In 1987, Boston gay activist Michael Swift — assuming homosexuality is learned — asserted:

“We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress,… Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.… The family unit-spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence —will be abolished.… Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory.… All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men.… We shall rewrite history, history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions.… Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.” (Gay Community News, Feb. 15–21, 1987)

In 1987, AIDS was killing scores of gays every week. This seemed to validate the traditional view of homosexuality as being an acquired personal and social poison (not to mention, dirty and disease ridden). Yet, the traditional Christian belief that homosexuality must be suppressed to preserve society was being abandoned for a more ‘modern’ mental health philosophy: (1) you have a ‘right’ to your sexual desires; (2) society functions just as well with heterosexuals or homosexuals; so (3) society must be ‘corrected’ to allow (especially) homosexual desires to be embraced.

In 1995, Massachusetts became the first state to ask high school students whether they were LGBT (6% of girls and 7% of boys said they were). In 2004, it legalized gay marriage. By 2015, responding to pro-LGBT policies and teachings, 18% of high school girls and 9% of boys (13% of students) said they were LGBT. A year later, a Gallup poll found that 15.5% of its 18–25 year-olds were ‘sexual minorities’ and Massachusetts had the highest fraction of homosexuals (after Vermont). Of course, genetically-based or ‘in-born’ phenomena take generations to change. What, other than learning, can account for this dramatic uptick in homosexuality in Massachusetts?

When FRI’s chairman spoke at Harvard in 1985, besides arguing for the quarantining of gay blood, he reiterated that homosexuality was more primitive and easier to adopt, while heterosexuality, being more sophisticated, needed strong social support to succeed and to encourage sufficient propagation of children. FRI supported with empirical evidence the traditional notions that death and destruction spring from homosexuality, while life and growth come from heterosexuality. Both FRI and Michael Swift agreed that homosexuality was acquired: Swift proud to brag about its power to destroy, FRI to raise the alarm.

If you accept that children can learn ‘almost anything,’ then it follows that some kids, when presented with a ‘strange deviation’ (like homosexuality), might — for reasons not well understood, but being ‘ripe for new things’ — try or even adopt that thing. LGBTs assume that if kids are told that various historical figures were LGBT, or worse, are told ‘THIS is how LGBTs make love,’ then given enough students, some will ‘come our way.’ The learned component of sexuality is why traditional thought held that society works best when children are taught by their parents, school, and culture ‘the right way’ to live and have sex; not about sexual deviations.

Massachusetts initiated the questionnaire that the U.S. Government now sponsors for the U.S. as a whole every other year. Of course, simply asking a question about one’s sexual desires publicizes and tends to legitimize homosexuality. The 1995 results (see Table 1) clearly show that even in Massachusetts, the 6% of kids who said they were homosexual (e.g., bisexual/gay) had the worst of it. Compared to kids who said they were straight, homosexuals were more apt to report substance abuse, sadness, suicide attempts, being overweight, etc. Indeed, LGBT kids did not have the best of it in any respect. Further, they caused significantly more trouble for society. They traveled with those who drank and drove, got into more fights, were more apt to attempt suicides that involved society having to aid them in some way, and also were more likely to (illegally) smoke, drink or use marijuana.

At least two social policy directions could be pursued from these findings: 1) let us discourage these poor kids from their homosexuality and push them toward straightness; or 2) let us do whatever needed to make these poor gay kids as healthy as straights. It’s not a stretch to guess that our public health, education, and political officials chose the second direction after examining the 1995 results. To ‘level the playing field,’ a series of ‘protective’ measures and trainings were implemented, under the implicit assumptions that: 1) sexuality is learned; 2) all sexual preferences (homosexual, heterosexual, etc.) are just as good and worthwhile, and 3) society must eliminate these differences.

An increase in LGBs was evident in Massachusetts fairly quickly, at least doubling since 1995. This increase meant that Massachusetts would have more problems with bad driving, suicides, and illegal drug use. Apparently, there was no entertaining whether the traditional perspective was true that bad things ‘naturally’ accompany homosexuality. Even though homosexuality among youth was clearly growing, officialdom assumed both sexual preferences were equally valid, equally good, etc., and went about trying to achieve actual ‘equality’ of the sexual orientations. That perspective continues.

As Michael Swift predicted/hoped, gays are on track to ‘sodomize our sons’ (although our daughters seem to be more frequently buying their advice). Table 1 shows comparative results for Massachusetts during years 1995, 2005, and 2011 in the first three columns. The last two columns show results from a nationwide sample in 2017: the first of these columns refers to how U.S. high schoolers identified themselves (e.g., straight, bisexual/gay), while the second column summarizes responses among the subset of kids who were sexually experienced. Items on which LGBs did statistically ‘worse’ (assuming fighting or rape are bad) are bolded.

In 2017, 14% of kids who said they were sexually experienced reported they had engaged in homosexuality, while 10% of all the surveyed kids identified as LGB. Those with homosexual experience or who claimed to be gay were almost always more frequently ‘in trouble’ or ‘making trouble.’ Across the board, experienced kids were the more rebellious. Even heterosexual or straight kids who were having sex in high school were doing more poorly and causing more problems than those kids who said they wanted (eventually) to have heterosexual sex, but as yet, had not.

Examine the findings over time. While the samples of kids and percentages changed from year to year, in 1995, straights were about one-third as likely to report having had a weapon at Massachusetts high schools. In 2005 and 2011, the ratio was about the same. In both 2005 and 2011, straight kids were about half as likely to report being sad or feeling hopeless for two or more weeks of the prior 12 months, so deeply they stopped doing some usual activities.

Similarly stable trends are evident for many of the comparisons. Yet, year over year, the proportion of LGBs was growing. Whatever else the programs that were implemented accomplished, more and more Massachusetts high school students were ‘becoming’ gay or engaging in homosexuality. And that meant more and more were reporting ‘bad’ things on the questionnaire. If student reporting was accurate, more and more kids were experiencing or doing ‘bad things’ — apparently due to the policies of their state and school to encourage and protect homosexual kids. The same thing has been happening all across the United States.

Were we were talking about kids who smoke, we would generally find the same things (smokers are more apt to attempt suicide, drink, use pot, get into fights, etc. than non-smokers). Yet the same officials who condemn smoking and try to get kids to stop — from a traditional perspective, a very rational response — praise homosexual sexual desire as a ‘basic human right’ and go to great lengths to protect it (and in so doing increase it among youth). The decision to treat ‘homosexuality as a basic human right’ as a ‘truth that trumps all others’ costs society in the short term. If the growth of homosexuality continues among our youth, it may well end society as we know it for lack of sufficient children.