Most of the material below is published in an analytical report. “The rhetoric of the homosexual movement in the light of scientific facts”. doi:10.12731/978-5-907208-04-9, ISBN 978-5-907208-04-9

Introduction

One of the arguments of the activists of the “LGBT” movement is that the partnership of homosexuals is the so-called. “Homosexual families” - supposedly no different from heterosexual families with traditional values ​​and worldview. The prevailing picture in the media is that homosexual relationships are as healthy, stable and loving as normal heterosexual relationships, or even surpassing them. This picture is not true, and many representatives of the homosexual community honestly admit it. People of the same sex who engage in sexual relations are at increased risk of STDs, physical trauma, mental disorders, substance abuse, suicide and intimate partner violence. This article will focus on three significant features of interpersonal homosexual relationships that strikingly distinguish them from heterosexual ones:
• promiscuity and related practices;
• short-lived and non-monogamous relationships;
• increased rates of violence in partnership.

Most of the material below is published in an analytical report. “The rhetoric of the homosexual movement in the light of scientific facts”. doi:10.12731/978-5-907208-04-9, ISBN 978-5-907208-04-9

Key findings

1. The hypothetical “gene for homosexuality” is not known, it has not been discovered by anyone.
2. The studies underlying the statement about the “innateness of homosexuality” have a number of methodological inaccuracies and contradictions, and do not allow us to draw clear conclusions.
3. Even existing studies cited by activists of the LGBT+ movement do not speak of the genetic determination of homosexual inclinations, but, at best, of a complex influence in which a genetic factor supposedly determines the predisposition, in combination with environmental influences, upbringing, etc.
4. Some prominent figures in the homosexual movement, including scientists, criticize claims about the biological predetermination of homosexuality and say that it is caused by a conscious choice.
5. Authors of LGBT propaganda methods «After The Ball» recommended lying about the innateness of homosexuality:

“First, the general public needs to be convinced that gay people are victims of circumstance, and that they no more choose their sexual orientation than they choose their height, skin color, talents or limitations. Despite the fact that, apparently, sexual orientation for most people is the product of complex interactions between an innate predisposition and environmental factors in childhood and early adolescence, we insist that for all practical purposes it should be considered that gays were born that way.

<..>
Homosexuals did not choose anything, no one ever fooled or seduced them.”

*The LGBT movement is recognized as an extremist organization!

This report is a thorough review of scientific evidence refuting myths and slogans promoted by LGBT activists who postulate that homosexuality is a normal, universal, innate and unchanging state. This work is not “against homosexual people” (as adherents will certainly argue false dichotomy), but rather behind them, since it focuses on the problems of a homosexual lifestyle hidden from them and the observance of their rights, in particular the right to access reliable information about their condition and related health risks, the right to have a choice and the right to receive specialized therapeutic care to get rid from this condition, if they are interested.

Content

1) Do homosexual individuals represent 10% of the population? 
2) Are there "homosexual" individuals in the animal kingdom? 
3) Is homosexual attraction congenital? 
4) Can homosexual attraction be eliminated? 
5) Is homosexuality associated with health risks? 
6) Is hostility to homosexuality a phobia? 
7) "Homophobia" - "latent homosexuality"? 
8) Are homosexual drives and pedophilia (sex drive for children) related? 
9) Are gay rights violated? 
10) Is homosexuality linked to sexual licentiousness? 
11) Was homosexuality the norm in ancient Greece? 
12) Are there any risks for children brought up in same-sex couples? 
13) Is the “normativeness” of homosexual attraction a scientifically proven fact? 
14) Was homosexuality excluded from the list of sexual perversions by scientific consensus? 
15) Is “modern science” impartial to the issue of homosexuality?