On October 17th, Bronwyn (Bonnie) Loring responded to my letter describing my "by chance meeting" with her and her husband Caleb.(see Blog Post: "KnowThyNeighbor Kneels in Prayer with Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage") Bronwyn is one of the Original 30 Signers and sponsors of the anti-family, anti-gay, anti-equality and her husband has contributed heavily to VoteOnMarriage.org. Is a response to her necessary? Mr. Alan Stevens from Ipswich already did, and I thank him, however, Bronwyn's letter certainly is its own proverbial "nail in the coffin" for any shred of credibility that Mrs. Loring ever had. Her bigotry, intolerance and mis-guided politico/religious stances are all but "pitiable." Be prepared to see what and who are truly behind this amendment--it isn't for the faint of heart. I will let her letter speak for itself...
To the Editor:
A letter to the editor which appeared in this space on Sept. 28 began, "I had an amazing opportunity last weekend to witness the marriage of two wonderful people
(heterosexual) at St. Michael's Episcopal Church in Marblehead."
Amazing opportunity? This makes me wonder if Tom Lang doesn't get out much (unlikely) or if he saw how somehow he could use the wedding to promote gay marriage yet
again in the press. The non-event of meeting my husband and me at the wedding hardly warranted a letter to the editor.
For that matter, I wouldn't be writing this letter either except that, as he has done less subtly to so many people, Tom inserted a bit of slander. He said, "Mrs. Loring's letters
are well known to your readers (I doubt that. There have been so few.) because she is a very strong advocate against gay marriage (No stronger than many of the 170,000
people who signed the Protection of Marriage Petition) and the worthiness of gays in our society." (Whoa! Where did that last statement come from? Untrue.)
Tom doesn't know me. I consider all human beings of supreme worth because every person carries the image of God.
But more to the point pertaining to marriage, I wonder if Tom understands why my husband and I signed the Protection of Marriage Petition. We signed the petition out of
concern for our three granddaughters and all others in the coming generations.
Of course, sexual practices of all kinds always have existed, but never before has it been demanded that schools teach children that homosexual behaviors are as good an
option as heterosexual. And if you and I dare to question that supposition, we can expect to be slandered in the press and to have our names and addresses posted on
websites like KnowThyNeighbor. Unfortunately, this intimidation effort is effective in keeping some good people quiet.
Well, intimidation won't stop me. I care too much about marriage and children to worry about being called names or appearing politically incorrect. My opposition to including
homosexual relationships in what is called "marriage" is borne out of concern for the well-being of others. It is not driven by personal gain.
I really don't enjoy discussing the subject or having to write this letter any more than you readers would. But truth needs to be spoken.
My objection to calling gay relationships "marriage" is based on facts about the homosexual lifestyle. Just Google "gay sex health risks" to find sources. Data from numerous
studies show that homosexual practices:
1.) Reduce your life expectancy by at least 8 to 20 years;
2.) Increase the risk of contracting AIDS by 500 percent;
3.) Increase the risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease by almost 900 percent;
4.) For men, increase the risk of developing anal cancer by 4,000 percent;
5.) For women, increase the risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer, and ovarian cancer;
6.) Correlate positively with gays and lesbians' mental health disorders, being a victim of domestic violence, being a smoker, and being involved in alcohol and drug abuse;
7.) Include higher incidences of sadomasochism, coprophilia, fisting and other practices (you don't want to know).
Studies also show that most male-male sex relationships allow for outside encounters. According to Maria Xiridou, et. al in her research on "The Contribution of Steady and
Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam" AIDS 17 (2003), self-defined "committed" couples reported an average of eight
other sexual partners in a year.
Dr. John R. Diggs, Jr., MD, a practicing Internist, writes in "The Health Risks of Gay Sex": Prior to the AIDS epidemic, a 1978 study found that 75 percent of white, gay males
salemnews.com Plus Edition » Story » Sat, Oct 28 2006 http://plus.salemnews.com/cgi
2 of 3 10/28/2006 5:57 PM
claimed to have had more than 100 lifetime male sex partners; 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than
1,000 lifetime male sex partners. Levels of promiscuity subsequently declined, but some observers are concerned that promiscuity is again approaching the levels of the
1970s (2002, Corporate Resource Council, www.corporateresourcecouncil
The demand that we must commend - not tolerate - such an unhealthy lifestyle, is unmerited and costly. Lesbian activist Paula Ettelbrick, currently the executive director of
the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, has said that homosexuality "means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process
transforming the very fabric of society."
Homosexual behavior is likely being advocated in your local school's programs of social studies and health education. Schoolchildren in various stages of identity formation
are encouraged to consider all sex orientation options for themselves. The assumption is made that same-sex partnerships are essentially the same as heterosexual.
I believe well-meaning teachers who have no personal stake in this issue would drop political correctness like a hot potato if they knew the above facts. Either they are not
being informed, or they are afraid of being labeled intolerant if they don't want to teach children that homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships.
Candy-coating the very harmful homosexual lifestyle is not in our children's best interest.
It's sad that today we will have to define the meaning of the word "marriage" by law, or else "marriage" as we have always understood it, as a life-long union between one
man and one woman, will be lost forever. In every state (20 of them) where people have been allowed to vote on the definition, they have overwhelmingly chosen to define
"marriage" as "the union between one man and one woman".
The Protection of Marriage Petition, which carried more names than any petition in Massachusetts history, simply asks our Legislature to allow us the freedom to vote for or
against the above definition in 2008 (Watch for our Legislature's vote on Nov. 9).
Tom Lang ends his letter ever so sweetly with, "We are all trying to do our best in this short time we have together." Best for whom?
You and I know that advocacy for homosexuality is all around us. Going forward, if we continue to use the word "marriage" in relation to gay coupling, this will complete the
aggressive attempt to normalize a very unhealthy lifestyle. The issue is not a matter of justice or equal rights, it is a matter of whether we, the schools and the media,
continue to mislead or to protect the next generation.
"Our best" is to stop hiding the facts about homosexual behavior.
Bronwyn E. Loring
Oy vey, Tom Lang, Co-Director