The first claims made are that "This [sexual] revolution has begun to work its way into the very fabric of society, the family, as it continues to demoralize our social structure. This demoralization, and it's attack on the family through same sex marriage, has come about through a small minority in America aggressively forcing change on the public view of homosexuality as an identity rather then an action thus making it easier for them to scream for civil rights protection, and the redefining of social morality through ways such as legal recognition of same sex marriage."

Firstly, the equation of the sexual revolution with homosexuality is questionable at best. While "homosexuality" as a category may have enjoyed greater notoriety and increasing, though grudging, acceptance beginning in the late 1960's, the view of homosexuality as at a category at all is a century old. The term itself first appeared in German (Homosexualit„t) in a pamphlet published in Leipzig in 1869; it entered the English language two decades later [1]. Prior to that, the concentration was upon the act itself, not upon the participants as a separate group, regardless of the speaker's opinion of such acts [2]. Hence, the "identity" of homosexuality as a distinct sexual category rather than a behavior has been around for a century; arguing that homosexuality is an identity in and of itself cannot be held responsible for events that have occurred only in the last thirty years.

However, GSS research indicates that attitudes regarding homosexual relationships have been stable since 1973 (when the GSS began), with a small shift toward disapproval, not approval. A Gallup series on legalizing homosexual relations between consenting adults shows a more dramatic shift against homosexuality between 1977 and 1991. [2] The closest we can come to finding homosexuality making any inroads is in the arena of non-sexual civil liberties, with intolerance decreasing between 1973 and 1991 by -0.43 points, with the decline in intolerance being greater among those who thought that homosexuality was always wrong.[2] Overall, the data shows that the increased exposure to homosexuality during the last thirty years has not increased homosexual behavior's "acceptability" among the general population; in fact, it has done the opposite. Further, it shows that a willingness to permit civil liberties to homosexuals has no correlation to approval of homosexual acts.

We still have two troubling presumptions left, though - that social morality should be dictated by civil law (a topic unto itself, and too great in scope to discuss in any detail here), and that homosexuality - and more specifically, homosexual marriage - attack the "family". As there are several possible ways to interpret "family", and how such could be "attacked", we'll deal with the most common arguments.

The most obvious interpretation would have homosexuality itself undermining the institution of marriage. Quite simply, homosexual acts have been known - and documented - throughout history [3] without affecting marriage in the slightest.

What about the "legitimizing" of homosexual marriage? As Falcon notes, "homosexuals" make up a small minority. The 10% given by Kinsey appears to be erroneous - especially depending on what criteria one uses to determine what constitutes a "homosexual". Since that is the case, one has to ask how permitting homosexual marriage would have any significant effect upon the heterosexual population. The majority of "straight" individuals would still (presumably) desire a heterosexual marriage, and permitting homosexuals to marry in no way implies that heterosexuals can no longer marry. If one presupposes that sexuality is a choice, then one may see some form of "threat" to traditional sexual arrangements. However, this simply doesn't seem to be the case, as we'll discuss later.

Finally, regarding "civil rights protection", I simply have to ask, if there are currently no civil rights violations based upon homosexuality, then what problem is there with ensuring that none occurs?

Falcon admits that "Same sex marriage would definitely provide a lot of benefits and legal rights to those with partners of the same sex, and their children." However, he then goes on to say that same sex marriages "would undermine the basic unit of social order, the family, and further the destruction of social morality". As noted above, same sex marriages cannot intrinsically affect the family unit - allowing homosexuals to marry has no bearing on whether or not heterosexuals can marry. If anything, promoting homosexual marriage would promote an anti-promiscuous institution!

Falcon then states that "They [homosexuals]...say that all they want are equal rights, and the same equal opportunities as any other human being should be allowed...The problem with these demands is that they already share the same rights as everyone else". This is, as a better writer than I put it, self-evident.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Except that it was necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to "grant" blacks those same rights, and nearly a century after that, pass even more laws to ensure that the amendment was enforced. Similarly, another amendment to the Constitution had to be crafted to "grant" suffrage to women, and again, further laws needed to be passed to ensure that these "unalienable" rights were maintained. It is a sad fact that while ideally, unalienable rights are self-evident and universal in scope, they have historically be denied to many and diverse groups based upon such diverse criteria as gender, race, political preference, and now sexual orientation. Falcon states it himself: "Same sex marriage would definitely provide a lot of benefits AND LEGAL RIGHTS to those with partners of the same sex, and their children. [emphasis mine]" If those rights are already present, then no rights could be "granted" by allowing homosexuals to marry.

Falcon then asserts that "the degree of force involved in this movement [to allow homosexual marriage] will inevitably lead to a violation of moral and religious rights of Americans who oppose homosexuality, thus leading to the overall decay of society." One has to inherently question his assertion that opposing homosexuality is preventing the decay of society, but that aside, the assertion that simply allowing homosexual marriages "inevitably" leads to violations of religious freedom. This is known as a "slippery slope" fallacy - where one action is presumed to lead to another, when in actuality, it does not. How so? Roman Catholicism gives us a perfectly apt example. Civil marriages are recognized by the US government as a matter of course, yet they are not recognized by the Roman Catholic Church. Likewise, the RCC does not recognize civil divorces. Here we see Church/State separation in action, and preventing exactly the kind of slippery slope that Falcon claims exists.

Falcon states: "Those who oppose homosexuality should not have this movement forced on them through government legislation because of basic civil rights, the same civil rights protecting children from being exposed to material deemed inappropriate by their parents, or protecting individuals from being forcibly exposed to material and actions they see as offensive, disgusting, and socially unacceptable." It is worth noting initially that the exposure to children is not the issue in question, and that the following section is tangential at best. However, in the interests of completeness, I shall address these issues as well.

It is also worth noting that nearly identical arguments have been utilized to justify discriminatory attitudes of all types, including, but not limited to, religions, race, and inter-faith and interracial marriages.

"There are many good examples of this forced compliance to, and acceptance of homosexual behavior," states Falcon, presenting "the fact that the homosexual community has pushed the government to introduce homosexual information into the public educational system" and one instance of "supervisors and managers" telling employees that "if they want career advancement they must take every opportunity to promote homosexuality in or out of the workplace."

The first alleged instance is true - homosexuality has become part of school curriculums, but not with the implications that Falcon places upon it. The American Psychological Association does not consider sexual orientation to be a choice, saying that it "emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience." [4] Over 90% of homosexuals surveyed a few years ago stated that they did not choose to become homosexuals [5].

This argument also presumes that homosexuals wish to and do recruit. As just noted, you'd have to know how to "make" someone gay. Traits such as sexual orientation are very complexly determined, which nearly all researchers on either side of the "nature/nurture" debate agree.

As Dr. Berggren notes:

"It is often said that homosexuals wish to portray homosexuality in an attractive manner in the media and in the schools in order to attract young, impressionable children. This accusation is incorrect, for the reason that almost all homosexuals do not think it possible to influence the sexual orientation of a youngster by means of movies, articles, or factual classroom information. Even if that were the case, the heterosexual lifestyle is clearly so predominant in society (which heterosexuals most often do not even reflect upon), that the impressions taken by youngster must be much stronger from that side than from the side of homosexuality. As President Weinberg of The American Psychiatric Association stated in 1977: ``A parent's fear that their child will be recruited at school or elsewhere is without scientific foundation''."[5]

The simple fact is that the information about homosexuality in schools is desired to help children who feel attracted to members of the same sex to accept those unchangeable feelings, to make them feel better about who they are. This is vitally important, since homosexual teens are two to three times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals and account for up to 30% of all completed suicides.

"Homosexuals on state levels have even been successful in changing longstanding[sic] laws prohibiting sodomy, and have even attempted to force homosexuals into the leadership of the Boy Scouts of America," states Falcon. This is undoubtedly true, on both counts. It is quite notable that in regards to the BSA, the attempt to force the BSA to incorporate gays and atheists failed (in Falcon's defense, this decision was recent, and probably after he wrote his MS) spectacularly, with a ruling that the BSA as a private organization was not regulated by such laws.

As far as sodomy laws go, one has to question the implied relation between "long-standing" and some sort of value - especially in relation to sexual ordinances, some of which have been so outrageous to be widely circulated on the Internet as "Weird Sex Laws". Further, it's well worth noting that it is not just laws prohibiting sodomy that are being combated, but laws effectively limiting sexual congress to only the missionary position between heterosexuals, and that such fights are not led or supported by homosexuals alone.

Falcon then goes on to talk about the percentages of homosexuals in American society, and how the Kinsey report apparently overestimated percentages of homosexuals and homosexual activity: "In actuality these numbers have been shown to be greatly exaggerated, and Researchers at the Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers in Seattle have a much more accurate study showing that approximately 2% of American men report they had sex with another man, but only 1% consider themselves exclusively homosexual."

Some various figures given are:

• Homosexual men - 4%, Lesbians - 1%, of total population. [6]
• 9% of British men reporting homosexual experience, 4% having same sex partners [7]
• 2% of sexually active men having homosexual activity in the last 10 years, and only 1% being exclusively homosexual [8]
• 5-7% of U.S. adult males [9]

"Why should we allow such a forceful movement to advance especially when it campaigns for things that the Majority of Americans would otherwise find repulsive, such as same sex marriage?"

Because we're Americans, Mr. Falcon, and we are weaned upon liberty.

"Homosexual activists have claimed that homosexual behavior is natural because it is in fact observable in nature," says Falcon, then offering evidence to discredit that claim.

Quite honestly, whether or not something is noted in other species on the planet has no real relevance to whether or not something is "right". Religion, for example, is not noted in any other species. As Mr. Falcon later notes, cannibalism is "natural", and has been practiced by every human tribe, but does not correlate to "rightness".

He further says that "Many religious leaders and organizations also believe that humans are not merely physical, but also have a spiritual element, and if such is true then science has no place to make such comparisons." He neglects to mention the simple fact that "religious leaders and organizations" have not produced objective evidence of a "spiritual element", so any conclusions based off of such a presumption are conjecture at best.

He continues, "...and that in fact through natural selection homosexuality will most likely be illuminated or suppressed as it has been throughout the majority of societies, in known history." This simply is bad genetics. Even if one were to take the extremist opinion that sexuality were determined solely by one gene - which is not endorsed by those who have done the research [6][11][12][13] - it makes the presumptions that homosexuals do not reproduce, and that any genes that regulate sexuality are dominant. The former claim is simply erroneous [5] in nature, and the latter is unevidenced. In fact, the studies that have found one of the possible gene markers related to sexual orientation did so on the X chromosome, which would further account for the dissimilarity between the numbers of homosexual men and women. [6][11][12][13][14].

"[L]et us assume," Falcon asks, "that homosexual activists are correct in stating that homosexuality is a genetic trait. By the same respect we might assume that serial killers act how they do because of a genetic trait." Falcon is incorrect. Dr. Hamer of NIH, the director of the team that suggested that Xq28 influences sexuality, states it himself: "From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors, not to negate the psychosocial actors."[13]

To elaborate on this point, a study conducted by Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard found that for adoptive and non-twin brothers of gay men, about 10 percent were also gay, a rate often attributed to the general population. The rate of "double" homosexuality for fraternal twins was 22 percent, and for identical twins, 52 percent. [15] Considering that fraternal twins are genetically no similar than ordinary siblings, the much higher incidence of homosexuality strongly indicates that environmental factors are a major portion of determining one's homosexuality.

"Does that excuse their actions as a serial killer, or give reason why they shouldn't be treated as socially dangerous?" asks Falcon, again giving rise to the presumption that homosexuality is inherently dangerous. I refer you to "Does Homosexuality Pose a Threat to Society?" by Dr. Berggren for a complete analysis.

Falcon then makes the following assertion:

"Richard Isay, M.D. Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Cornell Medical College and chair of APA's Committee on Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Issues, has stated that there is a "continuing conviction among most, although not all, dynamically oriented psychiatrists in general and psychotherapists in particular, that homosexuality can and should be changed to heterosexuality . . . " (Richard Isay "Homosexuality and Psychiatry," Psychiatric News (Feb. 7, 1992): 3, as cited in Knight, "Video 'On Being Gay' Twists the Facts," p. 7.)."

It's odd that the chair of the APA's Committee on Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Issues would say such a thing, considering that the APA's fact sheet about sexual orientation quite explicitly states:

"In 1990, the American Psychological Association stated that scientific evidence does not show that conversion therapy works and that it can do more harm than good. Changing one's sexual orientation is not simply a matter of changing one's sexual behavior. It would require altering one's emotional, romantic and sexual feelings and restructuring one's self-concept and social identity. Although some mental health providers do attempt sexual orientation conversion, others question the ethics of trying to alter through therapy a trait that is not a disorder and that is extremely important to an individual's identity."[4]

It would appear that someone was less than accurate.

"Many homosexual activists seem to think they would do just as well as parents, and often tell of how children would be better with homosexual couples then in abusive families," Falcon states, then leads into several citations of Paul Cameron. It is worthy to note that up until the quotation of Dr. Pruett, the entirety of evidence presented in part five of Falcon's essay is derived from Paul Cameron's work.

Why?

In 1984, all members of the American Psychological Association received official written notice that "Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists" on December 2, 1983, by the APA Board of Directors. In 1984, the Nebraska Psychological Association formally disassociated itself from his representations and interpretations, and in 1985, the American Sociological Association asserted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism". [16]

Cameron's ethics and methodology are questionable at best - he referred to all male-male molestations as "homosexual"; however, he claimed that not all male-female molestations were "heterosexual". Further, he cited an earlier study as evidencing a 3:2 ratio of "heterosexual" (i.e., female victim) to "homosexual" (i.e., male victim) molestations, and notes that "54% of all the molestations in this study were performed by bisexual or homosexual practitioners" (p. 1231). However, the study itself reported that none of the men in the sample had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation, and that none of the 22 bisexual men were more attracted to adult males than to adult females. Cameron's 54% statistic does not appear anywhere in the study, nor does Cameron explain its derivation. [16]

Finally, in 1989 Freund directed a study to determine why "the proportion of sex offenders against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than the proportion against female children among heterosexual men". However, their results contradicted both their original goal and Cameron's data.

Cameron's data is entirely flawed.

Falcon then mentions that "Dr. Pruett stated the following during a court case in Hawaii's first circuit court over same sex marriage that "in terms of probability, same-sex marriages are more likely to provide a more burdened nurturing domain"". This is disputable, as studies of children aged up to nine who had been raised by lesbians were developmentally and mentally normal. [21]

Dr. Pruett's statement does have a certain undeniable element of truth to it, though. A child being raised by homosexuals would most likely have a "more burdened nurturing domain", by sheer value of the discrimination faced by homosexuals. Similar difficulties are faced by children from interracial marriages, and overcome, and in both instances, the difficulties are not intrinsically linked to those raising the child, but the intolerance of the community at large.

"Homosexual activists have even gotten into religious debates to prove that religious groups and organizations have no official Christian source to prove that Homosexuality is wrong," says Falcon.

Quite honestly, it doesn't matter. America is not a Christian country. I find it quite odd that the possibility that government might intrude on religion to be met with horror from Mr. Falcon, but the implication that civil policy should be governed by a specific religion's principles is treated with favor.

"A similar report shows that there are 7.2 times more cancer patients yearly, as of 1992 than a predominantly homosexual disease, AIDS, but AIDS research got more than $3000.00 more per patient," claims Falcon.

I have yet to find the original (not the AFA, but the document the AFA derived its statistics from); however, I note that all cancer patients are lumped into one category; however, funding is not designated as being for "cancer", but for specific forms of oncology. It is my suspicion that it is this lumping and averaging of funds that lowers the per patient research dollars. This is bolstered somewhat by the abstract for 96-124 SPR, which states: "Breast cancer research has received enormous funding increases...over the past 5 years, a period of stagnant or declining budgets for most other areas of research. Breast cancer research receives significantly more money than other major cancer sites, such as lung or colorectal, which kill more Americans." [22]

Further, while homosexual sex accounted for slightly over 50% of HIV infections in U.S. males from 1994-1996, heterosexual sex accounted for over 40% of HIV infections in U.S. females from 1994-1996, each respectively being the single largest vector of transmission for that group[17]. Given this, it's difficult to label AIDS a "predominantly homosexual disease."

It is even more difficult when one considers the rest of the world - according to UNAIDS, in 1996, unprotected sexual intercourse accounted for 75%-85% of HIV infections worldwide. Of that figure, 82%-93%, or 70% of all HIV infections, were due to heterosexual intercourse. [18]

"A 1972 study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, states that half of the homosexuals in America have had more than 500 different sexual partners, and that AIDS victims average 1,100 different sexual partners," claims Falcon, quoting the AFA. I have searched extensively for this purported document. The closest thing available from the CDC are the "Current Trends" series - more properly, "Current Trends -- Number of Sex Partners and Potential Risk of Sexual Exposure to Human Immunodeficiency Virus". The data for this document comes from The National Opinion Research Center (NORC), which has been conducting an annual General Social Survey (GSS) on important social issues since 1972. [19] Believing that I had finally tracked down this reference, I looked into the GSS.

Examining the raw data from GSS, and GSS Topical Report 18 by the director of NORC, Tom W. Smith, I discovered that this must be the document that the AFA was referring to, as it did have questions relating to homosexuality, the number of sexual partners, and the like. Excepting that questions asking about the number of sex partners during the last year, their relationship to the respondent, and their gender were not added until 1988, and questions about frequency of sexual intercourse and the number and gender of sex partners since age 18. [20] The GSS, while conducted in and since 1972, had no questions relating to the number of sexual partners at that time. The AFA is at best mistaken, and at worst, deliberately misconstruing data.

"Another study by two Homosexual researchers" is cited by the AFA and Falcon; however, given that no citation is given for the research, coupled with the immediately preceding claim of "CDC" data, I am inherently skeptical. Again, I am attempting to contact the AFA to find the primary source for this data.

"Many homosexual marches have shown us that homosexuals behave in very abnormal way when demonstrating, and can we expect to be any better in the privacy of there own homes?" asks Falcon. We may very well ask if all Mardi Gras participants routinely act that way at home, or if pro-life protesters shout slogans and wave signs at home. This is a non sequitur.

"Can we allow children to be brought up in these kinds of physically and mentally unhealthy conditions?" he asks, yet there have been at least three studies indicating that children born to lesbians develop normally. In fact, it was also found that the lesbian co-parent was much more likely to take an active role in raising the child than in a heterosexual family.[21]

In conclusion, I agree with Falcon that the American public needs to wake up - and realize that it's being lied to by such groups as the AFA.

1. Halperin, cited by Burr in "Homosexuality and Biology", _Atlantic Monthly_, March 1993
2. "Attitudes Towards Sexual Permissiveness: Trends, Correlates, and Behavioral Connections", Tom W. Smith, NORC University of Chicago, 1992
3. "Revolutions, Universals, and Sexual Categories", Boswell, excerpt from _Hidden from History: Reclaiming the Gay and Lesbian Past_, 1989
4. "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality", American Psychological Association, undated
5. "Does Homosexuality Pose a Threat to Society?", Dr. Niclas Berggren
6. _Brain Sex_, Anne Moir and David Jessel
7. "Surveying Sexual Lifestyles," Wadsworth, Johnson, Field, Wellings, Anderson, and Bradshaw, Unpublished paper
8. "The Sexual Behavior of Men in the United States," Billy, Tanfer, Grady, and Klepinger, _Family Planning Perspectives_, 25, Mar/Apr 1993, 53-60.
9. "Male-Male Sexual Contact in the U.S.A.: Findings from Five Sample Surveys, 1970-1990," Rogers and Turner, _Journal of Sex Research_, 28 Nov 1991, 491-519.
10. "A Methodological Analysis of the Sexual Behavior Questions on the GSS", Tom W. Smith, NORC University of Chicago, 1992
11. "Human Sexual Orientation: The Black Box", Chandler Burr, 1996
12. "Portrait of a Gene Guy", Robert Pool, _Discover_, Oct 1997
13. "New Evidence of a Gay Gene", Anastasia Toufexis, _Time_, Nov 1995
14. "The Gay Gene: Two Trait Profiles--Human Handedness & Human Sexual Orientation", Chandler Burr, 1996
15. "Do Genes Determine If We are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Straight?", The Council For Responsible Genetics, Aug. 1997
16. "Myths about sexual orientation: A lawyer's guide to social science research" by G.M. Herek, Law and Sexuality, 1991, v. 1, pp. 133-172.
17. "HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, 1996", CDC, 1996
18. "HIV/AIDS: Figures and Trends Mid 1996 Estimates", Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, June 1996
19. "Current Trends -- Number of Sex Partners and Potential Risk of Sexual Exposure to Human Immunodeficiency Virus," CDC, Sep 1988
20. "Adult Sexual Behavior in 1989: Number of Partners, Frequency, and Risk", Tom W. Smith, NORC University of Chicago, 1991
21. "Lesbian's Kids Develop Normally", AP, cited by Chandler Burr 1996
22. "Breast Cancer Research", 96-124 SPR, Judith A. Johnson, Science Policy Research Division.

The 1972 study on 500 different partners as reported by the Berean League came from N. Meredith, "The Gay Dilemma", Psycology Today, January 1984, p.56.

This is a mis-statement by Allen; it alledged that 50% of homosexuals had 500+ partners in thier lifetime. However, it's a 19*8*2 study, and consisted of FIFTY (repeat) FIFTY AIDS victims. The only other similar study referenced in the article is a 197*8* study in SF administered to 685 men (which apparently had similar results).

Now that I have a correct year for the study (no *wonder* the CDC had no idea what I was talking about!), I shall see if I can dig up the primary data. I shall also be attempting to contact the author of the article this evening, as she didn't give actual citations for those mentioned studies, both of which are mentioned on the first page of her article. What does the rest say? Well, here's some quotes.

"...There is a remarkable resemblance between the fantasized sexual life of great numbers of heterosexual men and the real life sexual practices of some homosexual men."

"...there is an increasing trend among researches to view gender rather than sexual orientation as the key value in understanding sexual attitudes."

The upshot of these quotes is the hypothesis that straight men would behave EXACTLY THE SAME WAY *IF* they could get away with it. The only thing being that straight women AND homosexual women are notably more monogamous than men, and they simply won't put up with it. There is a contrary opinion, and it also explains (or illustrates) how sexual orientation can become identified with a person's whole identity - due to society.

"...these feelings of alienation [from society by being homosexual] create a sexual identity that is very different from the heterosexual's. "Many homosexuals feel that thier whole sense of being is defined by thier sexuality from an early age. After years of repression, defiantly they shout, ``See how uninhibited we are, see how we've thrown off the chains of guilt - unlike you poor straight people who have for so long subjected us to feelings of worthlessness and sinfulness...''""

We can also again note that the CDC Atlanta study mentioned in Mz. Meredith's article consisted of 50 (fifty) AIDS victims - so small of a sample that it is unrealistic methodologically to generalize those results to the population as a whole. We also can note that these 50 are AIDS victims - and therefore, most likely already practicing high-risk promiscuous behavior. Quite simply, with such a small and inherently biased sampling, it is impossible to draw such general conclusions about (at lowest estimate of 1%) over two and a half million people. It would be comparable to surveying fifty inner-city black youths who were being arrested, and trying to generalize those results to the black population at large. Just doesn't work.

Not to mention - would you accept *ANY* other data about personal opinions or practices from 1982 (or 1979) as being relevant to how people are *TODAY*? Sexually or otherwise? Think about it - 1979, we're talking Jimmy Carter. 1982, we've only heard a little bit about this thing called AIDS. We still think Iraq is our friend. Would you think that surveys about drug usage in schools in 1982 would mean *anything* about drug usage in schools today?

But somehow, despite more recent data (1986-7) from the CDC, we see this reference to an outdated, biased article. How...convenient.

As reported by the Berean League the other study 73% of male homosexuals had had sex with boys came from K. Jay and A. Young, The Gay Report (New York Summit, 1979)p.275. These two homosexual researchers used a volunteer sample of more than 4,000 homosexuals.

I'm trying to find out if this is a book or a periodical. Note that the publishing date of 1979 still makes his fall under the datedness of the other article, so in one very real sense, it what it says has no real bearing on today at all.