FAMILY RESEARCH REPORT	Journal of the Family Research Institute Founded 1982
A Look at Criminality			Vol. 19 No. 8 Dec 2004

In the last issue of FRR we began to summarize findings from the largest national random survey regarding adult sexuality ever conducted in the U.S. — 12,283 non-institutionalized adults questionnaired as part of the 1996 National Household Survey of Drug Abuse [NHSDA]. In this issue and the next, we return to the NHSDA, this time to look at results on criminality.

In order to place the NHSDA findings in context, we will first have to describe how prior sexuality surveys were done so that readers can get a sense of ‘how we know what we know about sexuality.' We will also examine what those prior studies found regarding the connection between homosexuality and criminality. Then the stage will be set for properly discussing the NHSDA results.

Original Kinsey Survey

Alfred Kinsey conducted most of his interviews during the 1930s and 1940s. Although his methodology has been sharply criticized, a number of his findings are quite relevant. For one, homosexual activity was strongly associated with having been imprisoned. A large part of this correlation was undoubtedly related to the many prisoners Kinsey interviewed. However, in the 1965 Sex Offenders volume, 1 14.9% of the 477 controls (hospital patients who agreed to be interviewed) vs. 39.1% of the 888 prisoners had “more than incidental homosexual” interaction, and 3.4% of the controls and 13.3% of those in prison were reported to have had “extensive (21+ partners)” homosexual experiences (p. 625).

In addition, 2.1% of the controls vs. 5.5% of prisoners reported homosexual activity with 76 or more partners outside institutions (1965, p. 647). Indeed, only 7.1% of prisoners said that they had engaged in homosexual sex only in prison (p. 625).

In his deposition of January 24, 1983 in Matthews v . Marsh, 2 Wardell B. Pomeroy — Kinsey's chief co-investigator — said “We also found that in prisons that the people that were having homosexual contact in prison were by and large those who had already had it before they went to prison.”

Beyond this direct comparison, in their final report on their database, Kinsey investigators 3 classified the “primary occupation” of 0.04% of 5,631 non-homosexual males and 0.05% of 5,599 non-homosexual females in their sample as “criminal.”

By contrast, they classified the primary occupation of 2.4% of 1,040 non-delinquent male homosexuals (that is, homosexuals who had never been “convicted of a felony or misdemeanor other than a traffic violation” [p. 45]) and 4.6% of 304 non-delinquent female homosexuals as criminal (p. 485).

Thus, homosexuality was fairly strongly associated with criminality in the Kinsey survey. Indeed, the fact that other sex surveys did not sample prisoners may have obscured this association in other studies.

Saghir and Robins Sex Survey

In 1973, psychiatrists Marcel T. Saghir and Eli Robins 4 published Male and Female Homosexuality: A Comprehensive Investigation . Their study, utilizing a 3-5 hour personal interview, compared 89 male and 57 female homosexual volunteers from homosexual rights organizations in Chicago and San Francisco with 35 single/divorced male and 43 single/divorced female non-homosexuals from a 500-unit apartment complex in St. Louis.

By utilizing single or divorced non-homosexuals as controls, Saghir and Robins reduced the likelihood of differences between the two groups in terms of mental health or social stability — since, as the investigators noted, marriage is associated with mental health benefits for the individual. Their choice of samples also made comparisons regarding marital history uninformative.

Further, by making clear their plan of comparison to potential respondents, the investigators invited highly motivated homosexuals to enroll in their study. Thus their sample of homosexuals may have been even less representative than the sample of homosexuals in the original Kinsey investigation. Further, 19 homosexuals — 11.5% of the planned homosexual sample of 165 (compared with none of the 78 non-homosexuals) — were eliminated from the study because they had been hospitalized for psychiatric reasons.

Criminality: 24% of homosexual and 20% of non-homosexual men had been arrested for reasons other than homosexual activity. Of those who had been arrested, 56% of nonhomosexual vs. 4% of homosexual men were arrested for fighting or disturbing the peace, 18% of homosexual vs. 11% of non-homosexual men were arrested for petty larceny, forgery or burglary, and 37% of homosexual vs. 33% of non-homosexual men were arrested for “being drunk or violating drinking code for minors” (p. 169). 14% of the homosexual women and 7% of the non-homosexual women had been arrested for non-homosexually related offenses (the lesbians' offenses disproportionately involved violence).

Kinsey Institute Survey in San Francisco

The Kinsey Institute conducted another sex survey during 1969-70 in San Francisco. 5,6 The 979 homosexuals were volunteers recruited from various gay venues. The comparison group of 477 non-homosexuals was obtained via a random-like procedure utilizing cluster sampling in the Bay area. Interviewing was done face-to-face in the same manner as the original Kinsey investigation.

While the homosexual sample was volunteer and thus little different from the initial Kinsey database, the 477 nonhomosexuals were quasi-randomly obtained, albeit from only one urban area. The basic questions covered were similar to the original Kinsey investigation, but as with Kinsey's original study, comparisons between homosexuals and non-homosexuals often could not be made — in this case because non-homosexuals were often not asked the same questions as homosexuals.

Criminality: 37.8% of 683 homosexual men, 25.6% of 336 non-homosexual men, 14.1% of 290 homosexual women, and 5.8% of 139 non-homosexual women reported having been booked for a crime at least once. Similarly, 23.6% of homosexual men, 14.0% of non-homosexual men, 10.7% of homosexual women, and 2.9% of non-homosexual women reported having been convicted of a crime.

While the reporting was less than clear since the arrests could have been for a sexual offense, the investigators assured that “the majority [of men] were charged with some offense that did not have to do with their homosexuality” (p. 191) and “relatively few had ever been convicted of an offense involving homosexuality.” The same thing applied to the homosexual women. It would thus appear that San Francisco homosexuals were more frequently involved in criminality than their non-homosexual counterparts.

FRI Study

The FRI study was done in 1983 and 1984 in Los Angeles, Denver, Louisville, Omaha, Washington, D.C., and Dallas. We used systematic area cluster sampling to obtain our respondents.

Criminality: 22.9% of 1,714 heterosexual men vs. 17.0% of 147 homosexual men reported that they had “ever been arrested for a non-traffic, non-sexual crime.” The corresponding figures for women were 5.2% of 2,745 heterosexuals and 14.1% of 85 lesbians. 10.9% of heterosexual men and 8.2% of homosexual men reported that they had been “convicted of a non-traffic, non-sexual crime,” while 2.4% of heterosexual women and 4.7% of homosexual women made the same report. ( Figure 1-1 )

1.2% of heterosexual men and 6.8% of homosexual men reported that they had “ever been arrested for a sexual crime.” The corresponding figures for women were 0.4% of heterosexual women and 3.5% of lesbians. Ever having been convicted of a sexual crime ( Figure 1-2 ) was reported by 0.5% of heterosexual and 2.0% of homosexual men; and by 0.2% of heterosexual and 2.4% of homosexual women.

When asked “how many times have you broken the law for a non-traffic, non-sexual crime, and not been caught?” 60.5% of 1,458 heterosexual and 65.0% of 120 homosexual men said “never.” 9.7% of heterosexual men said “once or twice” and 29.8% “three or more times.” For homosexual men the corresponding figures were 10.0% and 25.0%. Of women asked the same question, 82.7% of 2,467 heterosexual and 58.8% of 68 homosexual women said “never;” 5.9% of heterosexual and 14.7% of homosexual women said “once or twice;” and 11.4% of heterosexual and 26.5% of homosexual women said “three or more times.”

To the question “how many times have you broken the law for a sexual crime, and not been caught?” 92.4% of heterosexual and 62.4% of homosexual men said ‘never;' 99.1% of heterosexual and 87.1% of lesbians said the same. 3.0% of heterosexual, 5.1% of homosexual men, 0.4% of heterosexual women, and 5.7% of homosexual women said ‘once or twice;' while 4.6% of heterosexual men, 32.5% of homosexual men, 0.5% of heterosexual women, and 7.1% of lesbians said ‘3 or more times.' ( Figure 1-3 )

To the question of how “many years have you cheated on your income tax?,” 84.1% of 1,534 heterosexual and 76.0% of 125 homosexual men said ‘never;' 91.7% of 2,547 heterosexual women and 90.0% of 80 homosexual women made the same claim. 7.6% of heterosexual men, 11.2% of homosexual men, 5.0% of heterosexual women, and 3.8% of homosexual women said ‘once or twice.' 8.3% of heterosexual men, 12.8% of homosexual men, 3.3% of heterosexual women, and 6.3% of homosexual women said ‘3 or more times.'

When asked “when is the last time you shoplifted?,” 47.0% of 1,708 heterosexual men, 44.9% of 147 gays, 64.7% of 2,744 heterosexual women, and 31.0% of 84 homosexual women said they ‘never had.' ( Figure 1-4 )

While the evidence regarding non-sexual criminal offenses when comparing male homosexuals and heterosexuals was an exception, the rest of the findings suggest that homosexual men were more criminal than heterosexual men and that lesbians were considerably more criminal than heterosexual women.

Christchurch Study

All the children born in mid-1977 in Christchurch, New Zealand were enrolled in a study of what kinds of family events and experiences might be associated with the emergence of various forms of personal and social pathology, including suicidality, psychiatric disorders, criminality, homosexuality, and substance abuse. 7 The same 1,007 children were examined or interviewed at birth, at 4 months, every year until age 16, and again at ages 18 and 21. Their parents were also interviewed from time to time.

At age 21 the children were asked with whom they had had sex and their sexual orientation (homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual). The basis of the reported outcomes was a combination of self- and parent-report, as well as observation and testing by the investigators and other professionals over an extended period of time.

At age 21, 20 (2%) of the Christchurch young adults said they “were” homosexual or bisexual and an additional 8 reported sex with a member of their sex since the age of 16 (4 of those who said they “were” homosexual said that they had not experienced homosexual sex). The 11 men and 17 women considered homosexual (2.8% of the sample) were combined for analytic purposes. This resulted in a 2.8% rate of homosexuality.

The above facts are available from various scientific articles published by Professor David Fergusson and his colleagues. Upon inquiry, in 1999, Dr. Fergusson shared some additional information. The 2.8% categorized as ‘homosexual' were associated with greater criminality: 36% of homosexuals vs . 26% of heterosexuals admitted to some sort of violent criminal offense between the ages of 14 and 21. For property crimes, 50% of homosexuals vs. 33% of heterosexuals admitted to at least one offense. Overall, because the two forms of criminality were correlated ( r = 0.44 in the Christchurch study), 57% of homosexual vs. 41% of heterosexual 21 year-olds admitted to at least one criminal offense.

National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health [ADD Health]

In 1994-95, a large number of adolescents enrolled in grades 7 through 12 were randomly drawn from the U.S. and interviewed at their homes. A sample of 9,218 boys and 9,581 girls was examined regarding their sexual activities. 8 About two-thirds of both boys and girls reported at least one sexual partner by age 16.

Girls who reported same-sex sexual partners (2.3% of the sample as standardized at age 16) were twice as apt as the rest of the girls to score as delinquent. Boys who reported same-sex sexual partners (1.6% of the standardized sample) were also twice as apt as other boys to score as delinquent.

Summing Up

Whether criminality ‘causes' homosexuality or homosexuality ‘causes' criminality, or they are both the result of other factors cannot be determined from these longitudinal studies. But they do prove that this relationship turns up early in life.

Note the consistency in these sexuality surveys. These investigators general findings were frequently reported elsewhere in the scientific literature. For instance, both Moore 9 and Bluestone, O'Malley, and Connell 10 reported disproportionate numbers of homosexuals in prison populations. Bluestone, et al argued that male homosexuals probably weren't more criminal per se, but female homosexuals probably were. Moore felt that both male and female criminals were attracted to criminality.

What never occurred, however, prior to the 1996 NHSDA, was a large national, comprehensive, strict probability sample of Americans that could address these same questions. Those results FRR will examine in its next issue.

References:
1. Gebhard PH, Pomeroy WB, Martin CE, & Christenson C. (1965) Sex offenders: an analysis of types . NY: Harper-Hoeber.
2. U.S. District Ct, Maine No. 82-0216-P, p. 12
3. Gebhard, PH & Johnson, AB. (1979) The Kinsey data: marginal tabulations of the 1938-1963 interviews conducted by the institute for sex research . Philadelphia: WB Saunders.
4. Saghir M.T. & Robins E. (1973) Male and female homosexuality: a comprehensive investigation . Baltimore: Willliams & Wilkins.
5. Bell, AP & Weinberg, MS. (1978) Homosexualities , NY: Simon & Schuster.
6. Bell, AP, Weinberg, MS, & Hammersmith, SK. (1981) Sexual Preference , Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univ Press.
7. Fergusson, DM, Horwood, LJ, & Beautrais, AL. (1999) Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Archives of General Psychiatry , 56;876-880.
8. Udry, J. R. & Chantala, K. (2002) Risk assessment of adolescents with same-sex relationships. Journal of Adolescent Health , 31, 84-92.
9. Moore, W.E. (1976). How to end sex problems in our prisons. Ebony , 20-21(#1), 83-92.
10. Bluestone, H., O'Malley, E. P., and Connell, S. (1966). Homosexuals in prison. Corrective Psychiatry and the Journal of Social Therapy, 12 , 13-24.

Life-Force vs. Death-Force

The election is over, and the Presidential candidate more closely representing the heartland of America won. But the blue state/red state division runs far deeper than politics.

1) Blue States are Niggardly, Red States are Generous

Everyone knows the red states voted for Bush and the blue states for Kerry. But as we noted in the September, 2004 FRR , the blue states are also the demographically dying states, and many of the red states have birth rates that exceed replacement levels. That is, deathward forces — a people not replenishing themselves, what we might call a ‘death-force' — predominate in the demographically dying states.

Likewise, the gay rights states are dying. And the country as a whole is slowly dying (Europe is dying far more rapidly, and has embraced homosexuality more firmly).

The annual Generosity Index has been released by the Catalogue for Philanthropy ( www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org ). It computes the state's rank of adjusted gross income and subtracts the average rank of itemized charitable giving.

Guess what? Not only are the blue states low on giving, but the gay rights states are the lowest!

Mississippi ranked 50 th in income, 5 th in giving, and #1 in generosity. Next in declining order of generosity were Arkansa s , Oklahoma , Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee , South Dakota, Utah , South Carolina, Idaho , Wyoming, Texas , West Virginia, Nebraska, North Dakota, and North Carolina . The underlined states were states with growth in their birthrates. These are the states with a predominance of life-force.

All were Bush states.

The highest ranking blue state was New York at 26 th ! Then California at 29 th , and Maryland at 30 th .

New Mexico at 23 rd was the highest ranking gay rights state in generosity (and barely went for Bush in 2004), then New York, California, and Maryland. Vermont ranked 35 th , Connecticut ranked 44 th , Minnesota was 45 th , Wisconsin was 46 th , New Jersey was 47 th , Rhode Island was 48 th , Massachusetts 49 th , and New Hampshire was dead last.

The average generosity score for the 12 gay rights states was 39 — only New Mexico ‘beat' the national median of 25.5. Indeed, the lowest 7 states were gay rights states (the District of Colombia was not included in the generosity index).

Non-gay rights states took all positions from #1 through #22, while the lowest position of a non-gay right state was Colorado at 43 rd .

2) Economic Freedom is Associated with a Stronger Life-Force

Freedom also dies in gay rights states. The Economic Freedom Index by the Pacific Research Institute was summarized by the Wall Street Journal (12/24/04). Forcing people to accept death-force is a hallmark of gay rights. And the same limitations of private property that almost sank Plymouth Colony in the 1620s are alive and well in the blue states.

Kansas is ranked as the freest state — followed by Colorado , Virginia, Idaho , Utah , Oklahoma , New Hampshire, Delaware, Wyoming, and Missouri. The underlined states are ones with growing birthrates.

The bottom ten in economic freedom are: Massachusetts at 41, New Jersey, Ohio, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Rhode Island, Connecticut, California, and dead last at 50, New York.

Consider the rankings of the gay rights states. New Hampshire at #7, has the highest ranking. Next highest, at #27, is Maryland. Then Vermont (#36), New Mexico (#37), Wisconsin (#38), Massachusetts (#41), New Jersey (#42), Minnesota (#44), Rhode Island (#47), Connecticut (#48), California (#49), and New York (#50) — not a demographically growing state in the bunch.

The median rank for the states as a whole is obviously 25.5, but for gay rights states it is 38.8. All but one gay rights state is below the national average, and gay rights states occupy 7 of the bottom ten slots.

Though there are many ways to index life-force, birthrates are possibly the best. And, as we pointed out in the September 2004 issue of FRR , while the life-force of the U.S. as a whole is declining, it burns brightest in non-gay rights states. But generosity is also important. Giving of oneself and one's goods also shows commitment to life; to making the world better for one's children and grandchildren.

Similarly, there are many correlates of death-force. Once again, birthrates are probably the best. But niggardliness and stinginess are also indicative of declining vitality and an embrace of the night. If you are in love with death, why should you give to others? Let them fend for themselves — everything is going to hell anyway, so ‘eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.'

There is also a strong connection between those who believe that they must overrule others' private feelings and judgments regarding homosexual behavior — all in pursuit of ‘social justice,' ‘rights,' and ‘the need for equality' — and those who overrule private property in favor of economic ‘social justice.'

The ‘self-anointed busy bodies' who would take away your economic freedom are also akin to the self-anointed busy bodies who would take away your freedom 1) to disassociate oneself from those who enjoy homosexuality, 2) to criticize them, or 3) to work to make their activities illegal.

They are niggardly with their own money, but generous with yours. And they feel so superior in their values that they have no qualms about depriving you of your freedoms so that homosexuals can ‘feel good about' their choices.

3) Containment of HIV is Better in Life-Force States

When it comes to HIV and AIDS, the divide between the states is large. Homosexual activists don't want statistics on HIV rates collected and evaluated (and they aren't collected routinely even in those states that do collect them — even though getting such information is one of the first steps in containing an epidemic). Gays want total freedom and protection to ‘be as they are and do what they want.' They also want you to pay their costs. 33 (65%) of the 51 states (including DC as a ‘state') now report HIV rates:

• Of the 13 states with gay rights (CA, CT, DC, MD, MA, MN , NJ , NH, NM , NY, RI, VT, WI ), only 4 (the ones underlined ) report HIV rates.
  
• 12 of the 14 life-force states ( FL , GA, TX , NV , TN , CO , NC , AZ , AR , OK , UT , OR, NE , and ID ) have HIV reporting.

Of course, each life-force state has plenty of death-force supporters, and every death-force state has plenty of life-force supporters. Most life-force states are only a few thousand babies removed from joining states with declining birthrates. Most government statistics, however, are collected and/or reported on a state level. Nevertheless, in aggregated form, they reflect the strong influence of either death-force or life-force.

When it comes to HIV, those states that are more urban and/or have proportionately more gays, blacks, and hispanics will have more infections. These are the locations and groups with higher-than-average infection rates. Thus CA, NY and FL account for 43% of AIDS cases.

But an important story is also revealed by the latest rates per 100,000 persons living with AIDS as of the end of 2003. An individual seldom develops AIDS immediately after being infected with HIV. Instead, it takes about 2 years on average to develop an AIDS diagnosis (38% develop AIDS after a year), and then around 10 years to die of it (new drugs are enabling more to live beyond 10 years post-diagnosis).

Because of these facts, there are growing populations of persons living with AIDS, some of whom have had the disease for many years. In fact, a state loaded with AIDS sufferers is likely a state that has been steeped in pro-gay policy for some time.

Now, for the U.S. as a whole, the rate of persons living with AIDS is 167 (per 100,000; see dashed line in Figures 2-1 and 2-2 ). But consider the state-by-state breakdowns:

• For the 13 gay rights states the rates are as follows: DC = 1833, NY = 418, MD = 284, CT = 243, NJ = 239, CA = 195, MA = 155, RI = 121, NH = 49, VT = 47, MN = 45, WI = 41, and NM = 18. Of the 13 gay rights states, 6 (46%) have rates above the national average, 7 (53%) have rates below ( Figure 2-1 ), and their median rate is 155.
  
• For the life-force states (that is, the 14 states that have growing birthrates): FL = 302, GA = 199, TX = 170, NV = 147, TN = 120, CO = 99, NC = 95, AZ = 92, AR = 92, OR = 88, OK = 72, UT = 60, NE = 42, and ID = 25. Three (21%) of the life-force states have rates of living with AIDS above the national average, 11 (79%) have rates below ( Figure 2-2 ), and their median rate is 93.5.

The rate of new AIDS cases in 2003 is also revealing. The government's often stated goal is to lower AIDS cases in half by 2005. This goal is a dream, not reality. The epidemic, which started with homosexuals, continues to grow, practically in tandem with social policies that encourage toleration of homosexuality.

For the U.S. as a whole, 15 new cases of AIDS/100,000 population were registered, up from 14.7 in 2002 — a 2% increase . In the 13 gay rights states, the new case rates are as follows:

CA: 12.1 in 2002 to 16.6 in 2003 — up 37%; VT: 1.9 to 2.6 — up 37%; NM: 4.6 to 5.8 — up 26%; CT: 17.7 to 21.1 — up 19%; MN: 3.2 to 3.5 — up 9%; DC: 162.7 to 170.6 — up 5%; NJ: 17.0 to 17.5 — up 3%; MD: 33.9 to 28.5 — down 16%; NH: 3.1 to 2.9 — down 6%; MA: 12.6 to 11.8 — down 6%; RI: 10.0 to 9.5 — down 5%; NY: 35.2 to 34.8 — down 1%; and WI: 3.4 to 3.4 — no change.

In those states that have given homosexuals what they wanted — protected status with no grief about paying for the costs of their recreations — 7 went up (median increase of 19%), 5 went down (median decrease of 6%). Overall, these states' new AIDS case rates went up. So furthering gay rights does not seem to have helped lower their rates of infection. Rather, as you might expect, it has accompanied an increase in AIDS.

Rates of new AIDS cases in 2003 in the 14 growing or life-force states are as follows: GA: 17.2 to 22.0 — up 28%; CO: 7.2 to 8.0 — up 11%; TX: 14.2 to 15.3 — up 8%; TN: 13.3 to 14.3 — up 8%; UT: 2.9 to 3.1 — up 7%; OK: 5.9 to 6.1 — up 3%; NC: 12.6 to 12.9 — up 2%; AR: 8.8 to 6.9 — down 22%; ID: 2.3 to 1.9 — down 21%; OR: 8.5 in 2002 to 6.8 in 2003 — down 20%; NE: 4.1 to 3.4 — down 17%; NV: 14.4 to 12.4 — down 14%; FL: 29.4 to 27.4 — down 6%; and AZ: 11.6 to 11.0 — down 5%.

In states with growing birthrates, 7 went down (median decrease of 17%) and 7 went up (median increase of 8%). On balance, these states' new AIDS cases went down slightly.

The pattern is clear:

• in the life-force states, economic freedom is high, generosity is high, and containment of HIV may be as good as it will get while operating under a pro-gay Centers for Disease Control.
  
• the death-force states are niggardly, economic freedom is low, and homosexuals are permitted to have sex and spread HIV at their whim.

Corner

When Science Becomes (Mis)Adventure

The process of getting and publishing the findings on sexuality from the 1996 National Household Survey of Drug Abuse [NHSDA] has been an adventure. First, the results of the survey were ‘delayed' by about a year because someone (now retired) at the National Center for Health Statistics put a hold on them. It is not clear that this was against the law, but delay was the name of the game. Then the raw data were made available to the public, but the full results (along the lines of our analysis) were ‘left alone' — only the most rudimentary analyses were published by the government.

Then, after we got the data, crunched the numbers and had results and write-up in hand, we went shopping for publishers. One of our team of writers had published a number of best sellers (they made the New York Times book list). Alas and alack, though we made a mighty effort, the ‘Christian right wing' and ‘right wing' publishers and groups failed to see the importance of getting the NHSDA material out to the public. Some were worried about ‘making money,' others about whether ‘science really makes that much of a difference.' The fact that a large government study existed — which essentially validated the traditional perspective on homosexuality, and which could be appealed to over and over again in debates, courts, and legislatures — just wasn't important enough to garner their support.

With such a myopic view of how the world works, it is little wonder that traditionalists are losing battle after battle on gay-rights.

But the narrow ignorance of the ‘right' is matched by the studied ignorance of the left. As you examine the corollary evidence from other studies presented here in this issue of FRR — most of which is published and available on library shelves — ask yourself this question: “how many professionals actually read and critically examine the scientific literature?” You might also ask a follow-up question: “why are professionals and their associations supporting ‘gay rights' when the very studies they cite to justify their support indicate that homosexuals are more frequently mentally disturbed, more socially disruptive and less socially productive?”

To be sure, the opinion leaders on both sides of the gay rights debate have been able to raise money, get on the media, and make their case. Yet the scholarship from either the left or the right regarding homosexuality leaves much to be desired. One has to wonder: do those pursuing their agendas — whether right or left — care much about ‘the truth?'

Family Research Report critically examines empirical data on families, sexual social policy, AIDS, drug addiction, and homosexuality, digging behind the 'headlines' and breaking new scientific ground.

FRR is published 8 times/year by the Family Research Institute.

Dr. Paul Cameron, Publisher
Dr. Kirk Cameron, Editor

Subscriptions: $25/yr ($40 foreign)

©2004

Family Research Institute

P.O. Box 62640

Colorado Springs, CO 80962-2640

(303) 681-3113

Return to top

Return to the FAMILY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Web site