GAY TRUTH

Seal of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) A Catholic school in Macon, Ga. , is facing a federal discrimination lawsuit from a former teacher whose employment was terminated in 2014 after the school found that he would be legally marrying his same-sex partner. “The argument being made in this suit—that a Catholic school’s commitment to upholding Catholic teaching on marriage is discriminatory toward homosexual employees—is a grave threat to Catholic education,” said Patrick Reilly, president of The Cardinal Newman Society .  “A Catholic school exists for the very purpose of teaching the faith and forming young people for God,” he continued. “The implication is that our religion itself, rooted in love and true concern for the good of the person and the common good, is discriminatory because it upholds standards of morality and natural law.” The teacher, Flint Dollar, taught music at Mount de Sales Academy for three years b

Wagon with poster "We're a GAY and HAPPY FAMILY" (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Why do people in the United States (and probably other Western countries , as well) over-estimate the proportion of gays and lesbians in the population? Ever since 1948, when the  Kinsey Report  suggested 1-in-10, Americans have accepted wildly exaggerated figures. Last year,  The Smithsonian , the official web magazine of the famous museum in Washington DC, even suggested that it was 1-in-5! However, a  recent government survey  in the United Kingdom found that in 2013, 1.6% of UK adults identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual. This is a very small proportion of the population, but it becomes even smaller when the figures are broken up. Only 1.6% of men identified as gay; only 0.8% of women as lesbians; and 0.5% of men and women as bisexual. The percentages varied hugely by region. In London the figure for gay, lesbians or bisexual was 3.2% but in the North East region , it was only 1.

Reason Magazine , which is editorially a pro-gay marriage libertarian slant. Reason   reports on a recent Fox News poll  about gay marriage that asked, "using two different word frames," whether folks support or oppose same-sex 'marriage': and the two methods yielded dramatically different results. But both put the lie to the argument that somehow redefining marriage is somehow inevitable. The first frame asked about "changing the definition of the word marriage to also include same-sex couples", and found that  Americans oppose redefining marriage by 56 percent to 39 percent. But in the same poll Fox asked if respondents would favor "legalizing same-sex marriage." Here Americans split 46 percent in favor and 47 percent opposed with 7 percent undecided—still far short of the supposed majority other mainstream media outlets would have you believe support same-sex marriage. Americans don't really believe gay unions are marriages. W

WASHINGTON, D.C. , October 19, 2012, (Family Research Center)—When a Gallup poll asked people to estimate how many Americans were homosexual in 2011, most guessed 25 percent . Turns out, they were about 22 percent off. The actual number, Gallup reported Thursday, is about 3.4 percent—a startling statistic for most people who just naturally assumed the media saturation was driven by a big population. Who can blame them? These numbers should be shocking to anyone who’s lived through the deluge of gay and lesbian policy, entertainment, school curriculum, and corporate capitulation of the past 10 years. According to Gallup, this survey is the largest single study of the U.S. LGBT population ever conducted. Over four months, Gallup canvassed the country by phone, interviewing more than 121,000 people. The results were based on answers to this question, “Do you, personally, identify as a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender?” Although surveys like this one can be tricky—po

Image via Wikipedia One of the most fundamental tasks of any society is to reproduce itself. That is why virtually every human society up until the present day has given a privileged social status to male-female sexual relationships—the only type capable of resulting in natural procreation . This privileged social status is what we call “marriage.” Extending the benefits and status of “marriage” to couples who are intrinsically incapable of natural procreation (i.e., two men or two women) would dramat ically change the social meaning of the institution. It would become impossible to argue that “marriage” is about encouraging the formation of life-long, potentially procreative (i.e., opposite-sex) relationships. The likely long-term result would be that fewer such relationships would be formed, fewer such couples would choose to procreate, and fewer babies would be born. There is already evidence of at least a correlation between low birth rates and the legalization of same-sex