My Community

Beyond Middle Earth => Rosslyn Chapel => Topic started by: dapengmingwang on April 27, 2007, 01:26:41 AM

Title: Are homosexuals truly born that way?
Post by: dapengmingwang on April 27, 2007, 01:26:41 AM
It would be difficult for anyone of the Christian faith to believe that someone can be born homosexual.

It would have appeared that God made them 'wrong' in the first place.

Are homosexuals truly born that way?
April 27, 2007

MINISTER Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said in a dialogue with 400 Young PAP members on Saturday that, 'if in fact it is true, and I have asked doctors this, that you are genetically born a homosexual - because that's the nature of the genetic random transmission of genes - you can't help it. So why should we criminalise it?'

Are homosexuals born gay? Why the importance to prove this issue? The reason is simple: If society is convinced that some people are indeed born gay, then there would be a need for the Government to not criminalise this behaviour, and, by extension, even protect homosexuals as a designated minority class.

In the United States, this debate is far from over. While a publication by research journal Science, claiming that we were 'on the verge of proving that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeable, a normal variant of human nature', generated much media interest in the early 1990s, scientific attempts to prove homosexual genes have yet to really bear fruit.

A study conducted in 1991 which attempted to show that homosexuality occurs more frequently among identical twins than fraternal twins actually provided support for environmental factors versus genetics.

If homosexuality were indeed in the genetic code, then both of the twins should be homosexual 100 per cent of the time, yet this was not the case.

The LeVay brain study of 1991, which tried to find differences in the hypothalamuses (a very small part of the brain) of homosexual and heterosexual men found no evidence that there is any genetic cause for homosexuality.

Other prominent researchers concluded that there was a lack of evidence to support a biological theory, but rather that homosexuality could be best explained by an alternative model where 'temperamental and personality traits interact with the familial and social milieu as the individual's sexuality emerges'.

With respect to possibly decriminalising homosexual behaviour in the upcoming Penal Code review, I urge the Government to refrain from proceeding hastily in view of inconclusive findings on 'homosexual genes'.

Agnes Chai Shiang Jen (Ms)

Title: Re: Are homosexuals truly born that way?
Post by: dapengmingwang on May 22, 2007, 11:02:41 PM
Pretty damn well written...

Either way, I don't give a flying damn if you prefer those only of your own sex. I also really don't care if you and your partner screws one another ass...  I just don't want to hear about what you would do behind close doors. I also don't want to hear about 'getting equal recognition as marriage' for this bleeding nonsense.

Is homosexuality wrong?: Three factors to consider
May 22, 2007

I REFER to the article, 'Is there a place for God in public morals debate' (ST, May 18), by Ms Chua Mui Hoong.

First, let me explain that there is not a single official statement of the church that says that 'homosexuality is a sin'. That would be like saying 'kleptomania is a crime'.

Kleptomania is a condition that inclines those who suffer from it to steal; just like homosexuality is a condition that inclines people to commit homosexual acts (sinful in the eyes of the church). Stealing is a crime, not kleptomania.

The Church believes that homosexual acts, not homosexuality nor homosexuals, are wrong. Neither does the church say that homosexual acts are necessarily sins, only sinful.

In the same vein, an act of theft of kleptomania may be 'excused' on the basis of the special condition of the person, although the act of theft has indeed being committed.

The law (and church) speaks about the wrongness of the act (sinfulness); the court (conscience) about the guilt of the person (sin). In other words, we must distinguish between the three matters at stake, the condition of the person, the free acts of the person and the culpability the person deserves.

This said, I cannot agree more with the point the author puts across: 'Public reason is accessible to all regardless of religious faith.'

Reason and religion should complement each other. Reason helps when religion gets unreasonable; religion helps when reason loses sight of truth.

We must use reason to talk and discuss about religious and social matters because what is reasonable is reasonable to all. Law (and God's commandments), human acts (sins or virtues) and responsibility (guilt or lack of it) are important social (and religious) matters.

Psychology should study the psychological condition, civil law (or God's or church's law) should establish the 'wrongness' (sinfulness or lack of it) of the act, and the court (or conscience) should establish the guilt and punishment the person deserves.

To discuss it, we only need to know where to put the brackets.

David Garcia

Title: Re: Are homosexuals truly born that way?
Post by: dapengmingwang on May 24, 2007, 10:42:03 AM
Well done! Yet another well written one. :)

Let's not get distracted by sex
Letter from Terence Teo
Sex is always an interesting topic, and the debate about homosexuality is no exception. However, before we get too distracted by sex, let me make two clarifications:

There is no law against homosexuals. People who are homosexual per se are not criminals. What has been said so far seems to suggest that a person is a criminal just by being homosexual in orientation. This is not true. Sections 377 and 377A of the Penal Code do not appear to solely target homosexuals. Section 377 is targeted at a specific sexual act, an act of "gross indecency" or an act "against the order of nature". These provisions will apply to anyone, regardless of sexual persuasion, if they commit such acts.

Section 377A singles out "male person" as the potential perpetrator but since females too are homosexual, it suggests this section is not specifically targeted against homosexuals but a male perpetrator of any sexual orientation.

Section 377 is even wider and applies to anyone having carnal intercourse with any man, woman or animal.

We could argue that male homosexuals are more at risk of violating either Section 377 or 377A, or both, because the nature of their preferred form of sexual activity is more likely to result in such a violation and this, therefore, is grossly unfair to them. This is an entirely different issue, which nevertheless underscores the point that Sections 377 and 377A do not criminalise homosexuals but rather certain sexual acts, which may be the preference of male homosexuals, but is not their exclusive preserve.

Homosexuality is not a crime, and the physical nature of the relationship is not the issue here. In my view, the real issue is about whether we are ready to legalise homosexuality and to understand the social implications and consequences of such a move - whether to allow them to marry, adopt children, apply for a flat, and so on.

Let us not get distracted by the provisions of the two sections in the Penal Code or other more lurid topics. Instead, we should discuss if society is ready to accept same sex marriages, same sex parents, and all that may result from legalising homosexuality.

Title: Re: Are homosexuals truly born that way?
Post by: dapengmingwang on October 23, 2007, 09:07:47 AM
Homosexuality: Are People Born Gay?
 Is there such a thing as a "gay gene?"
 - by Melissa Fryrear

If you ask any person on the street to identify the hottest moral issues of the day, one of the most popular answers will inevitably be "homosexuality." Homosexuality is literally everywhere.

Listen to the national evening news or read a local newspaper and you'll learn about the debates surrounding marriage and civil unions. Walk into one of a number of high schools anywhere in the country and you'll see the establishment of Gay-Straight Alliances. Sit in any living room or church service and you'll find individuals and families personally affected by homosexuality.

In this article, we will address genetic research relating to homosexuality. Are people really born gay - is there such a thing as a "gay gene"?

The Gay Gene

This discussion really first began in 1993 when Science, a respected research journal, published a study by Dean Hamer that ignited a "born gay" myth that later exploded into a firestorm. Hamer claimed that science was "on the verge of proving that homosexuality is innate, genetic and, therefore, unchangeable - a normal variant of human nature."1

The media quickly added fuel to the fire. Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal, National Public Radio, and many other news publications and programs announced headlines and stories that suggested scientists had discovered a "gay gene." Time magazine's story read, "Born Gay- Studies of family trees and DNA make the case that male homosexuality is in the genes."2

The headlines were misleading though; "blatantly wrong," many have said. Actually, the most important reporting conveyed in many of those articles and stories was relegated to the concluding fine print, offered almost as an afterthought. Here, reporters made qualifying statements about a possible discovery of a genetic link.

In actuality, though, no such discovery had been made. In fact, Hamer himself (also a gay-identified man) later responded, " - environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay. - I don't think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay."3

As an overview to his study, Hamer claimed that homosexuality could be linked to findings on the X chromosome. He found that out of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers, 33 (83 percent) received the same sequence on five genetic markers.4

Other scientists, though, such as N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D., co-author of My Genes Made Me Do It!, found a number of problems with Hamer's study. Whitehead first pointed out that the study lacked a control group from the general population, noting that if the same sequence from the X chromosome that appeared in the homosexual men also appears in the general population of heterosexual men, then the gene is insignificant.

Another problem with the study is that Hamer did not test the heterosexual brothers of the homosexual men to see if they had the gene, and some of the data from those heterosexual brothers did indicate that they had the identical gene sequence. Another conspicuous flaw is that seven of the pairs of homosexuals did not have the needed gene sequence at all.5

Brain Orientation

In addition to Hamer's research, two other major studies attracted widespread media attention in the early 90s. One of those, done in 1991 by Simon LeVay, later became known as the "brain study." In his article, "A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men," LeVay attempted to find differences in the hypothalamuses of homosexual and heterosexual men. His study was also published in Science.6

LeVay studied the brains of 41 corpses, including six women, 19 homosexual men, and 16 men presumed to be heterosexual. LeVay examined a portion of the hypothalamus known as INAH-3. He reported that the INAH-3 was more than twice as large in heterosexual men as in the homosexual men. He deduced that "sexual orientation has a biological substrate" because if the brains of homosexual men were closer in size to the brains of women than the brains of heterosexual men, then gay men must be more biologically like women.7

What the general public doesn't know, though, is that many researchers found fault with this study, as well, including LeVay himself. He said, "It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain."8

Even more emphatically, LeVay stated, " - time and again I have been described as someone who 'proved that homosexuality is genetic' - I did not."9 And LeVay later admitted that all 19 of the subjects identified as homosexuals had died from AIDS complications.10 It is certainly possible, then, that the size difference in their hypothalamuses was caused by their illness rather than their homosexuality.

More specifically, other researchers pointed out that LeVay did not "adequately address the fact that at the time of death virtually all men with AIDS have decreased testosterone levels as the result of the disease itself or the side effects of particular treatments. Thus, it is possible that the effects on the size of the INAH-3 that he attributed to sexual orientation were actually caused by the hormonal abnormalities associated with AIDS."11

Identical Genetics, Identical Orientation?

The third major study trumpeted as "proof" of homosexuality's genetic link was also conducted in 1991 by psychologist Michael Bailey and psychiatrist Richard Pillard. Using pairs of brothers - identical twins, non-identical twins, biological brothers, and adopted brothers - Bailey and Pillard attempted to show that homosexuality occurs more frequently among identical twins than fraternal twins.

Again, what the majority of people do not know, and what the media did not accurately report, is that this study actually provides support for environmental factors versus genetics! If homosexuality were in the genetic code, then both of the twins would have been homosexual 100 percent of the time, yet this was not the case.12

Bailey and Pillard found that, among the identical twins, 52 percent were both homosexual, as opposed to the fraternal twins, among whom only 22 percent shared a homosexual orientation; 9.2 percent of the time, both non-twin brothers were homosexual; 10.5 percent of the time, both adoptive brothers were homosexual.13

Dr. Whitehead further explains, "Identical twins have identical genes. If homosexuality was a biological condition produced inescapably by the genes (e.g. eye color), then if one identical twin was homosexual in 100 percent of the cases his brother would be too. ... Genes are responsible for an indirect influence, but on average, they do not force people into homosexuality. This conclusion has been well known in the scientific community for a few decades but has not reached the general public. Indeed, the public increasingly believes the opposite."14

Test Everything

While there has been no shortage of attempts to prove a genetic link to homosexuality, neither has there been a shortage of problems with those studies that claim to have found such a link. Thus far, all scientific attempts to demonstrate that homosexuality is biologically determined, have failed.

Having said all that, do not take my word for it. Do the research yourself. Read Hamer's, LeVay's, and Bailey and Pillard's studies. Read the statements the researchers themselves have made. When you do, you'll find that there are still more questions than answers, so we must be honest and careful as we assess the evidence.

Originally appeared on ( Copyright ?2006 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved.

  • 1. Satinover, Jeffrey, "Is There a 'Gay Gene?'" National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) Fact Sheet, March 1999, p. 1.
  • 2. Henry III, William A., Time (July 26, 1993).
  • 3. Hamer, Dean and Peter Copeland, The Science of Desire (Simon & Schuster, 1994).
  • 4. Hamer, Dean, et al., "A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation," Science 261 (July 16, 1993): pp. 321-27.
  • 5. Whitehead, Neil and Briar Whitehead, My Genes Made Me Do It! (Huntington House, 1999), p. 14.
  • 6. LeVay, Simon, "A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men," Science 253 (1991): pp. 1034-7.
  • 7. Ibid., p. 1037.
  • 8. Byrd, A. Dean, Shirley E. Cox and Jeffrey W. Robinson, "The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science: In Their Own Words: Gay Activists Speak About Science, Morality, Philosophy*" ( (September 30, 2002). Accessed 10 February 2006.
  • 9. LeVay, Simon, The Sexual Brain (MIT Press, 1993), p. 122.
  • 10. LeVay, Simon, Queer Science (MIT Press, 1996), pp. 143-45.
  • 11. Byne, William, "The Biological Evidence Challenged," Scientific American (May 1994): pp. 50-55.
  • 12. Byrd, et al.
  • 13. Bailey, J. Michael and Richard Pillard, "A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation," Archives of General Psychiatry 48 (1991): pp. 1089-96.
  • 14. Whitehead, N.E., "The Importance of Twin Studies.*" ( Accessed 10 February 2006.

*(Note: Referrals to Web sites not produced by Focus on the Family are for informational purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.)

Title: Gay Is Not the New Black
Post by: dapengmingwang on July 22, 2012, 06:49:42 AM
Gay Is Not the New Black (
Voddie Baucham|10:00 PM CT

Voddie Baucham is the pastor of preaching at Grace Family Baptist Church in Spring, Texas, and a Council member for The Gospel Coalition.

It's hard to deny that homosexual marriage appears to be a foregone conclusion in America. This is a frightening prospect not only for those of us who understand marriage to be a testimony of the relationship between Christ and his bride, the church, but also for all who value the family and its contribution to the well-being of society and human thriving. And while it's difficult to watch a coordinated, well-funded, well-connected propaganda strategy undermine thousands of years of human history, it's especially disconcerting to witness the use of the civil rights struggle as the vehicle for the strategy.

The idea that same-sex "marriage" is the next leg in the civil rights race is ubiquitous. One of the clearest examples of the conflation of homosexual "marriage" and civil rights is Michael Gross's article in The Advocate (, in which he coins the now-popular phrase "Gay is the new black."1 Gross is not alone in his conflation of the two issues, however. At a 2005 banquet, Julian Bond, former head of the NAACP, said, "Sexual disposition parallels race. I was born this way. I have no choice. I wouldn't change it if I could. Sexuality is unchangeable."2

Nor is this kind of thinking exclusive to the political left. When asked by GQ magazine if he thought homosexuality was a choice, Michael Steele, former chairman of the Republican National Committee, replied (

Oh, no. I don't think I've ever really subscribed to that view, that you can turn it on and off like a water tap. Um, you know, I think that there's a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can't simply say, oh, like, "Tomorrow morning I'm gonna stop being gay." It's like saying, "Tomorrow morning I'm gonna stop being black."3

Even the California Supreme Court bought in to this line of reasoning. In a February 2008 decision they reasoned:

Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation---like a person's race or gender---does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.4 (emphasis added)

The California Supreme Court, like Gross, would have us believe that the homosexual struggle for a redefinition of marriage puts them in the same category as my ancestors. However, they would rather you didn't take a closer look, lest you see how flimsy the comparison turns out to be.

Unidentifiable Minority

The first problem with the idea of conflating "sexual orientation" and race is the fact that homosexuality is undetectable apart from self-identification. Determining whether or not a person is black, Native American, or female usually involves no more than visual verification. However, should doubt remain, blood tests, genetics, or a quick trip up the family tree would suffice. Not so with homosexuality. There is no evidence that can confirm or deny a person's claims regarding sexual orientation.5

Moreover, the homosexual community itself has made this identification even more complicated in an effort to distance itself from those whose same-sex behavior they find undesirable. The Jerry Sandusky case is a prime example. Sandusky is accused of molesting numerous young boys during and after his tenure at Penn State. However, try placing the label "homosexual" on his activities and the backlash will be swift and unequivocal. "Pedophiles are not homosexuals!" is the consistent refrain coming from the homosexual community, media, academia, and the psychological/medical establishment.6

Hence, it seems same-sex attraction alone isn't enough to identify a person as a homosexual. And what about LUGS7 in college, or same-sex relationships in prison? Are these people homosexual? How about men who are extremely effeminate but prefer women, or those who once were practicing homosexuals but have since come out of the lifestyle (i.e., 1 Cor. 6:9-11 ( In short, it's impossible to identify who is or is not a homosexual. As a result, how do we know to whom the civil rights in question should be attributed? Should a man who isn't a homosexual (assuming we could determine such a thing) but tries to enter a same-sex union be treated the same as a woman who isn't Native American but tries to claim it to win sympathy, or casino rights, or votes?

But this isn't the only problem with the civil rights angle.

Unalterable Definition

An additional problem with the "gay is the new black" argument is the complete disconnect between same-sex "marriage" and anti-miscegenation laws. First, there is a categorical disconnect. Miscegenation literally means "the interbreeding of people considered to be of different racial types." Ironically, the fact that homosexuals cannot "interbreed" shines a spotlight on the problem inherent in their logic. How can forbidding people who actually have the ability to interbreed be the same thing as acknowledging the fact that two people categorically lack that ability?8

Second, there is a definitional disconnect. The very definition of marriage eliminates the possibility of including same-sex couples. The word marriage has a long and well-recorded history; it means "the union of a man and a woman." Even in cultures that practice polygamy, the definition involves a man and several women. Therefore, while anti-miscegenation laws denied people a legitimate right, the same cannot be said concerning the denial of marriage to same-sex couples; one cannot be denied a right to something that doesn't exist.

It should be noted that the right to marry is one of the most frequently denied rights we have. People who are already married, 12-year-olds, and people who are too closely related are just a few categories of people routinely and/or categorically denied the right to marry. Hence, the charge that it is wrong to deny any person a "fundamental right" rings hollow. There has always been, and, by necessity, will always be discrimination in marriage laws.

Third, there is a historical disconnect. As early as the time of Moses, recorded history is replete with interracial marriages. In our own history, the marriage of John Rolfe and Pocahontas in the 17th century,9 along with the fact that anti-miscegenation laws were usually limited only to the intermarrying of certain "races" of people (i.e., black and white), stands as historical evidence of the legal and logical inconsistency of such laws. Thus, unlike same-sex "marriage" advocates, those fighting for the right to intermarry in the civil rights era had history on their side.

Fourth, there is a legal disconnect. One thing that seems to escape most people in this debate is the fact that homosexuals have never been denied the right to marry. They simply haven't had the right to redefine marriage. But don't take my word for it; listen to the Iowa Supreme Court in their decision in favor of same-sex "marriage": "It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex."

There it is: not only in black and white, but in a legal decision. Homosexuals haven't been deprived of any right. How, then, do those on the side of same-sex marriage continue to make the claim that this is a civil rights issue? The key is in the next paragraph:

[The] right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation, and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute.

I feel the need to remind the reader that this is a legal decision, since phrases like "gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship" tend to sound out of place in such a document. Further, this is asinine logic. For example, following this line of reasoning, one could argue, "I have the right to join the military, but I am a pacifist. Therefore, I don't really have the right (since it would be repulsive to me). Therefore, we need to establish a pacifist branch of the military so that I can fulfill both my desire to join, and my desire not to fight."

However, this reasoning is critically important in order to make the next leap in logic. "[A] gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay and lesbian people as a class---their sexual orientation."

Unsustainable Precedent

Perhaps the most damning aspect of the civil rights argument is logical unsustainability. If sexual orientation/identity is the basis for (1) classification as a minority group, and (2) legal grounds for the redefinition of marriage, then what's to stop the "bisexual" from fighting for the ability to marry a man and a woman simultaneously since his "orientation" is, by definition, directed toward both sexes?10 What about the member of NAMBLA whose orientation is toward young boys?11 Where do we stop, and on what basis?

Homosexual advocates are loath to answer this question. In fact, they are adept at avoiding it (and are rarely pressed on the point). However, the further legal implications of court decisions about same-sex marriage are inevitable. Nowhere is this clearer than in Lawrence v. Texas, a decision that struck down anti-sodomy laws. In the majority decision, Justice Kennedy cited his 1992 opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey:

These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.12

I have no legal training, and I recognize the limits of my ability to fully evaluate the implications of such a decision. However, I do take notice when Justice Scalia responds to this assertion by stating:

I have never heard of a law that attempted to restrict one's "right to define" certain concepts; and if the passage calls into question the government's power to regulate actions based on one's self-defined "concept of existence, etc.," it is the passage that ate the rule of law.13 (emphasis added)

It is very important for those of us who oppose the idea of same-sex "marriage" to do so not because we wish to preserve our version of the American Dream, but because we view marriage as a living, breathing picture of the relationship between Christ and his church (Eph. 5:22ff (, and because we know that God has designed the family in a particular way. While the design of the family promotes human thriving (Gen 1:27-28 (, the testimony points people to their only hope in this life and the next. As a result, silence on this issue is not an option.

Unfortunately (and quite ironically), many Christians have been bullied into silence by the mere threat of censure from the homosexual lobby. "Oppose us and you're no better than Gov. Wallace, Hitler, and those homophobes who killed Matthew Shepard!" is their not-so-subtle refrain. Consequently, we spend so much time trying to prove we're not hate-filled murderers that we fail to recognize that the Emperor has no clothes. There is no legal, logical, moral, biblical, or historical reason to support same-sex "marriage." In fact, there are myriad reasons not to support it. I've only provided a few.


1 Michael Joseph Gross, "Gay is the New Black," The Advocate, November 16, 2008 (available online at

2 Ertha Melzer, "NAACP chair says 'gay rights are civil rights,'" Washington Blade, April 8, 2005. It should also be noted that the NAACP recently endorsed same-sex marriage ( since the organization exists for the "Advancement of 'Colored' People."

3 Micheal Steele interview in "The Reconstructionist," by Lisa Paulo, GQ (March 2009), available at


5 Even if brain studies, twin studies, etc., provided conclusive links (which they do not), one would still be left with the fact that while blackness and maleness are attributes one cannot deny, homosexual behavior is not. Thus, even if there were a genetic connection, it would be insufficient to propel sexual orientation into the same category as race or sex.


7 The term "Lesbian Until Graduation" refers to young women who participate in lesbian relationships only during the duration of their college life.

8 It is important to note that this is a categorical distinction, and not a determination based on fertility. Otherwise, the same could be said about men and women beyond child-bearing years, or those with defects preventing conception.

9 Though it is commonly thought that Pocahontas married John Smith, it was actually English tobacco farmer John Rolfe whom she married on April 5, 1614, in Jamestown, Virginia.

10 See Elizabeth Emens's February 2003 Chicago Law School White paper, MONOGAMY'S LAW: COMPULSORY MONOGAMY AND POLYAMOROUS EXISTENCE, available at

11 North American Man/Boy Love Association. Their motto is "Eight is Too Late."

12 Justice Kennedy Majority Opinion, "John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, Petitioners V. Texas " in 539 U. S. (2003), ed. Supreme Court of the United States (2003).

13 Antonin Scalia Dissenting Opinion, "John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, Petitioners V. Texas " in 539 U. S. (2003), ed. Supreme Court of the United States (2003)