Perhaps careful reading of the law review: “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement”, by Steve Baldwin. 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 267 (2002), (
http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2baldwin.doc ) would change your perspective about the dangers of treating lightly with psychosexual disorders.

A word of caution. Everywhere in the literature is the warning that gay-militant activists prey on the fact that religious and secular populations will not read and appreciate the evidence of their deception because of their natural aversion to the details of the “lifestyle”.

But … the devil is in the detail, and it is to that detail that citizens and governments must now proceed.

Other law reviews are listed in “Arguments Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality” ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/8387665/Arguments-Against-Pancap-and-the-Decriminalization-of-Homosexuality )

But the issue of “live and let live” will surely fail as a public policy imperative if not from being simplistic then certainly from the danger of the “politics-of-avoidance-by-ignoring-it” that it represents.

Essential reading is the book by lawyer and author Roger Magnuson (“Are Gay Rights Right: Making Sense of the Controversy”; Multnomah Press; 1992; Portland, Oregon 97266). The excerpt below is taken from his arguments at pgs. 67-107, specifically p. 82-89):

“… As we have already seen, proponents of gay rights laws rely heavily on an analogy to other human rights legislation. If human rights laws have provided protection to other minorities, why should society not add one more group to those protected from discrimination? Hitching their wagon to the broadly based support Americans have traditionally given civil rights laws, gay rights advocates have made surprising progress in the past decade. The human rights analogy, though popular and politically understandable, cannot withstand careful analysis. Adding homosexual behaviour to a list of classes that includes racial and religious minorities makes no sense. The tenuous balance of social interests represented by these laws is reflected in the few, and carefully chosen, classes they protect. Relief has been given only in extraordinary circumstances.

To add another protected class, at least five requirements have had to be shown:

(1) A demonstrable pattern of discrimination …
(2) … based on criteria that are arbitrary and irrational
(3) … causing substantial injury
(4) … to a class of people with an unchangeable or immutable status
(5) … which has no element of moral fault ….”

We should now look to the evidence in law reviews that show that failure to acknowledge these imperatives in the American and Canadian cases have led to unprecedented social upheaval … carefully assuaged by nationwide dramatizations of the “The King’s New Clothes”.

The only effective rebuttal is to again provide the solid evidence that citizens and governments can use to make responsible decisions.

Passé rhetoric notwithstanding, most UN declarations on “homophobia” are now understood to be deeply flawed documents that have as their rationale nothing less than the subversion of the national ethos in UN member-states. The reader can judge for himself/herself given the evidence below:

Evidence 1:

A “phobia” is correctly defined as an “irrational fear”. “Homophobia” is anything but … and a mountain of social, legal, medical and societal evidence exists to invalidate the UN’s attempt to “manufacture” a cause based on “an irrational fear of homosexuality and its consequences”.

We have iitially detailed this evidence in the article “The Case against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8387665/Arguments-Against-Pancap-and-the-Decriminalization-of-Homosexuality

Evidence 2:

The effort to manufacture a “civil-rights” analogy has always been foremose in the minds of gay militants and the UN … referring to behaviour-based groups as “sexual minorities” rather than in terms that are more clinically correct from a psycho-sexual point of view.

Thankfully, Sidibe does not, like Reuben del Prado of the local UNAIDS office, go down the activist “Yogyakarta Principles” road. A rebuttal of del Prado’s abortive attempt in the past is found at “Del Prado’s Activist Statements Insult UNAIDS and CARICOM Policy on AIDS and must be Rejected” http://www.scribd.com/doc/3095333/Del-Prados-activist-statement-insults-UNAIDS-and-CARICOM-policy-on-AIDS-and-must-be-rejected .

Evidence 3:

The jury is still out on whether these UN-inspired declarations are being facilitated at the expense a vast majority of other citizens with opposing views. An example is found in another forum.

The hard questions previously asked Guyana’s Representative to the OAS, Dennis Moses, remain unanswered … in spite of the fact that a citizen of Guyana asked them … in the article: “Submission To The OAS Re June 3 2008 Resolution On Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity” http://www.scribd.com/doc/4929534/Submission-to-the-OAS-Re-June-3-2008-Resolution-on-Human-Rights-Sexual-Orientation-and-Gender-Identity

It is important to keep in mind that one can be against these relationships without being homophobic. Being Pro-Indian does not necessarily mean you are anti-black. I found many actions of Ex-President Jagan to have been Pro-Indian without being Anti-African. A case in point is his refusal to join the West Indies Federation because of the fear and its rejection by the Indian population who were his main supporters.

To many acceptance of homosexuality is the equivalent of removing rice as a daily staple. Very difficult. Very difficult. It’s cultural.

Outside of the depraved mind Homophobia is vaild!