A rebuttal to the following article posted on the CARM website by Matt Slick found here: https://carm.org/homosexual-gay-sex-harms-no-one

I ask that this be read with an open mind and also to ignore where my tone gets somewhat snarky. This is meant to be, mostly, a presentation of information.

Mr. Slick was not kind of enough to link his writing to the Health24 article, but I found it: http://www.health24.com/Medical/Depression/News/Gays-more-prone-to-depression-20120721

And it stresses that the depression, alcoholism etc are likely tied to discrimination and ostracization. The study was done to help treat and prevent the problem, not to reveal some great inner turmoil homosexuals are experiencing because they're gay. The risk of suicide is obviously because of the higher rates of depression and probably why they don't live as long. Stress is a big contributing factor to heart disease, high blood pressure, etc.

And instead of trying to look further in a fact based and unbiased source, Mr. Slick references an article from “OneNewsNow.com which is the website of the American Family News Network (AFN), a national Christian news service.” http://onenewsnow.com/general/faq/ I'm not saying that their research is invalid in all accounts, but Slick is not helping his case by referencing another christian source.

Furthermore, the article he has linked does not exist:

But that's okay, I went ahead and did some research myself. The study he's referencing for life expectancy was written to bring awareness to the problems being faced, not as a means to create more homophobia. This study was conducted in the late 80s and early 90s. Since the study, the researchers have noticed marked improvement in the health issues surrounding this issue. HIV/AIDS was still VERY new when this study was conducted.

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/6/1499.full

The article isn't very long but I thought this snip was worth including here anyway.

The global statistics are far more troubling than the homosexual statistics.

http://www.avert.org/worldwide-hiv-aids-statistics.htm

On to that GMLA reference. The abstract is short enough to just insert here:

http://glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=feature.showFeature&FeatureID=319

Mr. Slick, just as OneNewsNow, is more interested in using the above to create some sort of homophobia. The reason these women are more statistically prone to develop breast cancer is, as stated above, from nulliparity (not having kids), higher rates of alcoholism (see depression part above), and being overweight. Lots of women choose not to have children. Two of my aunts do not have children and did not get breast cancer. The aunt that did have children is the one who got breast cancer. And as far as being overweight, we as a nation are overweight! Not just lesbians. How about we focus on a cancer cure and treatment and obesity instead of attributing this to homosexuality.

First of all, the sample size and variety was extremely limited in that Journal of Sex Research Article (Abstract here: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3813477?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents)

2,583 men living in the same place.

Here's a much larger sample source: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/oct/19/gay-men-promiscuous-myth

An online dating site may not be too accurate though, people lie on them all the time to make themselves more attractive to other members.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/07/20/sex-statistics-who-does-it-the-most.html

That one is just depressing since it says an associates in art is better for getting laid than an advanced degree or no degree. This explains a lot... erm ahem.

It does reference a book by Dr. Debbie Herbenick who says:

This is also why lesbian couples are actually less likely to have more sex.

This article does admit that homosexual couples are more promiscuous:

So nothing near what is suggested by the CARM research.

And my final point is... Who cares? As mentioned in the Oxford Journal (above), the bigger issue is the spread of disease and great leaps and bounds have been made in bringing awareness to this. It is nobody's business outside of those involved. Disease prevention and cure, not judgement.

Tell this to the 70s (ya baby). Sexual morals have changed continuously through history. If you want to teach sexual morals, the morals you believe in, to your children by all means do so. The source of those morals is you. Things have always existed that will challenge your morals, and your kids' morals, but you can't force them on others just like I can't force mine on you. Nothing anyone else does can force you to change your morals. If something does change your morals, it isn't that thing's fault, it is yours because obviously your convictions were not what you thought they were.

And no, I don't want you to hold your tongue either. You have every right to speak your mind so long as it never graduates to verbal abuse or physical violence (like what happened to that family who refused to cater a gay wedding and of course the Westboro baptist church and all of their crap). 

This correlation cannot be denied but as I have pointed out more than once, lets concentrate on eliminating the disease and promoting safe sex instead of somehow relating the disease to morals.

http://recapp.etr.org/recapp/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.StatisticsDetail&PageID=558

Look at this list of other STDs other groups are likely to get. The STD problem is not a gay problem, it is a people problem. Awareness and safe sex. Free clinics are, surprisingly, free. Gay or straight, the bigger issue is the disease, preventing it and curing it.

First of all see above for the study and response from the research group.

Secondly, Exodus Global Alliance is a sexual reorientation group, not an unbiased source.

If you read the abstract of Cameron and Cameron, you will see their sample size was 17 and their findings were based on 5 cases.

Here is a report from over 30 years of data by the American Academy of Pediatrics: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/18/peds.2013-0377.full.pdf+html

This article points out that single parents (gay or straight) cause the most emotional distress in their children.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/02/12/what_we_know_about_lesbian_and_gay_parenting_making_sense_of_the_studies.html

The larger problem is the divorce rate among parents of any orientation. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_of_same-sex_couples#Divorce_rates

I usually don't care for wikipedia but this one has 20+ sources backing it up. The divorce rates are the same among married homosexuals as among heterosexuals. Of course the data is limited given the short time that gay marriage has been legal.

Already covered this.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29994648

Read this instead.

Yes, domestic violence is higher among same sex couples. As always, there is no excuse for domestic violence, just explanation. This article cites the internalized negativity surrounding the identification of being homosexual and the depression/stress discussed at the beginning of this. Authorities are working to make it easier for victims to report and as with the issue that began this work, only time will tell if the increasingly tolerant society will help. In fact, it may take a generation or more for the stigma of being gay to go away enough to redo the mental health and violence studies.

My research does back this up. However, this article points to the problems being caused by not having kids (already discussed above, not a solely lesbian issue). Furthermore, my research points to other factors that aren't inherently lesbian problems.

https://www.arhp.org/publications-and-resources/clinical-fact-sheets/wsw

The other issues are largely associated with ignorance of STIs and the need for regular OB/GYN visits.

And here's something else to consider, though you may be a bit embarrassed to: 

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/844820

New research suggests that men who don't “get off” enough are more prone to prostate cancer, but I'll bet you won't be preaching that! That would require either masturbation or lots of not for procreation sex.

Turns out a female orgasm has health benefits too! If you're so concerned with women's health, maybe that should be part of the sermon too.

Of course I don't expect these examples to be preached! My point is there are lots of things that can affect health and you're just pointing out another one that isn't inherently a gay problem. You expect lesbians to have heterosexual intercourse and get pregnant as a means to reduce health risks? Then I expect you to preach masturbation to do the same.

The only thing that is “obvious” Mr. Slick is that you, and your friends at Exodus Global Alliance, had an agenda and set out to prove it without considering all (or even most) of the facts. I'm not sure what your background is but 200+ post secondary credits and a lifetime of being a nerd have honed my research skills. How to tell good sources from bad ones or sniffing out bias is obviously not your strongest point.

Gay marriage and activity does not affect you Mr. Slick. It makes you uncomfortable I'm sure and I can respect that. Lots of things make me uncomfortable and I just avoid those things. No one is asking you to accept homosexuality as moral or normal. We're just asking you not to perpetuate an environment of hate and intolerance for something you do not understand or agree with. Just as I'm sure, you expect me not to interfere with your life and your beliefs.

The whole purpose of this article was for you to prove that homosexual activity isn't “harmless.” Heterosexual activity isn't harmless either but I don't see you writing about that too.

All of that being said, Mr. Slick has every right to speak his mind. He has every right to remain ignorant. He also has the right to be a Christian and preach that homosexuality is wrong.

As always I am open to discussion on any points. Evidence and sources I missed, new findings etc. I only ask for a logical and well backed up argument.