FAMILY RESEARCH REPORT	Journal of the Family Research Institute Founded 1982
Jerry Falwell to Meet With Mel White			Vol. 14 No. 6 Oct 1999

United Methodist Redox?

What happens when someone who claims to "know the truth," "dialogues" with leaders of the gay movement? In August of 1999, Focus on the Family officially attended a meeting of generally more liberal religious representatives in Colorado Springs, Colorado to "dialogue" with those supporting gay rights. Not too surprisingly, the "dialogue" was one-sided, with those of a more liberal stripe on the gay rights issue characterizing Focus on the Family as "mean-spirited" and "wrongheaded" on the issue. And media reports about the meeting had nothing much positive to say about Focus on the Family and its efforts at "dialoguing."

In a similar move, Jerry Falwell has apparently decided to meet with Mel White and 200 of his supporters, who have been invited to Falwell's Liberty University. White, a leader in the gay rights movement, divorced his wife 6 years ago while "becoming gay" (he cheated on her while they were married). What will come of Falwell's attempt to "reach out" to the leadership of the gay movement? The Methodist church provides a clue.

The Methodist church started down the road of "dialoguing" with homosexuals in the late 1970s to early 1980s. The rotten fruit of this decision is spreading its scent everywhere in Methodism today. Not only have there been a series of "same sex marriages" performed in the Methodist church, but one of the largest Methodist churches in the south First United Methodist of Marietta, Georgia just split over the gay issue. One faction, including Republican Representative Bob Barr and his pastor, Rev. Charles Sineath, left because "state Methodist leaders" were upset with Sineath's criticism of the "decision to allow same-sex marriages in chapels at Emory University, a Methodist school in Atlanta" (Omaha World Herald 7/17/99).

Good News, a conservative Methodist publication, noted that many of the 66 church annual conferences were involved in discussing and debating homosexuality (September/October, 1999). On the pro-gay side were the conferences of California-Nevada, California-Pacific, Minnesota, New York, Northern Illinois, Oregon-Idaho, and Pacific Northwest. Northern Illinois adopted a resolution to "acknowledge the commitment of two homosexual persons to be in loving and mutually beneficial relationships with each other and with God." Oklahoma accepted, by a 280 to 262 vote, a "task force report on homosexuality calling for continued dialogue" and Cal-Nevada members created "a committee on sexuality to promote dialogue."

Mark DeMoss, spokesman for Falwell, said that Falwell was "committed" to the gathering on October 23, "which could be a meal together or even a forum." "One of the themes is going to be, while we're going to disagree about homosexuality and what the bible says about homosexuality, violence going in either direction is wrong, and we ought to condemn it," DeMoss said (Denver Post 9/5/99).

White has been criticizing Falwell for his fundraising efforts, specifically for saying that gays "want total political approval and taxpayer money for their perverted political and social programs." Where is the "violence" in this statement? A lack of acceptance of gays is evident, but that follows from the historic Christian view of homosexuality, which Falwell says he upholds. White is coming to Liberty University by invitation to "address the violence" in this statement, while Falwell appears willing to "own" some of the responsibility for violence against gays. Strange.

As FRI has pointed out [Family Research Report, May-June, 1994], the gay world is filled with violence. Perhaps as many as one-third to one-half of all murders in the U.S. involve homosexuality. And many boys and young men have met their deaths from gay serial rapists or killers. There is no evidence that churches have contributed to these murders through their preachment [see Family Research Report, July-August, 1994], so why is Falwell setting himself up for an apology?

If Jerry Falwell, Focus on the Family, and the Methodists believe that they possess revealed truth about homosexuality, such "dialoguing" is curious. If murderers complained that Christianity was "picking on them" and was "making them feel bad about themselves," would Falwell or Focus on the Family invite "hit men" to "dialogue?" If Falwell believes the Bible and accepts historic Christian positions on homosexuality, why would he have any need to "discuss" the opposite position? If the organizations involved "know the truth," why would they agree to meet on the same level with those 'they know to be in error and in open rebellion to and conflict with the Word of God?'

White, who once ghost-wrote Falwell's autobiography and taught at Fuller Theological Seminary, which is reasonably conservative, is hardly unaware of what the Bible says about homosexuality. Indeed, White advances a point-by-point refutation of Falwell's position on homosexuality. From Falwell's point of view, White is openly and knowingly a rebellious heretic. So by mingling 200 of his supporters with 200 of White's followers, Falwell is granting a kind of equivalency to White's point of view and exposing his followers to the notion that they "can all get along" within the university and the church. This is a kind of "big tent" philosophy that seems quite counter to Paul's warning that Christians should not associate with the openly rebellious ("what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? Or what communion hath light with darkness?" II Cor 6:14).

If Falwell were debating White, the meeting might be construed as more reasonable, but inviting White to a "dialogue" is another matter. Meeting face to face at the same level implicitly suggests that Falwell may be somewhat uncertain or hesitant about his approach to homosexuality. Indeed, that is why White visited Falwell privately in August, and now wants to visit Falwell's university.

In his Falwell Confidential e-mail of September 2, 1999, Falwell reported that in August he met with White, White's partner, and "another lesbian church leader" "to discuss ways of reducing violence on both sides of the homosexuality debate." Huh? "Reducing violence on both sides?"

Falwell said that he was in "full agreement" with the statement that "the church must be in compassionate ministry to homosexuals and to all persons addicted to sexual sin, with Christ's offer of forgiveness and healing." "I continue to believe that no man or woman can fall so far from God that he cannot be reached by the living hand of Christ." "I want to assure my supporters that I have, in no way, altered my commitment to the biblical mandate.... However, I have promised Mel White and his supporters one thing that I will ensure that no rhetoric from any of my ministries has the connotation of condoning aggression toward homosexuals. At the same time, Mel has assured me that he will encourage homosexual-rights leaders to urge their members to halt attacks on Christian ministries that oppose homosexuality, such as the assault on Saint Patrick's cathedral in New York City...."

What a deal! White who has no authority over anyone "will encourage homosexual-rights leaders to urge their members," while Falwell who has considerable authority as essentially "the pope" of one wing of the Baptist church will "ensure that no rhetoric from any of my ministries has the connotation of condoning aggression toward homosexuals!"

Falwell's rhetoric that gays "want total political approval and taxpayer money for their perverted political and social programs" is most assuredly aggressive, and White correctly regards it as aggressive. But the issue Falwell is supposedly concerned about is "violence," not "aggression." Falwell's statement that he is going to cancel any "rhetoric from any of my ministries..." makes you wonder just how far he is prepared to go.

Moses called for executing those caught engaging in homosexual activity most assuredly an "aggressive" stance! Will Falwell no longer quote Moses on homosexuality? "Connotation" is a slippery word, and could extend far. White is angry with Falwell's fund raiser because it has the "connotation" of encouraging violence against gays. White is "offended" by the "connotation." Falwell will find many gays "offended" by a great deal that he has said and written. How far will Falwell go to appease these chaps and what will it get him?

A number of leaders in the Christian church have decided to "make nice" toward homosexuals. They seek to "outlove" Jesus when it comes homosexuality. As many of these moral leaders see it, Jesus did not come to "tell the truth about what God wants," but rather came to "make everyone feel good about themselves and feel accepted." When Jesus said "if you love me you will keep my commandments," many contemporary moral leaders think that Jesus was not referring to the ten commandments or the beatitudes, but rather a super-commandment that they have cobbled together from "the essence of" Jesus' teachings.

This super-commandment is suspiciously close to the current ideal of the American elite: "Be inclusive of all. Reject no one, but rather accept everyone who comes through the door. As long as they say they are Christian (or are inclined in that direction), make every single person feel like they are accepted by and reasonably regarded as part of the Christian movement."

"Now that you live in democracies, being a Christian no longer requires repentance, or turning away, from what I and My Father called sin in the Bible. We love you and will forgive and accept you no matter what you do. It all gets down to just one rule: unreservedly love and accept one another as fellow human beings no matter what your color, looks, sexual practices, etc. and you will please both Me and My Father."

At a person-to-person level, reaching out to sinners has ample historic precedent. But any "reaching out" at a movement-to-movement or leader-to-leader level strongly implies that the church's original position on homosexuality was wrong or might need fine tuning. If you condemn homosexuality as an "abomination" against God and the order of His creation, and then say "but let's hear what you have to say and discuss your feelings about how homosexuality is OK," you have just let the air out of your stance. Meetings of this sort verge on "accommodation" and offer at least a weak a kind of "endorsement."

Dialoguing with homosexual leaders was out of the question for Tertullian (c. 200), who proclaimed that "all other frenzies of the lusts that exceed the laws of nature and are impious towards both bodies and the sexes, we banish, not only from the threshold but also from all shelter of the Church, for they are not sins so much as monstrosities." Tertullian's remarks suggest that even in his time, some argued like the Northern Illinois Methodists, to "acknowledge the commitment of two homosexual persons to be in loving and mutually beneficial relationships with each other and with God."

FRI wonders how these Methodists know that two men engaging in homosexuality with each other have a "mutually beneficial relationship" when there is good evidence that coupled gays experience the highest levels of AIDS, hepatitis, and other sexually transmitted diseases. Dialoguing does not produce facts; rather, it emphasizes feelings and compromise, irregardless of how deadly those feelings may actually be.

Syphilis is Back, Courtesy of Gay Rights

Syphilis is a disease that "should not exist." Of course, if everyone practiced chastity (having sex only with their marital partner), syphilis or just about any Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) simply would not exist to any appreciable degree. But, even with improper sexual activity, syphilis can be cured. As such, it ought to "disappear."

And that is what syphilis has generally been doing of late, after hitting a post-World War II peak around 1990 it was dropping down toward zero until 1997. Now it is starting to grow once again. Why? Because, with their newly minted "protected status," gays are having sex, and lots of it.

In Seattle, the new phase of increasing syphilis rates after reaching a low point in 1996 was traced to a cluster of male homosexuals¹.

Consider the numbers of partners reported by those newly infected with syphilis:

• 43 patients reported 400 partners within the preceding four and a half months a rate of about 22 partners per year.
• 80% of these partnerships "involved anonymous partners encountered in high-risk venues such as bathhouses who could not be located through traditional contact-tracing methods."
• 36 patients who had syphilis were also tested for HIV, including 32 who admitted homosexual behavior, and
• Of the "32 men reporting sex with men, 21 (66%) were HIV seropositive" (p. 1094)!

ALL of those who were HIV+ were gay all of them. And they were 'out having fun.' We know they infected many other men with syphilis, and, given the way HIV works, they probably infected at least a few with HIV also.

"Ah," but you say, "these were probably the 'young gay men' we have been reading about. Youth are often sexually stupid and out of control; surely this is the answer." Not so, unfortunately. Of the 32 gays in the study, 25 (78%) were aged 30 years or older. Certainly by age 30, the dangers of promiscuity and the irresponsibility of having sex while carrying an STD ought to be apparent. Except to those who have no intention of changing.

San Francisco Younger Gays Carry On As Usual

If education of gays works, it ought to work in San Francisco, the most "sex educated city in the world." A convenience sample survey of over one thousand gays aged 18-29 yielded 510 who "stuck with" a study of their sexual activities from 1993 through 1997. For the last 30 days, the average number of sexual partners was about 3 that is, the average young homosexual in San Francisco had between 20-40 partners per year!

The most risky sexual activity as far as getting infected with HIV is penile/anal sex that has been known for better than 15 years. Yet 68% of these gays claimed to have engaged in condomless anal sex, and, as the authors put it, occasional unprotected anal sex "has thus become the modal sexual behavior pattern in this population" (p. 1529). In "highly educated" San Francisco, most younger gays are apparently ignoring the "wisdom" dispensed by the public health establishment.

All of this is happening in a population San Francisco with very high levels of HIV infection. Further, a fair percentage of the men told the investigators that they were not infected with HIV when, as determined by blood tests, they actually were. Who knows what they told their sex partners or whether their partners even cared?

Those who did not claim to know whether their sexual partners were HIV infected (about a quarter of the sample), also reported more sexual partners than gays who did claim to know! Further, many of these men said that they had engaged in sex with men who did not claim to be uninfected with HIV. In addition, more than half of the gays reported having sex under the influence of alcohol or some other drug within the past 12 months².

The "older" gays in Seattle reported averaging about 22 different sexual partners a year, while the "younger" gays in San Francisco reported averaging around 30. It is unlikely that there is a "real" underlying difference between homosexuals in the two venues. Older or younger seems of little consequence. It is the "gay" trait that tells the tale.

Doesn't this all sound just too familiar? Much the same kinds of reports have been coming out of the San Francisco and Seattle "gay communities" for a long time. Why does taxpayer money continue to be spent documenting "the same old same old?" And why is our society ever more accepting of homosexuality?

References:

1. Williams, L.A. et al Elimination and reintroduction of primary and secondary syphilis. American Journal of Public Health, 1999, 89, 1093-97

2. Ekstrand, ML et al Gay men report high rates of unprotected anal sex with partners of unknown or discordant HIV status. AIDS 1999, 13, 1523-33

It seems to be one of the "facts of epidemiological life" that most epidemics increase rapidly, slow, and then retreat. This has happened with syphilis and gonorrhea and is now happening with HIV. The problem is, are "we" responsible for this decline (which we would like to believe), or is this a "natural process of sexually transmitted diseases" that would have occurred anyway? If the "natural curve" of a disease is mostly unaffected by what we do, our public health officials will be tempted to think that they have "succeeded" when the disease declines even though they may actually have had no effect.

As for AIDS, it looks to have peaked and is now declining pretty-much on its own. That is, given the very typical 10-year lag between infection and full-blown symptoms, the downturn in the incidence of new cases probably occurred around 1983-1985, since the downturn in AIDS deaths started in 1994. An argument could be made that "all the AIDS education" has been a waste, and that "the new AIDS drugs" happened to be used at a time when the disease was declining anyway.

The debate about needle-exchanges is affected by the decline of HIV infections among intravenous drug users [IVD]. As with gays, fewer IVD are apparently becoming infected today than 10 years ago. A lot of professionals are pointing to this fact as evidence that needle-exchanges, free needles, nondiscrimination, education you name it "worked." Thus, two researchers recently opined¹ that "something is indeed working, over time, in reducing HIV in U.S. drug users. Probably,... what is working is everything." Perhaps, however, nothing is working. Maybe HIV has already snared many of the "more biologically susceptible" or has undergone some subtle change.

The "needle-exchanges don't work" side has received additional ammunition. The same authors who earlier provided empirical information supporting needle-exchanges have just published a larger and better-done study suggesting that needle-exchanges do not protect AT ALL against hepatitis B or C. Indeed, 10% of needle-users who used the needle exchange in Seattle got infected with hepatitis B and 21% got infected with hepatitis C every year.

This is about the same rate at which IVD were getting infected with these viruses before needle-exchanges came on line. This new study was not a case-control design, where "cases" with a disease are matched with non-cases to see if there are differences between them, but a prospective following of more than 2400 IVD for a year's worth of living and drug use. At least 19 died during the study, and a number were "lost to follow-up."

As one might guess, there was a disproportionate fraction of homosexuals among the IVD. For the 187 IVD who started the study not infected with HCV, 18% were homosexual; for the 460 IVD who started the study not infected with HBV, 12% were homosexual.

A question neither the invited commentators nor the authors of the new study answered is:

1. If 'everything' being thrown at HIV in terms of education, needle-cleaning, etc. is "working," yet
2. the fraction of IVD getting infected with HCV or HBV each year is staying basically the same, and
3. HIV, HCV, and HBV are transmitted basically the same way, although HIV may be somewhat more difficult to transmit, then
4. why has the yearly infection rate with HIV gone down while the yearly infection rate with HBV and HCV stayed the same?

One possible answer is "because, for reasons we don't understand, HIV infection is going down 'on its own.'"

No study could "absolutely prove" that needle-exchanges never work. But this latest study, along with similar findings from Vancouver and Montreal, goes a long way toward putting the nail in the needle-exchanges coffin.

References:

1. Moss, AR & Hahn, JA Invited commentary: Needle exchange no help for hepatitis? American Journal of Epidemiology, 1999, 149, 214-216

2. Hagan, H. et al Syringe exchange and risk of infection with hepatitis B and C viruses. American Journal of Epidemiology, 1999, 149,203-213

Corner

"Slouching Toward Gomorrah"

One presidential candidate recently criticized the notion that the U.S. is "slouching toward Gomorrah." Consider this gem: The National Institute for Mental Health, supported by American tax dollars, is now starting and funding "clubs" for gays aged 18-27! Of course, all of this is "for science."

In Eugene, Oregon and Santa Barbara, California, four young gays in each city were paid to start a safer sex group. Their task was to round up other young gays to attend meetings "through the use of fun, entertaining approaches (e.g., using performance and/or costumes), and the outreach teams distributed interesting, appealing safer sex materials that they and other volunteers had developed" (p. 1756).

One-time meetings with 8-10 young gays lasting about 3 hours emphasized safer sex. A total of 319 gays were "reached" with this "club-concept" although only 247 agreed to be initially interviewed (for a payment of $10) regarding their sexual habits. About 34% of the sample did not participate in an immediate follow-up after the meetings and outreach activities, and 44% had fallen out of the study within a year of the supposed safer sex "intervention."

Even relatively short longitudinal studies are difficult to conduct, and when it comes to homosexuals well, as the authors noted, "young gay men are highly mobile, and many moved from the communities before the intervention was conducted... despite complex tracking procedures, it was difficult to maintain this longitudinal cohort" (p. 1760).

If claims of using condoms is a "success" there was scant evidence of success in Eugene (39% of the gays reported not using condoms for anal sex at the beginning of the program, 38% reported not using condoms a year after the intervention) and a hint of some success in Santa Barbara (36% at the beginning, 31% a year after the club-intervention).

After the federal money ran out, the "clubs," of course, expired. Not surprisingly, the investigators claimed some success and want even more money and many more similar programs: the "largest absolute reductions in unprotected anal intercourse occurred in boyfriend relationships, where the majority of unprotected intercourse occurs" (p. 1761). However, 54.5% of 88 participants before the clubs were started reported "unprotected sex" with boyfriends in the previous 2 months, while a year later 86 participants [not necessarily the same gays as the 88 two years earlier] claimed 50.0%.

Even if these homosexuals told the gospel truth, this is a mighty small difference, and might not even be a difference since so many gays dropped out of the study. Such an outcome is hardly worth the tens of thousands of dollars expended. Yet our society is paying through the nose for this kind of foolishness and pseudoscience.

Appallingly, instead of discouraging promiscuity and eroticism amongst homosexuals, "the project's messages about safer activities were very sex-positive, and included suggesting and eroticizing a large variety of safer sexual activities, not solely condom use" (p. 1760). If this study isn't evidence of "slouching toward Gomorrah," what is?

Reference:

Kegeles, SM et al, Mobilizing young gay & bisexual men for HIV prevention: a two-community study. AIDS 1999, 13, 1753-1762

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)

©1999

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