers15 investigated 127 gays attending an AIDS clinic. Twelve percent of those without steady partners vs. 28% of those with steady partners were HIV+. The investigators remarked that “to our surprise, male prostitutes did not seem to be at increased risk, whereas homosexuals who reported a steady partner (i.e., the same man for the previous six months) carried the highest relative risk.”
  • During 1991-92, 677 gays in England16 were asked about “unprotected anal sex.” Those who had ‘regular’ partners reported sex lives which were “about three times as likely to involve unprotected anal sex than partnerships described as ‘casual/one-night stands.’” Sex with a regular partner “was far more important than awareness of HIV status in facilitating high-risk behaviour.”
  • A 1993 British sexual diary study17 of 385 gays reported that men in “monogamous” relationships practiced more anal intercourse and more anal-oral sex than those without a steady partner. It concluded that “gay men in a Closed relationship… exhibit… the highest risk of HIV transmission.”
  • In 1992, a sample18 of 2,593 gays from Tucson, AZ and Portland, OR reinforced the consistent finding that “gay men in primary relationships are significantly more likely than single men to have engaged in unprotected anal intercourse.”
  • Similarly, a 1993 sample19 of gays from Barcelona, Spain practiced riskier sex with their regular partners than with casual pick-ups.
  • Even a 1994 study20 of over 600 lesbians demonstrated that “the connection between monogamy and unprotected sex,… was very consistent across interviews. Protected sex was generally equated with casual encounters; unprotected sex was generally equated with trusting relationships. Not using latex barriers was seen as a step in the process of relational commitment. Choosing to have unprotected sex indicated deepening trust and intimacy as the relationship grew.”

Why is homosexual ‘marriage’ a health hazard?

While married people pledge and generally live up to their vows of sexual faithfulness, participants in both gay and lesbian ‘marriages’ offer each other something quite different. They see shared biological intimacy and sexual risk-taking as a hallmark of trust and commitment. Being exposed in this way to the bodily discharges of their partner increases the risk of disease, especially so if that partner was ‘married’ to someone else before or engaged in sex with others outside the relationship.
The evidence is strong that both gays and lesbians are more apt to take biological risks when having sex with a partner than when having casual sex. The evidence is also strong that gays disproportionately contract more disease, especially AIDS and the various forms of hepatitis, from sex with ‘partners’ than they do from sex with strangers.
Like male homosexuals, ‘married’ lesbians are more apt to engage in biological intimacy and risk-taking. However, death and disease rates for unpartnered lesbians appear to be as high as among the partnered.

Fact #3: Homosexual ‘Marriage’ Has the Highest Rate of Domestic Violence

Domestic violence is a public health concern. Among heterosexuals, not only is it an obvious marker of a troubled marriage, but media attention and tax dollars to aid ‘battered women’ have both grown tremendously in recent years. What is not reported is the empirical evidence suggesting that homosexual couples have higher rates of domestic violence than do heterosexual couples.21
In 1996,22 Susan Holt, coordinator of the domestic violence unit of the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center, said that
“domestic violence is the third largest health problem facing the gay and lesbian community today and trails only behind AIDS and substance abuse… in terms of sheer numbers and lethality.”
The average rate of domestic violence in traditional marriage, established by a nationwide federal government survey23 of 6,779 married couples in 1988, is apparently less than 5% per year. During their most recent year of marriage, 2.0% of husbands and 3.2% of wives said that they were hit, shoved or had things thrown at them. Unmarried, cohabiting heterosexuals report24 higher rates of violence — a rate of about 20% to 25% per year.
When the same standard is applied to gay and lesbian relationships, the following evidence emerges:
  • In 1987 in Georgia,25 48% of 43 lesbian couples, and 39% of 39 gay couples reported domestic violence.
  • In 1988, 70 lesbian and gay students participated in a study26 of conflict resolution in gay and lesbian relationships. Adjusted upward because only one partner in the couple was reporting (i.e., the researchers got “only one side of the story”), an estimated 29% of gay and 56% of lesbian couples experienced violence in the past year.
  • In 1989, 284 lesbians were interviewed27 who were involved “in a committed, cohabitating lesbian relationship” during the last 6 months. Adjusted for reports by just one partner, an estimated 43% of the relationships were violent in the past year.
  • In 1990, nearly half of 90 lesbian couples in Los Angeles reported28 domestic violence yearly. 21% of these women said that they were mothers. Interestingly, of those mothers who had children living with them, 11 lived in “violent” and 11 in “nonviolent” relationships. Thus, unlike traditional marriage where parents will often forego fighting to shield the children from hostility, there was no evidence from this investigation that the presence of youngsters reduced the rate of domestic violence.
Overall, the evidence is fairly compelling that homosexual domestic violence exceeds heterosexual domestic violence. The limited scientific literature suggests that physical domestic violence occurs every year among less than 5% of traditionally married couples, 20% to 25% of cohabiting heterosexuals, and approximately half of lesbian couples. The evidence is less certain for gays, but their rate appears to fall somewhere between that for unmarried, cohabiting heterosexuals and lesbians.

Homosexual domestic violence is a bigger problem than ‘gay bashing’

Gay activists and the media are quick to assert that discriminatory attitudes by ‘straight’ society lead directly to violence against homosexuals (i.e., ‘gay bashing’). In fact, evidence suggests that homosexual domestic violence substantially exceeds — in frequency and lethality — any and all forms of ‘gay bashing.’ That is, the violence that homosexuals do to one another is much more significant than the violence that others do to homosexuals.
In 1995, a homosexual domestic violence consortium conducted a study29 in six cities — Chicago, Columbus, Minneapolis, New York, San Diego, and San Francisco — where reports of anti-homosexual harassment or same-sex domestic violence were tabulated.
The harassment incidents ranged from name calling (e.g., ‘faggot,’ ‘queer’) to actual physical harm or property damage. Homosexual domestic violence, on the other hand, referred only to incidents in which actual physical harm occurred or was seriously threatened (i.e., met the legal standard for domestic violence).
The results? Nationwide,30 as well as in these cities, around half of anti-homosexual harassment reports in 1995 involved only slurs or insults, thus not rising to the level of actual or threatened physical violence. In San Francisco, there were 347 calls about same-sex domestic violence and 324 calls about anti-homo-sexual harassment. In three of the five other cities there were also more calls reporting same-sex domestic violence than anti-homosexual harassment. The same ratio was reported for the study as a whole.
Given that half of the harassment reports did not rise to the level of violence, while domestic violence meant exactly that, if the data gathered by this consortium of homosexuals corresponds to the underlying reality, the physical threat to homosexuals from same-sex domestic violence is at least twice as great as the physical threat they experience from ‘the outside.’
Rather than being a ‘shelter against the storms of life,’ as traditional marriage is sometimes characterized, being homosexually partnered actually increases the physical dangers associated with homosexuality.

Fact #4: Empirical Evidence Demonstrates That Homosexuals Make Poor Parents

Fewer than 40 comparative studies on the effects of homosexual parents have been published. Only one31 was based on a random sample, and another32 followed the children for 14 years. The rest were based on small samples of volunteers, and those usually with children under the age of 10. These studies seldom addressed traditional concerns — for instance, molestation, or recruitment by parents or their lovers. Nor did they tend to consider the effects on teenagers. Instead they were ‘snapshots’ of a particular moment in the lives of these children. Yet the empirical evidence supports what common sense would expect.

Molestation and incest

In the one random survey,31 28 (0.6%) of 4,600 children with non-homosexual parents reported sex with their parents or stepparents. By contrast, for children with homosexual parents, 3 of 6 sons reported sex with their father (2 of the 3 said they were homosexual as adults) and 2 of 11 daughters reported sex with a stepmother. In the only other relevant study,34 1 of 11 adult sons with homosexual fathers reported having been seduced by him.
A review of 78 appeals-court cases (through 1998) involving one homosexual and one heterosexual parent — contesting custody of 142 children — revealed 4 cases of molestation involving homosexual parents, but none involving the heterosexual parents. In another 154 custody cases involving heterosexuals used as a study control, one stepfather molested his stepdaughter.35 In one of the five clinical studies of children of homosexuals,36 a client complained that his lesbian mother had forced him to have his first sexual experience with a homosexual.
It is difficult to obtain facts regarding the nation’s foster children. Nevertheless, in 2003, responding to a Freedom of Information request, the state of Illinois reported that from 1997-2002, of 270 foster- or adoptive-parents who engaged in “substantiated” sexual abuse, 34% were homosexuals.37 An exhaustive review of the 50 largest-circulation newspapers and wire services from 1980 through 2003 found that 169 foster parents had sexually abused 351 foster children.38 Of these, 88% were men and 53% of these men practiced homosexuality.
The same study found that in 21 “group home” stories, the molestation was homosexual in 71%. Also, at least 334 of the 349+ victims in group homes were boys. Findings from both individual placements and group homes indicate a disproportionate homosexual footprint in the sexual molestation of foster children.

School and family life

Children with homosexual parents lead troubled lives. The only randomly drawn sample31 found 17 who reported a homosexual parent. These 17 were more likely to report sex with a parent, to engage in homosexuality for their first sexual encounter, to be sexually molested, to become homosexual, and to report dissatisfaction with their childhood.
The largest comprehensive comparative study was based upon teacher-reports as well as interviews with the students and their parents.40 58 elementary school children being raised by homosexual couples were closely matched (by age, sex, grade in school, and social class) with 58 children of cohabiting heterosexual parents, and 58 children of married parents. Children with married parents did best at math and language skills, second-best in social studies, were most active in sports, experienced the highest levels of parental involvement at school and at home (their parents also most closely monitored them at home), and had parents with the highest expectations for them.
Children of cohabiting heterosexuals were in-between, while children of homosexuals scored somewhat higher in social studies, lowest in math and language skills, were least popular (often socially isolated), most restrained and formal, experienced the lowest levels of parental involvement both at school and at home, did more household tasks, and were more frequently tutored. Their parents less frequently expressed high educational and career aspirations for them. In fact, teachers said children of homosexuals were ‘more confused’ about their gender.

Corroborating court cases

Through 1998,41 142 children with homosexual parents were involved in 78 custody disputes. According to the court records, parents who lied, engaged in criminal activity, or practiced homosexuality were more apt to be recorded as harming their children. Again according to the record, homosexual parents more frequently lied and/or engaged in criminal activity.
Parents or their associates were recorded as having exposed their children to “harm” in 70% of homosexuals, as opposed to only 5% of heterosexuals. “Harm” in this study included neglect, violence, seduction, and hypersexualization. Overall, homosexuals were held responsible for 97% of the 115 recorded harms to children.

Homosexual parents more likely to have homosexual children

In a 14-year study32 comparing 25 children of 18 lesbian mothers against 21 children of 16 single mothers, when asked what they thought their mother wanted them to become, 40% of the lesbians’ children but none of the children of divorced heterosexuals said that they believed their mother wanted them to be homosexual. Not surprisingly, 67% of the daughters and 57% of the sons of the lesbian mothers vs. 13% of the heterosexual mothers’ daughters and 20% of their sons said that they would consider homosexual relations. Also, 29% of the daughters of lesbians and 13% of their sons (but none of the children of single mothers) reported a homosexual relationship. In fact, two of the lesbians’ daughters said that when it came to sex, they primarily enjoyed homosexuality.
Adding together the various studies of children of homosexuals published through 1999, at least 19% of 115 daughters and 16% of 120 sons said that they themselves engaged in homosexuality; that is, 17% of 235 offspring. In the comparison groups that were employed in these studies, only 2% of 66 children of heterosexuals said they practiced homosexuality.43

Children of homosexual parents suffer embarrassment and isolation

When one researcher44 interviewed 39 adult children of gays, 56% “expressed some concern over the burden of keeping a part of their lives secret,” and 44% “stated that they had felt that their parent’s sexuality had placed special demands or constraints upon their friendships.” Children’s “positive responses” to a parent’s homosexuality declined as the child became an adolescent. The study noted that “[o]ver half of the sample reported having gone through a period when they feared the ostracism or ridicule of their peers.”
Gay parenting advocates like to respond that even if children raised by homosexuals experience greater social difficulty, it is only because homosexual marriage is not yet legal. If it were, the basis for the ridicule and ostracism would cease. While there is no doubt that legalizing gay marriage would place a ‘stamp of approval’ on homosexual relationships and their ‘families,’ the problems such children will face are unlikely to evaporate.
For one, the worst excesses of homosexual behavior — promiscuity, bizarre and dangerous sex acts, sexual disease transmission, alcohol and drug abuse — occur most frequently in those places where homosexuality is most tolerated and accepted, such as San Francisco or Key West, FL.45 Rather than practicing more responsible behavior in ‘non-discriminatory,’ tolerant environments, the reverse typically occurs. For another, many of the harms children experience at the hands of homosexual parents have very little to do with social isolation or rejection, especially when it comes to parental neglect, seduction, or violence.

Assessing the Facts: What Can We Conclude?

Homosexual marriage is a bad idea. While traditional marriage delivers benefits to its participants as well as to society, ‘gay marriage’ harms everyone it touches — especially children. Not only does it place homosexuals at increased risk for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, but it also subjects them to an increased threat of domestic violence.
Homosexual marriage is nothing like traditional marriage. Homosexual unions are not built around lifetime commitments, nor are they good environments in which to raise children. Those who support legalizing homosexual marriage include the same ‘compassionate’ people who championed the right of singles to become parents. We know the results of that campaign: a third of the nation’s children do not have a father. We also know that children without fathers much more often do poorly in school, get in trouble with the law, and become dysfunctional parents themselves.
It would be foolish to tamper with something as vital to personal and social health as traditional marriage in order the placate the same troubled souls that pushed for our current cultural mess.
  1. Weinberg MS, Williams CJ (1975) Male homosexuals: their problems and adaptations. NY: Penguin. ↩
  2. Bell AP, Weinberg MS (1978) Homosexualities. NY: Simon & Schuster. ↩
  3. Spada J (1979) The Spada report. NY: Signet. ↩
  4. Jay K, Young A (1979) The Gay Report. NY:Summit. ↩
  5. Blumstein P, Schwartz P (1983) American couples. NY: Morrow. ↩
  6. Hunt AJ et al (1990) Genitourinary Medicine, 66:423-427. ↩
  7. Orr, K, Morrison K (1993) Doing it in the 90s. Univ. Toronto & Laval Universities. ↩
  8. Kippax S et al (1993) AIDS, 7:257-263. ↩
  9. Osmond DH et al (1994) Amer J Public Health, 84:1933-1937. ↩
  10. Lever J (1994) Advocate, Issue 661/662, August 23, 15-24. ↩
  11. Deenen AA et al (1994) Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23:421-431. ↩
  12. Wockner R (1997) Advocate, Issue 726, February 4, 26; Cameron P, Cameron K, Playfair WL (1998) Does homosexual activity shorten life? Psychol Rpts, 83:847-866.↩
  13. Andersson G, Noack T, Seierstad A, Weedon-Fekjaer H (2004) Divorce-risk patterns in same-sex ‘marriage’ in Norway and Sweden. PAA2004 Annual Meeting, Boston 4/13/04. ↩
  14. McKusick L et al (1985) Amer J Public Health, 75:493-496. ↩
  15. Franceschi S et al (1989) Lancet, 1:42. ↩
  16. Dawson JM et al (1994) AIDS, 8:837-841. ↩
  17. Coxon APM et al (1993) AIDS, 7:877-882. ↩
  18. Hoff, CC et al (1997) J Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 14:72-78. ↩
  19. Wang J et al (1997) Soc Sci & Med, 44:469-77. ↩
  20. Stevens PE (1994) Soc Sci & Med, 39:1565-1578. ↩
  21. Cameron P (2003) Domestic violence among homosexual partners. Psychol Rpts, 93:410-416. ↩
  22. Holt S (1996) Ending the cycle of domestic violence. Gay and Lesbian Times, 9/26/96, 39. ↩
  23. Sorenson J et al (1996) Amer J Public Health, 86:35-40. ↩
  24. Ellis D (1989) Violence and Victims, 4:235-255. ↩
  25. Gardner R (1988) Method of conflict resolution and correlates of physical aggression and victimization in heterosexual, lesbian, and gay male couples. Unpub Doctoral Dissertation, U Georgia. ↩
  26. Waterman CK et al (1989) J Sex Research, 26:118-124. ↩
  27. Lockhart LL et al (1994) J Interpersonal Violence, 9:469-492. ↩
  28. Coleman V (1990) Violence in Lesbian Couples: a Between Groups Comparison. Unpub Doctoral Dissertation, CA Sch Prof Psych, LA. ↩
  29. Merrill G (1996) Press release from National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, October 22, 1996 from San Francisco and various interviews in November 1996 with senior author Merrill, Jerri Lynn Fields in Chicago, and Bea Hanson in New York. ↩
  30. Anti-Lesbian/Gay Violence in 1995 (1995) Horizons Community Services, self-published. ↩
  31. Cameron P, Cameron K (1996) Homosexual parents. Adolescence, 31:757-776. ↩
  32. Golombok S, Tasker F (1996) Do parents influence the sexual orientation of their children? Developmental Psychol, 32:3-11. ↩
  33. Cameron P, Cameron K (1996) Homosexual parents. Adolescence, 31:757-776. ↩
  34. Gottlieb AR (2003) Sons Talk About Their Gay Fathers: Life Curves. Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press. ↩
  35. Cameron P (1999) Homosexual parents: testing common sense. Psychol Rpts, 85:282-322; Cameron P, Cameron K (1998) Homosexual parents: a comparative forensic study of character and harms to children. Psychol Rpts, 82:1155-1191. ↩
  36. Schwartz MF, Masters WH (1984) The Masters and Johnson treatment program for dissatisfied homosexual men. Amer J Psychiatry, 141:173-181. ↩
  37. Cameron P (2003) Molestations by homosexual foster parents: newspaper accounts vs. official records. Psychol Rpts, 93:793-802. ↩
  38. Cameron P (2005) Are over a third of foster parent molestations homosexual?Psychol Rpts, 96:275-298. ↩
  39. Cameron P, Cameron K (1996) Homosexual parents. Adolescence, 31:757-776. ↩
  40. Sarantakos S (1996) Children in three contexts: family, education and social development. Children Australia, 21:23-31. ↩
  41. Cameron P, Harris DW (2003) Homosexual parents in custody disputes: a thousand child-years exposure. Psychological Rpts, 93:1173-1194. ↩
  42. Golombok S, Tasker F (1996) Do parents influence the sexual orientation of their children? Developmental Psychol, 32:3-11. ↩
  43. Cameron P (1999) Homosexual parents: testing common sense. Psychol Rpts, 85:282-322. ↩
  44. Paul JP (1986) Growing up with a gay, lesbian or bisexual parent. Unpub Doctoral Dissertation, U Calif Berkeley. ↩
  45. Madigan N (2004) Key West suddenly shy, puts pasties on its party. NY Times, Oct 20. ↩
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/getting-the-facts-same-sex-marriage/