Thinkers from both the right and left are worried about the declining birth rate. Reported homosexuality is rapidly increasing among U.S. youth – in 2023 a fifth of high school students claimed to be LGBT. Have homosexuals become so numerous that their sub-replacement fertility rate is causing the birth dearth? Not likely, having too few children appears to be a worldwide trend, and homosexuality isn’t surging everywhere. The homosexual part of the U.S. elite has worked for decades to help homosexuality expand and its efforts are paying off.

In October, the CDC released the “first nationally representative data about transgender students.” It said “3.3% of U.S. high school students identified as transgender, and 2.2% identified as questioning” based on its analysis of 20,103 responses to the Youth Risk Behavior Survey [YRBS]. The 2017 YRBS yielded estimates of 1.8% trans and 1.6% questioning while 85% of students said they were heterosexual (see Table 1). Over the last decades, LGBT students have grown from ~8% to ~20% and in the last 6 years trans has almost doubled. In 2024 Gallup had 7.6% of U.S. adults as LGBT, 85.6% heterosexual, and < 1% trans.

Modern societies harbor hundreds of competing movements seeking influence. The Christian movement sought to and eventually transformed the society into which it began. The modern homosexual movement gained ground around the 1900s among "sexologists," became a force in pre-Hitler Germany, and started dominating U.S. wokeism in the 1990’s. Wokeism has been seeking to make the U.S. into a homosexual= heterosexual/men=women=trans system favoring LGBTs. Although our elite is getting concerned, even worried, about the baby bust, that concern has not lessened the Democrats’ pedal-to-the-metal support of homosexuality, including furthering the LGBT evangelization of students. Republicans have nibbled at the margins of the homosexual movement by trying to block student evangelization for trans and drag, but currently give no evidence of seeing the growth of the LGBT movement as a major threat to society.

Christian traditionalists have long held that homosexuality poses a special threat: that homosexuals value their peculiar sexual release above life itself, and unless contained they will recruit youth and thus threaten society’s future. The 1950s-1960s saw mental health associations contending that homosexuality was: 1) normal and healthy; 2) we are benefited as much by homosexuals as heterosexuals; and 3) the empirical evidence proves that gays do not recruit kids. These associations argued that acceptance of homosexuality would not harm us but merely eliminate unjustified discrimination. From 1973-5 these associations certified the wholesomeness of homosexuality via resolutions and changes to their nomenclature. During the traditional v mental-health worldviews debate – though hundreds of thousands of ‘normal and healthy’ gays suffered and died from the 1980s-90s HIV epidemic largely driven by anal sex – homosexuals were allowed to openly organize, become one of the Democrat party’s major donors, and encouraged to plead their case in the media. Today, with so many homosexuals scattered throughout the media, and more than a few walking the halls of Congress, the threat of runaway homosexuality severely crippling, if not ending, our society is evident.

U.S. Supreme Court favors mental healthism (and homosexuality)

The U.S. Supreme Court [SCOTUS] – wrapping its decisions in Constitutional legalese – functions dictatorially when the usual political process cannot settle an issue. In 1986, while the HIV epidemic raged and no sane person could believe that the Constitution protected such sexual insanity, the Court "discovered" that the Constitution permitted homosexual sex to be outlawed as it had been in almost all states until 1962. In 2003, with LGBT money flowing to the political parties, and although many founders were exceptionally hostile to homosexuality (e.g., Jefferson, who had a great deal to do with writing our founding documents, including the Constitution, said either sex engaging in homosexuality warranted severe mutilation*), the court discovered the Constitution protected it!

Showing its fealty to mental healthism, in 2020 the Court granted special civil rights protections to trans, inserting it into a 1964 law that didn’t even mention it! More evidence of the court’s pro-homosexuality tilt occurred much earlier:

• In 1958, after having been barred from using the U.S. mail for decades, the Court said homosexual content was ‘protected’ by the First Amendment! In Morse [2007], the court held that pro-illegal drug use messages could be banned in schools to protect students, without violating the First Amendment. FRI’s analysis of the 1996 CDC’s National Household Survey of Drug Abuse found that it had documented homosexuality as personally and socially harmful as illegal drug use [Cameron, et al. Psy Rpts 2005, 96, 915-964]. Though the harms of homosexuality have been re-documented in every subsequent CDC nationwide survey, the court hasn’t banned pro-homosexual messaging in schools.

• In 1996, after Coloradans voted otherwise after a lively nearly year-long public debate, SCOTUS said the Constitution forbade citizens from keeping homosexuals from getting special civil rights to live and work where they – not neighbors, landlords, or employers – pleased.

• In 2015, although their unions do not produce children and accelerate transmission of sexual infections, SCOTUS gave homosexuals all the rights of marriage.

In February 2021, the Biden administration put the U.S. government behind Advancing the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Persons Around the World. It directed federal bureaucracies to favor homosexuals and homosexuality as part of their core mission. Foreign aid and military interventions were also made contingent upon whether recipients supported homosexuality, making the U.S. the major promoter of LGBTs on the planet. The U.S. elite has been advancing homosexuality at least since the 1950s. The 2023 YRBS benchmarks the elite’s success in converting high schoolers toward homosexuality, raising the possibility that it has become too large to arrest its growth.

Is Homosexuality Growing As Fast As Table 1 Suggests? From a traditional perspective, Table 1 is frightening. Are our kids being evangelized for homosexuality this successfully? We should bear in mind that the YRBS reports what kids say on a questionnaire – we do not know what they do and have no obvious way to observationally validate what they tell us. No matter what kids say on questionnaires, the reality could be different, particularly those who tick ‘bisexual’ on the YRBS questionnaire. Such kids might be sexually engaging with only the opposite sex and ticking the response that leaves them options or gives them extra status. For adults, observational validation of what large groups report on questionnaires – the kind of evidence required in hard science or our court system – does not exist. What we know about sex in our society comes from: 1) our experiences; 2) the experiences of clients or other people we feel have reason to tell us the truth; 3) what people are caught doing (which might make the news if it is unusual enough); and 4) what people say via questionnaires. The survey reporting homosexuality about as harmful as illegal drug use [mentioned above] suggested "more saying than doing" as 1.3% of male and 1.1% of female adults reported homosexual sex in the past 12 months while surveys around the same year had 2%-4% of adults claiming to ‘be’ homosexual.

Consider the trans figures in Table 1. Trans started in the 1950s in gay men – way out on the very edge of society. It took decades for the mental health and medical professions to normalize hormone injections and mutilations as adequate, when they were dressed, for clients to look like and therefore "be" the opposite sex. This deception eventually became mental health’s "cure" for "gender dysphoria." Of course, the mental health professions had to not only join with homosexuals to consider trans "real" members of the other sex but force greater society to join them in pretending trans were the opposite sex as well. The associations assert: "We are the experts, ignore what you see. We want it made illegal to go against our claim that those we mutilate should have all the rights of the sex we (or they) say they are." This November the voters of NY agreed with them, passing Prop 1. Besides “ethnicity, national origin, age, disability and sex” the electorate added “sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes and reproductive healthcare and autonomy” to the state’s Bill of Rights. Homosexuals will be further advantaged by the “sexual orientation” addition, while trans and those with other odd tastes will be advantaged by the “gender identity, gender expression” bits. CA, CO, and HI added revisions to their constitutions allowing homosexual marriage.

Trans was rare through the 1970s when mostly males got drugged and mutilated to achieve a more feminine look. LGBTs are so lionized today that girls – the most concerned with being in fashion and socially correct, and the only sex able to get pregnant – are twice as apt as boys to claim to be either homosexual or trans.

Table 2 compares the "sexual identity" responses of trans/questioning kids (1 of every 18 HS students!) v normals. The inclusion of “I describe my identity some other way” makes these results harder to interpret. Most HS kids probably understand the "hetero-homo-bisexual" choices, but what does “I describe my identity some other way” mean? About 8% of the 1,040 trans- and not-sure-if-I-am-trans students indicated they were “heterosexual.” What does that say about their desired sexual partners? Note the use of "cisgender" by the CDC to show that trans is another facet of normal. 7% of normals chose ‘questioning’ or "some other way" versus 40% of trans and 43% of the "not sure." Half the responses of the trans-affected kids in Table 2 were both attention-getting and hard to fit into any coherent model – trans seem to be deeply confused kids.

Much of the growth of homosexuality turns up in the increasing choice of "bisexual" on questionnaires: might "bisexual" be an attempt to join a favored group while sticking to heterosexual relationships? To "be" trans you only have to say so and then you can compete against and shower with either sex. As the Pennsylvania Univ. "male-pretending-to-be-a-female" swimmer shows, you can even be a trans while retaining your penis and girlfriend. Similarly, "being" trans on a questionnaire doesn’t require you to do anything beyond checking the trans box. But if you become medically fixed, regular "penile/vaginal" sex (and babies) is off the table. Have homosexuality and trans grown so large they cannot be contained? Like it or not, we are on our way to finding out.

*Jefferson stood by his Bill 64 which stated: "Whosoever shall be guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half diameter at the least." See the Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/bill-64/. The Encyclopedia notes, “Madison, writing to Jefferson, said that extending this severe punishment to rape was 'much criticized.' Jefferson agreed: 'I should be for altering it, but for a different reason: that is on account of the temptation women would be under to make it the instrument of vengeance against an inconstant lover, and of disappointment to a rival.'" No evidence is provided that either Madison (the chief writer of the Constitution) or Jefferson (the chief writer of the Declaration of Independence) felt differently about the punishment for polygamy or homosexuality. All dissent [often from other fathers of the Constitution] seemed to focus on the "rape" issue, no one was recorded as standing up to protect homosexuals or homosexuality—no matter what the modern court members believed. Many homosexuals serve on the staff of conservative members of Congress, and homosexuality in academia and Hollywood is often hidden but evident on campus. Likewise, many in the elite regard homosexuality as a trifle: nowhere near as serious as the uneducated, who tend to parrot the antiquated [e.g., the pre-mental-health-professionals’ absolution of homosexuality] Christian theory of the dangers of homosexuality.