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

(1) Children raised by same-sex couples have an increased risk of developing homosexual drive, sexual non-conformism and adopting a homosexual lifestyle - these results were obtained even in studies conducted by authors loyal to “LGBT +” movement.
(2) The studies cited by LGBT + activists - movements and affiliates (defending the claim that there are no differences between children from traditional families and children brought up by same-sex couples) have significant shortcomings. Among them: small samples, a biased method of attracting respondents, a short observation period, the absence of control groups and the biased formation of control groups.
(3) Studies conducted with large representative samples with a long observation period show that, in addition to the increased risk of adopting a homosexual lifestyle, children raised by homosexual parents are inferior to children from traditional families in a number of ways.

From the filing RBC, Fontanka and other media outlets that do not represent the opinions of the majority of Russians, calls for the introduction of “sex education” in Russia began to spread like a whistle. In one of the groups of the social network Facebook (banned in the Russian Federation), a survey was even conducted, according to which “75% of Russians supported the idea of ​​​​introducing sex education lessons in schools.” It is noteworthy that only three quarters of these “Russians” had children. We hope that the organizers of this survey and those who voted will review the information provided here. data and will be able to balance their point of view.

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.”